Anti-Porn Group Warns Against ‘Women Lining Up’ To See Fifty Shades of Grey

[big_dog]

Last edited Fri Jul 25, 2014, 04:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Following the release of the first trailer for the Fifty Shades of Grey movie, which looks like it’s shaping up to be a particularly bad telenovela, anti-porn group Morality in Media put out a warning “to the women lining up to see this film”: This is nothing more than violence and smut!!

Of course, the 50 Shades books found fans in plenty of men, too. But the statement is from MIM is mostly for the women.

“There is nothing empowering about whips and chains or humiliation and torture,” MIM Executive Dawn Hawkins says in the statement. “Women as a group will not gain power by collaborating with violent men. Women would be serving only as an agent to further their own sexual degradation, handing themselves on a silver platter to exactly the sort of men who want to use and abuse them, and take away their power.”

Read the full statement:

The newly released trailer for Fifty Shades of Grey deceives the public with a visually appealing melodramatic love story that romanticizes and normalizes sexual violence. The main character is a mousey young woman, lacking confidence and capability, who becomes the target of a powerful, intimidating, older man who puts her under contract to serve as a sexual “submissive.” The implications of such a relationship—abuse of power, female inequality, coercion, and sexual violence—glamorizes and legitimatizes violence against women. The popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey among women sends a message to men that this is what women really want. Even more dangerous, it also sends the message to women that they can “fix” violent, controlling men by being obedient and loving. A warning to the women lining up to see this film: There is nothing empowering about whips and chains or humiliation and torture. Women as a group will not gain power by collaborating with violent men. Women would be serving only as an agent to further their own sexual degradation, handing themselves on a silver platter to exactly the sort of men who want to use and abuse them, and take away their power.
In a voiceover in the trailer, Christian Grey warns Ana, “I am incapable of leaving you alone.” “Then don’t,” she purrs in reply. Again, he warns her, “You should steer clear of me.” Is this really the kind of relationship we want our daughters, relatives and friends willingly entering into? With a stalker and a batterer? Do we really want our sons to become Christian Greys, practicing a violent masculinity that degrades men as well? watch the trailer:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/anti-porn-group-warns-against-women-lining-up-to-see-fifty-shades-of-grey/

[bluestateguy]

1. Then I intend to double down and see it

And if Gail Dines and Phyliss Schlafly don't like that, then I'm afraid that's just too bad,

[big_dog]

19. i kinda err on that same side of the argument

if Ann Coutler and the other wingnuts are against it (like soccer) than i am pro

[LittleBlue]

2. “There is nothing empowering about whips and chains or humiliation and torture"

Speak for yourself

[joeybee12]

12. Depends on who's holding the whip...

[Gravitycollapse]

36. You find torture and humiliation empowering?

[LittleBlue]

40. One man's humiliation is another's pleasure

It's all relative when it comes to sex.

[Gravitycollapse]

41. "It's all relative when it comes to sex." - Why not just start fucking the couch cushion?

After all, it's all relative, right? The imposition of the I of the other is simply a fabrication of our own minds, right? Sex is just imaginative masturbation, right?

Why bother relating with other humans in any capacity? Why bother being nice to anyone? It's all relative, right? If something seems displeasing or destructive or unhealthy, we can simply imagine another reality where it's pleasurable, constructive and wholesome.

This discourse of unbounded sexual pleasure has taken the concept of rebellious exploration and beaten it to death. It's analogous to the person who calls anything peculiar ironic, exploding the concept outward until the only thing that is left is irony, making the idea totally meaningless.

[msanthrope]

46. Well....why not fuck the couch cushion? You seem to have a highly subjective

definition of what is acceptable sex and human interaction that eschews tolerance.

Outside of lack of consent or use of children......why would anyone delve into what other people want to fuck?

[NaturalHigh]

47. "why would anyone"...

Well, because they know what everyone else should do (and think and feel and say). At least that seems to be a prevailing attitude among some.

[msanthrope]

50. Vanilla sex makes people think what they are doing is normative. nt

[HERVEPA]

56. Two consenting adults

(and what, from the trailer, seems like a spectacularly bad movie)

[whathehell]

68. LOL!!

Go on with your bad self, Gravitycollapse...I'm agree with you wholeheartedly!

[moriah]

78. If both parties enjoy fucking the couch cushion together, why not? Is it not consenting?

I don't get where you're coming up with "Why bother relating with other humans" line of thinking. Sex is profound intimacy, and many couples that have a power exchange dynamic in their relationship report enhanced intimacy, not detachment from their partner.

You sound about as judgy as those who say that because they don't get off on gay sex, people who do are yucky. They often speak of people pursuing "unbounded sexual pleasure" and "rebellious exploration", too.

[Gravitycollapse]

80. Power discourse surrounding sex lends itself to violent behavior and fantasy.

In other words, the discursive system we have established around sex is reflective of the greater social power structure of domination and subjugation.

BDSM claims to subvert this power structure by disarming the rhetoric. In other words, they claim that by using the dominant/submissive roles in loving, healthy relationships, they are removing the violent nature of the power structure itself.

"A slap removed of its destructive power is no different from a kiss."

Well that seems rather counterproductive. Have you heard the phrase summarized as "you cannot deconstruct the master's house with the master's tools." Foucault talks about this issue when discussing subversive sexualities. What subversive sexualities tend to do is build up the very power structure they wish to break down.

The point I was trying to make before is that unbounded sexual pleasure is the absurd over abundance of rebellious exploration. Instead of trying to subvert normative practices, it simply builds upon them.

So, yes, I'm sure these couples feel enhanced intimacy. Of course they feel good about following the social script. It feels good to be part of the power structure.

[moriah]

81. In my relationship, power exchange is accomplished without violence...

... what little power exchange is actually done. Basically, it boils down to him having permission to initiate sex even if I'm half-asleep (which he didn't in the beginning of our relationship, when he gained that permission it was a demonstration of my trust for him) and the fact we employ some restraints -- ever been tied up and given oral pleasure? Or teased to the point of orgasm and held there for a little while? Sorry to be graphic, but if you haven't tried it, you're not one to judge me for what enhances intimacy in my relationship, or give such a elementary-schooler explanation of why.

Hint: It's about trust, not violence.

[Gravitycollapse]

84. We trust violent institutions all the time.

And we allow ourselves to be subjected to power imbalances in order to further institutional authority. That itself is pleasurable. But if the point of being a political person is to liberate the masses from ideology and oppression, we have to make ourselves aware of our own complicity in these things.

You don't have to stop what you're doing. But you should know how what you are doing proliferates the discourse of power.

[moriah]

85. I can't believe how judgemental you are of something you know nothing of.

Because I'm a woman, I'm somehow failing to help liberate my sisters from an ideology of oppression (DYAC) because in the bedroom I'm more submissive than I am dominant?

So I suppose submissive men are, what? I would love to hear it.

(Edit to fix autocorrected word)

[Gravitycollapse]

88. Why do you assume I know nothing about BDSM?

Does anyone who doesn't like or approve of the practice automatically know nothing about it?

I'm not here to prescribe. I'm here to describe. Do what you want.

[moriah]

89. Then from your esteemed wisdom, what about submissive men?

You have failed to answer my question.

[Gravitycollapse]

93. I think that is very likely a bad idea.

We aren't breaking down the dominant/submissive power dichotomy simply by making the formerly dominant submissive. We're just imagining new ways for the power structure to persist.

[moriah]

94. But why do you think that my bedroom activity....

.... is going to have any affect on the masses either way?

And why is my bedroom activity somehow YOUR business to "describe", or more accurately, judge?

Edit to add: If it squicks you, fine. You don't have to do it. There are plenty of things that squick me that I don't do, even if my partner wants to. That's what makes it a relationship, not abuse.

[Gravitycollapse]

100. Why do you think your sexual activity isn't part of the social mozaic?

Why is the assumption that because something is done in private it is not reflective of social order and why is it also assumed that private practices have no impact on the social order?

I'm a critical theorist at heart and am in the process of making it into an academic career. This is what I do. I look at social and private practices through a critical lense.

Also, let's not forget you brought up your private life. You put that on the table for discussion. So you aren't allowed to accuse me of intruding into your private life. You just published it on a public discussion board.

[moriah]

102. You are the one throwing out blanket judgments about sexual behavior.

The same arguments are often used to make homosexuals feel bad about the fact what they do in the bedroom, when those same judgmental people decide to look at "social and private practices through a critical lens".

Because oh my god! They're going to turn everyone gay! And I'm going to affect feminists for generations!

[Gravitycollapse]

109. There is a difference between a valid argument and a true argument.

The first is structurally sound. The second is structurally sound and correct or accurate.

The social arguments against homosexuality are often structurally sound, thus being valid, but are untrue because their premises and assumptions are not true.

That is the mistaken identity you are associating with my argument. I'm using social criticism, which is what the other argument does. But I'm functioning on true or accurate premises, which the other argument does not.

That's the difference.

[moriah]

129. Please tell me how my sex life is going to affect anyone other than me and my lover.

And therefore, why it's any of your business to make a judgment about.

[Gravitycollapse]

137. This entire discussion is an example of how your private life informs the public life.

[Quantess]

161. Wow, that was "below the belt" so to say. Foul.

was about to tell you to go....well... I was just about to say something that would definitely get censored if I put it in those terms.

Instead, I'll just say something like, Get A Life, Dude!

[Gravitycollapse]

164. How was what I said "below the belt?"

I'm giving an example of how even this debate is an example of how private sexual practice informs public life.

[moriah]

208. What, that some people get a bit upset when you throw judgments around about them?

That's what this discussion has been about, on my end. I still would love to know what gives you the right to judge anyone's sexual practices.

[Gravitycollapse]

210. I literally used the discussion we are having as an example. How is that an insult?

[moriah]

214. The only thing this discussion has demonstrated is that many people are judgmental about things....

.... they might not agree with, but are ultimately none of anyone else's business.

I only shared about myself because I thought perhaps you'd like to inform your viewpoint, but you then expressed that you know everything there is to know about BDSM and the hearts and minds of all practitioners in it, enough to judge both them and what they do with consenting adult partners.

[ancianita]

233. Yes, it is. I've always believed that how men or women 'play' at forcing submission

through private sexual 'games' of agreement is, consciously or unconsciously, to groom oneself and others for such behavior in the public realm.

Dominance/submission 'games' are seen all the time in the animal realm, as well. I see such games in humans as indulging in animal instinct that corrupts intimacy and a sense of agency among people who then are groomed into 'playing along' in the public realm.

Crimes of force then are exacted upon those who won't 'play,' sometimes privately, sometimes publicly.

This is my sense of what you're saying.

[Warren DeMontague]

222. Please elaborate on how the "social arguments against homosexuality are often structurally sound"

Can you be more specific, and also explain in detail how you arrived at that conclusion?

[Gravitycollapse]

237. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows the premises...

The argument is still logically sound even if the premises themselves are false. For instance, if they were to argue that homosexuality is socially unhealthy and than in the premises tried to prove this by saying something like "AIDS is a gay disease," which is an assumption they must make for the argument, then their conclusion logically follows their argument.

The issue is that AIDS isn't a gay disease. Making their argument untrue. Their argument is valid structurally but untrue.

[Warren DeMontague]

238. Those arguments don't sound structurally sound OR factually correct, frankly.

Because they are based upon the premise that private consenting adult behavior is still somehow the business of the "larger society", whatever that is.

Is AIDS the only one you were talking about? Because no one has made that argument around homosexuality for a very long time. If that's the one you were basing your assertion on, it's fairly well outdated.

Which is not to say that arguments aren't still made around homosexuality and the presumption that consenting adult private behavior IS the business of moralizing busybodies, they are- but they generally don't revolve around AIDS, anymore.

You seem to have somewhat backed away from your prior assertion, perhaps for some reason you don't want to go into detail on it.... I can tell you that if you drill down to the core on most religious right/authoritarian pseudo-legal arguments against things like consenting adult gay sex, as well as justifying the drug war and stuff like telling terminally ill people they have to die on "God's terms"... you will find a religious argument, "God wants it that way", as well as: our bodies don't actually belong to ourselves, but to "God".

I strongly suspect that if you were to have whatever arguments you think you're making fully dissected and put under a bright light, at the core would be a very similar conclusion, although your argument would have swapped out "God" for some dialectical materialist ideal of the commons or some imaginary ideal state of the proletariat.

To which I say "bleh". Let people live their own damn lives, because their bodies belong to them.

[Gravitycollapse]

239. You should look up the logic definition of a "valid" argument.

And then consider revising or deleting everything you just said.

[Warren DeMontague]

240. Nope.

And I still don't consider arguments against private consenting adult behavior valid OR true.

You should get off campus and try walking around in the real actual world, actually.

[Gravitycollapse]

242. You literally don't known the definition of a valid argument.

So arguing your point any further is a waste of both our time.

I'll get off campus a bit as long as you take a basic logic course. We can swap roles.

[Warren DeMontague]

245. Right.

I'll survive you thinking I don't know what I'm talking about. Somehow.

[Warren DeMontague]

241. I'm going to add this: ANY argument" is "valid" or "structurally sound" if you accept not just

every underlying premise, but the logical chain or links by which they are strung together, however dubious.

But "Consenting adult behavior is the business of society because consenting adult behavior is the business of society" isn't an argument, it's a tautology. You know that word, right?

[Gravitycollapse]

243. By the way, that is a tautology. However, it isn't my argument.

[Warren DeMontague]

246. You haven't, actually, provided any of these arguments that you consider structurally sound.

You claimed arguments against gay sex were structurally sound "because AIDS", but you didn't go into detail.

I suspect that at the core of it, these structurally sound arguments you imagine you've found, about how gay sex between consenting adults is the business of society or government, are actually on some level tautological. Because most arguments involving "God" end up being so.

But you haven't provided any details.

[Gravitycollapse]

251. I provided exactly one brief example.

I'm not going to write an encyclopedia on the subject. You get the gist. The reason why people think my argument resembles the arguments made against homosexuality is that they are structurally similar, despite being totally different in message and scope. Well, then someone will jump on and say "if those similar arguments are wrong then your argument is wrong." My response was to say that isn't true because validity is not the same as truthfulness or accuracy.

Which is why I provided the example of the "homosexuality is unhealthy because of AIDS" argument as an argument which can be structured to be valid, and very often is, but is untrue, because its assumptions are false. By the way, a tautological argument is by its nature valid. Which helps reflect on the fact that validity is quite vastly detached from accuracy or truthfulness. However we very often confuse validity with accuracy or truthfulness. This is a common issue. Hence the confusion on the matter in this very thread.

[Warren DeMontague]

254. Then "valid" becomes utterly meaningless, and more importantly useless.

What it seems as though you're doing, here, is trying to gish gallop this thread with a ton of obfuscating verbiage, to avoid having to deal with the crux of the biscuit, to paraphrase Frank Zappa.

So let's cut to the chase, shall we? Upthread you deigned to "allow" a woman you presumably have never met, to engage in the consenting adult sex of her choosing, while still presuming yourself morally placed to offer unsolicited finger-wagging lectures on the topic of what she does in her own bedroom.

That's offensive. I don't need a course in logic to grok that.

[NaturalHigh]

247. When it comes to mutually consenting behavior among adults...

nobody besides those adults has a "valid argument" concerning said behavior. Any arguments from outsiders are nothing more than judgmental tripe.

[Warren DeMontague]

248. you just don't understand logic.

[NaturalHigh]

249. I know, I know. I'm working on it.

[Warren DeMontague]

221. "You dont have to stop what you're doing." You just "allowed" a consenting adult woman

to engage in sex acts of her choosing. Wow! How "tolerant" of you! Even if it was followed by the inevitable "but..."

If Todd Akin made an offhand statement like that- presuming it was up to him to "allow" an adult woman to have the type of sex she wants to, we would lose our shit. As well we should.

I'm sure you thought you were even being magnamous "im not even going to tell you, total stranger on the internet, that you have to change your sex life- aren't i fucking generous? But i am going to wag my finger in your face and ladle on a ton of pseudo-intellectual postgraduate word salad as if that proves something"

See, from where I sit, that sounds massively pretentious. People don't "need" to "be cognizant of how their personal sexual choices feed into the dominant hereronormative paradigm". Those people having sex -- vanilla sex, kinky sex, what have you sex--- this 'unbounded sexual pleasure fornication rebellion fest' you've bemoaned in this subthread-

news flash: almost NONE of them are doing it to "subvert normative practices and disrupt discursive systems"- they do it because they LIKE IT.

And if everyone involved is a consenting adult, it's still none of your business.

Sorry.

[War Horse]

103. 'It's about trust, not violence'

That's a take-home message for me after reading all those posts abt. this and going WTF. Don't expect me to ever understand why anyone would engage in BDSM, but that phrase should probably be posted here more often. So that folks like me can have sort of an aha-moment and understand it just a little bit better

[moriah]

105. Thank you. As I was trying to share with those who do not feel....

... that they know all there is to know ... for me, in my experience, it's about having one person in my life I can trust with even one of the most intimate parts of myself, a part that society has told me and many women for generations that we are supposed to deny and feel shame for -- my own sexual desires and wants -- and know that they not only do not judge me for them, they enjoy being able to take me places I could never go alone.

For some people, that also includes exploration of endorphin release through other means than ordinary sexual play, such as pain. For me, it doesn't. And I have a partner who is understanding of that and knows that's not all of what it's about.

[Warren DeMontague]

135. because that's the dog's job.

[LittleBlue]

194. I don't really care if anyone fucks the couch cushion

I'm not judgmental when it comes to sex.

The rest of what you wrote has no meaning to me.

[Warren DeMontague]

225. Foucault said that couch cushion fucking is part of a larger pattern of oppresive cultural norms

he believed that heteronormative paradigms of sexual power dynamics and institutional authority can only be subverted through a discourse on the proliferation of power dynamics and the deconstruction of the social mozaic (sic)

the path to liberating the masses cannot be found under the couch cushions, citizen!

certainly not if someone is busy humping them.

[jamzrockz]

97. You know you've gone too far

when you take away agency from the group you are trying to protect. Let them speak for themselves

[msongs]

3. a person will not leave until the abuse is more than they think they deserve nt

[NaturalHigh]

20. I don't think that's what the book is about.

Granted, I haven't read it, but isn't basically watered-down erotica?

[msanthrope]

44. Here is Gilbert Gottfried reading an excerpt....

http://m.

And Ellen.....



http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=on3JCwnwHbU

No reason to actually read the dreck....

[NaturalHigh]

45. I listened to a bit of that yesterday.

My ears just stopped bleeding, so I don't think I want to hear it again.

You're right, though, I have no plans to read it.

[Prophet 451]

219. watered-down BAD erotica

I write erotica and 50 Shades is atrocious. Started life as a fanfic and it shows.

[Warpy]

4. Curiosity will get people in to see this

and the S&M parts will get women looking at the men who brought them and saying "Oh, HELL no!" I guarantee that most males who use this as a date movie will be left alone.

I just hope the screen play was written better than the novel was. The excerpts I read were on about a sixth grade level.

[big_dog]

6. the leads dont appear to be very telegenic

judging from the trailer, but the buzz may just overwhelm everything

[Warpy]

10. Unkempt, straggling hair and dowdy clothing were to make her Everywoman

which is the first glaring flaw in this thing. Women are supposed to identify with someone with Hollywood beauty dressed down. It's just not going to work when the violence starts.

A date movie this is not. They'd better expect a lot of women to walk out.

[big_dog]

13. i guess they didnt want 'stars' in the film

but shes still Don Johnson and Melanie Griffith's daughter, right?

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. I heard a publisher once say ...

the best thing that could happen to a new release is to be banned by the church ... It'll be a guaranteed, best seller.

[Warpy]

37. I don't know how many of my contemporaries actually read

"The Last Temptation of Christ" by Kazantzakis, but I did. I never saw the movie, but your publisher acquaintance was certainly correct when it came to film. There was always a line waiting to get in past the sour faced picketers, thumbing their beads.

[OKNancy]

5. I have no interest in seeing it and I had no interest in the book

Whatever floats your boat I guess, but it's way too trashy for my taste.

[snooper2]

8. blah, trashy is doing it in the abandoned 16x80 out behind the barn

Did you check out those silk sheets in the preview!

[smirkymonkey]

27. Same here. I just have absolutely no interest in the book or the movie.

It just doesn't interest me. I have better things to do with my time.

[Louisiana1976]

38. Same here. Too weird for me.

[QC]

7. David Sedaris reads 50 Shades of Grey

[VScott]

14. Gilbert Gottfried did it better...

[big_dog]

17. they should make an audio book of that

lolz

[QC]

18. Excellent!

[NaturalHigh]

23. Oh my goodness...that voice.

My ears burn.

[neverforget]

32. Lol!

[cui bono]

178. The woman on the bench eating while listening...

[mainer]

60. The embarrassed looks in the audience are a hoot

I can't believe he got through the passage without blushing.

[BainsBane]

115. An unacceptable level of violence

perpetrated on the English language. Even Sedaris couldn't save that tripe.

[QC]

117. Even though the audience's first language is not English,

they are still mortified by the wretchedness of the writing.

[IronLionZion]

9. It's "Mommy porn"

It's mostly middle aged mothers who bought the books. Some of them even bought a separate kindle to read it privately and hide it from their children. I imagine the same sort of people would watch the movie.

[leftstreet]

15. More like 'wealth porn'

Apparently the fictional dude is wealthy, powerful and successful. How shocking!

If the fictional dude was unemployed and lived in a shack, no fictional women would agree to any masochistic stuff. But then no book would be written about it either

[BrotherIvan]

106. This!

More Masters of the Universe propaganda.

[pnwmom]

29. I don't know any middle-aged women who are pushing it on FB.

But I've seen some college students posting about it there.

Yuk.

[Iris]

182. I would hope middle-aged moms would have their own Kindles anyway.

[redqueen]

11. BDSM practitioners criticized the books for eroticizing and normalizing domestic abuse.

That should say something.

But I get it. Being critical of the books' messages isn't the point of this OP.

I mean there's only an epidemic of domestic violence ... priorities, right?

[NaturalHigh]

70. Please...it's FICTION.

Do the Hannibal Lecter books normalize and eroticize cannibals?

[joeglow3]

259. Do they claim eating people is great for you?

This book claims that if you love your domestic abuser hard enough, he will change, shower you with gifts and become the perfect man. In reality, the Anastasia's of the world usually end hidden away in some shelter, after they got the courage to load up their kids and flee in the night out of fear of getting beaten to death.

Yes it's fiction, but there are examples throughout history of fictional stories impacting reality. Ask anyone who worked at a beach how their profits were the year after jaws came out.

[NaturalHigh]

260. So now "Jaws" is bad?

[joeglow3]

261. Did you read what I said?

You claimed that so long as something is fiction, it is perfectly okay. I pointed out an example of how fiction can and does impact reality. NEVER did I saw Jaws was bad.

What is bad, is selling the fairy tale that if woman put up with a domestic abuser and love them hard enough, they will change and the perfect relationship will result. This book normalizes domestic abuse and sells the fiction that one only need to endure it long enough for things to get better.

[NaturalHigh]

262. I doubt if it "normalizes" anything.

However, I don't think we're going to agree on this subject. I'm a big supporter of the first amendment and the right for anyone to write fiction and sell it to anyone who wants to read it.

[joeglow3]

263. I too agree with that

But I also agree with the responsibility we have to call bullshit on crap like this.

[NaturalHigh]

264. To each his own.

About fifteen years ago, Marilyn Manson came to Oklahoma City. Our brain surgeon governor back then had a fit and told everyone that parents shouldn't let their kids go to the concert. It sold out a couple of days later. In my opinion, that's usually how it works. The more you tell people they shouldn't watch/read/listen to something, the more they want to do it.

Again, just my opinion. I don't like porn, but I wonder how many people have bought a DVD just to spite the moral crusader crowd.

[NaturalHigh]

16. LOL - The anti-fun crowd just gave this movie a ton of free publicity.

These people are a hoot.

[LanternWaste]

21. Just like the 2011 production of Atlas Shrugged.

"The anti-fun crowd just gave this movie a ton of free publicity...."

Just like the 2011 production of Atlas Shrugged. Tens of ones showed up to see it after the anti-fun brigade got a hold of that one, too. Great publicity, indeed.

[NaturalHigh]

22. Huh?

[Inkfreak]

48. I think that was an endorsement of the anti-fun crowd.

Though I fail to see how the two movies are analogous.

[NaturalHigh]

49. Ah, ok.

No, I didn't see the connection between Ayn Rand and 50 Shades of Gray, but I admit to not knowing much about either.

[bravenak]

39. Just so.nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. As already said - 'huh?'

Who 'got hold' of Atlas Shrugged to urge a boycott? Especially someone you regard as 'anti-fun'?

[joshcryer]

179. Atlas Shrugged is liked by pompous white males.

50 Shades is adored by women of all stripes, from young college girls to old housewives. It will be a blockbuster.

[Warren DeMontague]

223. Actually, people mostly just laughed at Atlas Shat. No one screamed at people not to go.

That probably worked a lot better.

But the anti-fun brigade, morality in media crowd doesn't have a real good grasp of humor.

Sadly.

[Gravitycollapse]

25. I don't know if I am on the side of the specific group in question. However...

Books and films like 50 Shades of Grey promote a culture of violence against women. Many find the idea of that fun, probably without realizing the extent to which they are promoting terrible things.

That is to say, what is fun and what is right are not necessarily the same.

[NaturalHigh]

28. Is that why it's so popular with women?

[Gravitycollapse]

31. In a sense, yes.

Although, it is obviously prolific for its sexual content. But I would hazard a guess that the violent sexuality explicit to the novel is implicit to the discourse of power surrounding sexuality in general. In accordance with this discourse, themes or plots which closely align with the power structure will be desired.

50 Shades of Grey does not promote sexual violence in a vacuum. It reflects normative sexual practice and fantasy.

[NaturalHigh]

43. I'm just going to stick with "don't like it, don't read it."

Same goes for the movie. Nobody is forcing anyone to read the book or see the movie. All this hair-flaming moralizing about others deciding what they might like, though, is just one more way some people want to stick their noses in other people's business.

[Gravitycollapse]

74. Thinking critically is not hair raising moralizing.

But thank you for the advice. I though I would be forced to watch the film like they did to the protagonist in A Clockwork Orange. Your wisdom has set me straight.

[NaturalHigh]

75. I never saw Clockwork Orange, so the comparison is lost on me.

I will agree with you about the value of critical thinking, though. Obviously my critical thinking has led me to a different conclusion than you have regarding the "warning" to women not to see this film.

[Gravitycollapse]

82. I am not even saying they shouldn't see it...

I'm saying that they should know what it is they are seeing and what it is they are participating in beforehand. They should watch the film as a critical or feminist theorist would.

My goal is not to prohibit.

[NaturalHigh]

83. What if they just watch it hoping for entertainment?

When I go to see if movie (which is rare) I just want to have a little fun. I don't want to be a theorist of any kind.

[Gravitycollapse]

86. Yes but what is it that they find entertaining?

These are not conditionally relevant questions. When we participate in the power discourse of sexuality, we are formulating these questions even by staring at a TV screen or a book.

[NaturalHigh]

87. I don't know about you...

but when I want to have fun, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the power discourse of anything. I spent enough time on that in college.

[Gravitycollapse]

91. What is fun is symbolically fun.

In other words, it is fun because there is some discourse going on, even without conscious input, which makes the conclusion that what you are doing is fun.

Questioning the underlying motivation for what makes something fun is, again, not conditionally relevant. It is always relevant.

Going further, the actions which we just assume are one thing or another (eg "they're just fun" or "they're just exciting&quot are precisely the actions that need to be interrogated the most.

[NaturalHigh]

92. Okay, well thanks then.

I think we're just going to have to disagree on this one. At this stage of my life, I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to analyze the things I like.

[Warren DeMontague]

250. "Questioning the underlying motivation for what makes something fun is, again,

not conditionally relevant. It is always relevant."


And you're telling ME to take a logic course?

[Flatulo]

255. I will never look at ice cream again the same way. Thanks.

[ancianita]

234. These ideas are surveyed in Dee Graham's book, "Loving To Survive," which

in part explains how 'normalized' private violence grooms public submission often misinterpreted as 'relationships.'

[NanceGreggs]

162. And what some find to be "fun" in the bedroom ...

... do not necessarily think that what is "right" outside of that particular intimacy is necessarily the same.

"Books and films like 50 Shades of Grey promote a culture of violence against women."

No, they promote the idea that what is sexually arousing for some is not to be condemned on the basis that it is not sexually arousing for all.

The classic "bodice-buster" novel/movie is sexually arousing for some - but not for all.

The "we are soul-mates destined to be together" novel/movie is sexually arousing for some - but not for all.

The "gallant knight saves fair maiden from the clutches of a ne'er-do-well" scenario is sexually arousing for some - but not for all.

By your reasoning, all classic westerns "promote" the idea that property disputes between neighbours should be settled with a rifle.

[alp227]

26. Yep. Sometimes it's better to say nothing than be a talkative fool,

to paraphrase the saying.

Heck, the show Married...with Children ran for an entire decade pretty much because of Terry Rakolta's 1989 campaign to boycott the show.

[SpartanDem]

24. Neo-prohibitionist just as lame and wrong as old prohibitionist

[NaturalHigh]

30. Exactly.

Just another group of people that wants to push its version of "morality" on everyone else.

[RKP5637]

42. Yep, and we have so damn many these days. n/t

[bananas]

72. Bazinga! nt

[pnwmom]

33. If you're curious, read the free sample on Amazon.

What's so attractive about this guy? His money.

Blegh!

[chrisa]

35. I bet the naysayers have a secret copy in their nightstand. :)

I never read the book, nor do I care about it, but I find the hair-burning outrage pretty funny.

[steve2470]

52. BDSM for the masses, yup nt

[redqueen]

63. BDSM practitioners tore the book up because it glorifies NON consensual abuse.

Why are people here so righteously defending something they're so proudly ignorant about?

Fucking sad.

[steve2470]

65. oh wasn't aware it was NON-consensual...then boo hiss on the book nt

[redqueen]

67. And YAY for actually fucking THINKING before jumping on a goddamn idiotic bandwagon.

Fucking hate this shit so much.

Domestic violence? Well if it's involving sex then it must be just FUN and we should defend it right?


baaaaaaa

[NaturalHigh]

69. Actually, the book is fiction, and yes, we should defend it.

If one book can be banned, so can any other.

[Louisiana1976]

138. Exactly. While I wouldn't want to read it I wouldn't want to ban it.

[NaturalHigh]

66. Why do people so righteously defend...

shaming others for what they want to read or watch if it involves consenting adults/

[moriah]

98. As I said, I haven't read the book, I've read the dust jacket and Wiki snippets.

A Twilight fanflick sounds about as bad as a Twilight fanfic probably is, so I have no desire to see the movie, either.

But I would like to see which part was "glorifying" it vs distinguishing it from what was correct. I do recall at least in the snippets that it discussed the idea of hard and soft limits, which is something that would suggest it at least is telling women they have the right to set limits when they start out in those relationships -- and keep those limits, hopefully. However, the notion of a "slave contract" is disturbing, which I also see mentioned.

I hope to God/dess that no one is recommending this as a BDSM 101 book. But fiction is designed to explore situations that, while may *sound* erotic, would be a bad idea to ever try out IRL. I'm kind of reminded of what would happen if someone tried to make a movie out of Anne Rice's little foray into BDSM erotica -- "The Claiming of Sleeping Beauty" starts out with a rape and gets worse from there, exploring non-consensual slavery that eventually "turns consensual" -- if anyone tried that IRL they quite rightly ought to be jailed.

"No-limits" slavery, which is what I'm afraid the book is actually advocating with a "slave contract" and all that bullshit that often goes along with it, is something that is both completely unrealistic and far more likely to get you in jail if tried IRL. EVERYONE has the right to limits. But if it is just describing the fact that such a relationship can and would go bad, even if it might be hot.... then I have to say I would think it a good message.

Unfortunately I doubt anyone who would decide to write a book based off of Twilight, even satirizing Twilight by turning it into a porn book, would get that creative.

[Louisiana1976]

142. I started reading Twilight but didn't finish it, it was so bad. I imagine 50 Shades is similarly bad

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Sorry, Morality in Media, but I take all my cues about media morality from Betty Bowers...

http://www.bettybowers.com/holywood.html

[NaturalHigh]

54. LOL - Thanks for that.

I had never heard of Betty Bowers before.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. If you like her, go look at Landover Baptist....

It's hilarious

[Puglover]

55. I admit to knowing nada about either the book or the movie.

But from the trailer at least it looks like just another piece of Hollywood dreck. Sort of a ramped up Hallmark offering.

Meh.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. I heard it's just like a Mills & Boon book...

Not having time or the interest in ploughing through something I've heard is crap, I found the 100 word version.

http://petergalenmassey.com/2012/07/11/50-shades-of-grey-by-e-l-james-100-words/

[Puglover]

64. Thanks Violet.

Heh, I checked it out. Pretty good.

Reminds me of the abridged Gone With the Wind.

I can't find the thing but I do remember the civil war was

"Boom!" In the book.

[Autumn]

76. ROTFLMAO. Peter Galen Massey just improved the book. I tried to read and and couldn't get past

the 3rd chapter. The writing was atrocious.

[Skittles]

183. from the book passages and the movie trailer - SUPER DRECK

[Katashi_itto]

58. Shitload of people on this thread that have boring sex lives and think everyone else should have the

same or think that THEIR consent is necessary for others' private acts.

[Louisiana1976]

146. I beg to differ. It's the people with boring sex lives that 50 Shades of Grey appeals to. They need

the fantasy.

[Katashi_itto]

152. Either way, it's no one's business but the people involved and not the morality police

[NaturalHigh]

257. I've tried over and over to make that point.

It's like trying to drain the ocean with a spoon.

[Katashi_itto]

258. Agree!

[Squinch]

159. Exactly which posts indicate that people think their consent is necessary for others' private acts?

Link to one of those posts.

And really? You think that embracing 50 Shades of Gray indicates that someone has a good sex life? That tells me either you have an epically crappy sex life, or you haven't read the book. Because the book sucks.

[Gravitycollapse]

171. The book is notoriously mediocre among my friends who have read it.

They said they finished for basically two reasons.

A. They wanted to know what the fuss was about

B. They were bored.

I remember my coworker agreed to give me her copy to read when she was done. About three months later I asked her if she'd finished it. She said she had and it really, deeply wasn't worth it. There was a hint of disgust in her voice as well. This isn't a person who would be taken aback by the "scandal" of non-normative sexual acts. She seemed disturbed by the books reasoning, the justification behind the acts. That is the most common criticism I've seen. It's not just that the book depicts ritualistically violent sexual acts but more that it endorses them on an ideological level.

You can contrast this to one of the most controversial contemporary books ever written, American Psycho, which is criticized for it's grotesqueness and not for persuading people to go out and commit horrific murders.

[Katashi_itto]

230. It's quite dull. I couldn't get through it. Just poorly written erotica.

[Katashi_itto]

181. Lol! project much? Methink ye doth protest to much :)

[Squinch]

185. Couldn't find any of these posts you are so upset about, could you? You know, the ones

you are seeing all over the place where people are saying their consent is necessary for others' private acts? They don't exist, do they?



All in your head, aren't they?

[Katashi_itto]

186. Tsk tsk tsk...your attacks are very revealing about your personal life

poor thing

[Squinch]

188. You still haven't been able to find any of those posts you are so outraged about, have you?

And yet, you were so sure they were there! And now you think that your delusion is telling you something about me!

You are too much.

[Katashi_itto]

189. I don't need to..I like watching you project more.

Munches popcorn

My god, things must totally suck for you

Oh, and if I don't respond fast, sorry, my girlfriends tied up in the other room.

This thread got her curious.

Thanks!

[Squinch]

191. Ah, Katashi. We both know you will have to have the last word on this,

but we also both know you got nothing here.

You are railing against something that doesn't exist. And by this point, you realize that it doesn't exist. And that pisses you off, so much so that you need to make up shit to throw at the person who pointed out to you the fact that it doesn't exist. Because you can't just say, "Hey, you're right. I was outraged about posts saying things, and yet no posts said the things I was so outraged about!"

So go ahead and sling whatever shit you care to in that last word that you must have, but we both know: all that stuff you were so outraged about was all in your head.

[Skittles]

220. I announce Squinch the clear winner of this debate

yes INDEED

[Katashi_itto]

228. loL! Poor slob it was a dull night for you :)

Like I count you as worth proving anything too, especially when you purposefully ignore the anti-50 posts

[mainer]

59. They have a right to make the movie. But man oh man what a bad book.

I can't believe such laughable writing made it into print.

[Katashi_itto]

184. Will Ferrell & Zach Galifianakis Read '50 Shades of Grey'

[Seeking Serenity]

61. STOP DOING THINGS I DON'T LIKE!!!

(x-posted from http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025293602#post35)

That's the "fun police," those on the left and those on the right, in a nutshell.

[NaturalHigh]

71. Not only "stop doing things I don't like"...

but stop reading or watching things I don't like! If that were the standard, I could have gotten American Idol pulled years ago!

[ismnotwasm]

73. Oh for fucks sake

It's an asinine book(s) and it will be an asinine movie. If I was inclined to see it, which I'm not-- Ick--I'd wait for it to stream on Netflicks. I can't believe anybody's gong to spend money on that bullshit.

Ones time would be better spend asking for a tour of, or information from your local SMBD club, if you're that damn curious.

[NaturalHigh]

77. I don't think anyone is expecting it to be a good movie.

That doesn't change the fact that "warning" people not to go see it smells of the morality police.

Very few people like cannibals, but that didn't stop people from watching Silence of the Lambs.

[ismnotwasm]

79. Just stating my opinion

People gonna do what they're gonna do, and now I bid YOU adieu, as I'm bowing out of this entire topic--at least in GD.

[Squinch]

156. Your enormous issue with the word "warn" smells of word police.

Seriously, I can't believe you started that other thread because you object to the use of the word "warn" in a headline about a movie.

Talk about shit-stirring drama.

[NaturalHigh]

224. I didn't start the other thread.

You might want to compare the OP with my user name.

[Wolf Frankula]

90. I'm Surprised The Morality In Media People Could Pull Themselves Away from Watching Porn

to say anything. They're another 'do as I say, not as I do' group.

Wolf

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

95. Good old Morality in Media!

Also thinks the American Library Association and Eric Holder love porn....especially child porn!

http://www.charismanews.com/us/42950-ag-eric-holder-tops-morality-in-media-s-2014-dirty-dozen-list

Oh, and Cosmo! Damn those pornies too!

Seems like a perfectly reasonable bunch to listen to.

[lunasun]

197. +1

[Shankapotomus]

96. If subjugation and dominance

are not ok politically, then why do we somehow think they are ok in our psyches in regards to sex and relationships? The justification that some people find it "fun" and therefore there can't be any harm in it is beside the point. Seems to me subjugation and dominance are just hijacking the bedroom and people's sex lives and attitudes toward sex as another hiding place. Another vehicle in which abuse in our society lives on.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

101. thread winner. game over. thanks.

[NaturalHigh]

104. Who gets to decide what is okay among consenting adults?

It seems to me that's a matter of personal (and private) preference.

[Shankapotomus]

114. It is. nt

[alp227]

131. But shouldn't consent be properly informed?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Informed_consent

Sadly, a lack of sex ed in this country (thanks, Bush & the Christian Right) cause young people to engage in sexual acts without proper guidance.

[NaturalHigh]

133. Yes, it should.

For the most part, though, that's an entirely different conversation.

[NanceGreggs]

107. I am absolutely stunned ...

... by your comments.

Are you honestly advocating that intimate sexual relationships between consenting adults are, or should be, reflective of political viewpoints or interaction? If something is "not okay" in the public forum of politics, it should be taken as "not okay" in the intimacy of the bedroom?

"The justification that some people find it "fun" ..."

The idea of two consenting adults finding certain behaviour sexually pleasurable requires no "justification" to anyone. The fact that those two people find it mutually enjoyable is the only criteria to be met here.

"Seems to me subjugation and dominance are just hijacking the bedroom and people's sex lives and attitudes toward sex as another hiding place. Another vehicle in which abuse in our society lives on."

Whose sex lives and attitudes are being "hijacked" here? People who aren't into certain sexual behaviour don't engage in it. And whether they do or they don't has absolutely nothing to do with what they find acceptable socially or politically.

When two consenting adults are concerned, the bedroom is not a "hiding place" for anything. It is a private place of giving and receiving sexual pleasure in a way both have mutually agreed upon. And if both find the behaviour pleasurable - regardless of what that behviour is - there is no "abuse" in the equation.

[Gravitycollapse]

110. What we do in the bedroom is politically and socially informed.

Just like every other aspect of our lives. What we feel is appropriate and inappropriate is formed from our belief system. Which doesn't just materialize out of the ether.

[NanceGreggs]

113. What turns us on sexually ...

... is not politically or socially informed. If it were, homosexuals would not find each other sexually attractive because politicians and society have "informed" them for centuries that heterosexuality is the only acceptable form of sexual expression and interaction.

There are many sexual behaviours that people engage in every day that have nothing to do with their politics or their view of, or interaction with, society as a whole. It has to do with what they find pleasurable and mutually satisfying.

It seems what you're advocating is that consenting adults limit their sexual activities to what society deems to be "politically correct" behaviour. Politics has no place in anyone's bedroom - and that includes advancing the notion that any sexual behaviour between consenting adults is somehow reflective of their politics, or should be taken into account when engaging in an intimate relationship.

[Shankapotomus]

119. It's not reflective of their politics

It's reflective of their psychology.

[NanceGreggs]

121. You were the one who raised the idea ...

... that if subjugation and dominance are not ok politically, we shouldn't think them okay in the context of our sexual activities either.

Now it's "reflective of their psychology". What psychology is that, and based on what factual evidence?

And if you think that this is a matter of individual psychology, why did you bring up the comparison to political thinking in the first place?

[Shankapotomus]

124. We all speak for our own behavior

and I raised the idea in the context of each of us reflecting and judging our own behavior. Speaking for myself, I would question my own consistency if I opposed the traditional exploitation and subjugation of women and then felt some kind of psychological gratification pretending to....to women in the bedroom. You have to ask what's the psychological payoff to that kind of behavior?

[NanceGreggs]

150. If you had limited yourself ...

... to "reflecting and judging" your own behaviour, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I am not the least bit interested in whether you "question your own consistency", or what "psychological gratification" you derive from whatever sexual activities you engage in.

But what you have done here throughout is demonstrate an interest in how other people conduct themselves in private - which, again, is none of your business.

Their actions are none of your business.

Their motivations are none of your business.

Their psychological make-up is none of your business.

And by saying - as you did at the outset - that one's sexual activities should guided by, or reflective of, their political viewpoints is as ludicrous as it gets.

[Shankapotomus]

153. Again, I wasn't commenting on acts

I was commenting on the concepts of dominance and subjugation and their presence, in general, in human intimacy. How are those concepts wrong in all other instances, including voluntary slavery, but suddenly lose their pathology in the bedroom.

But if you wish to continue conducting my side of this discussion for me, you are of course welcome to, but I don't think it will be very productive.

[NanceGreggs]

157. And on the topic of dominance and subjugation ...

... in an intimate setting, "How are those concepts wrong in all other instances, including voluntary slavery, but suddenly lose their pathology in the bedroom."

Simple. Because if what is "wrong" outside the bedroom is deemed to be "right" between consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom, one need go no further. If it's "right" for them in terms of what they find mutually satisfying, what does it have to do with what they both might deem as "wrong" in any other circumstance?

Are you seriously promoting the idea that people's most intimate interactions with each other should be based on, and limited to, what they deem to be politically "right" or acceptable in public?

[brooklynite]

170. Here's another point...voluntary "slavery" is "voluntary"

Those who engage in power exchange as a lifestyle recognize that master/slave dynamics are wholly voluntary, and participation can be withdrawn by either party at any time. What they do up to that point is entirely up to them.

[NanceGreggs]

173. Exactly.

The problem here being that some refuse to accept that certain lifestyles can be completely voluntary - and persist in the idea that such lifestyle choices are always a result of coercion.

[lunasun]

201. +1 I am a religious conservative therefor I can not be a homosexual and deny

my true feelings ....Oh wait ! That already does happen! Mostly because of judgers they listen to in their world that tell them to stay in lockstep

[NanceGreggs]

211. If I understand what you're saying ...

... and I apologize if I have indeed misunderstood - what you are saying is that one's sexuality is dependent on their true feelings, rather than on what others deem to be "acceptable" feelings.

If that is what you ARE saying, I concur wholeheartedly. To tell any man or woman that if their sexual desires include being submissive or dominant - or anything else under the sun - is "wrong", it is the same as telling them any man or woman that their sexual attraction to the same sex is "wrong".

And that has been my point throughout. You cannot condemn the sexual activities of the BDSM adherents - or the sexual role-reversal adherents, or the "I only enjoy sex in the dark" adherents, or the "I need you to be silent throughout" adherents without inadvertently condemning the "I only enjoy sex with a same-sex partner" adherents.

Some people think homosexual activity is abhorrent. Does their opinion make it so?

Some people think BDSM sexual activity is abhorrent. Does their opinion make it so?

[lunasun]

216. Concur and these posters really do not know

One just stated that bdsm is not part of the gay community.
I question where all this info on what is supposedly good for society is coming from.
Guess I will stay away from this and go get a beer before someone brings up the moral corruption of liquor
again

[NanceGreggs]

218. Thanks for confirming ...

... that I understood you correctly.

Go and enjoy your beer - but by all means don't let it lead to dancing. We all know where THAT inevitably leads.

[Gravitycollapse]

144. This isn't a one or the other scenario.

It's a confluence of variables. However, people obviously are not born with an attraction to certain sex toys or sex acts. Gender preference in sexual partners is not the same as preference in different types of sex with that person.

Otherwise, your argument amounts to the belief that everything we do, literally everything, is promoted solely by biology. That's ridiculous.

Whether or not politics has a place in the bedroom is a completely different question from whether or not it actually exists in the bedroom. Do you understand the difference?

[NanceGreggs]

154. Where you got the idea ...

... that my argument is that "everything we do is promoted solely by biology" is beyond me.

Finding certain sexual practices to be extremely gratifying or absolutely abhorrent - and everything in between - is not a matter of politics in the bedroom, or outside of it. It is a matter of personal taste, and what one finds to be sexually satisfying.

Attempting to bring some kind of "political correctness" into the bedroom is no different than attempting to use political means to suppress certain activities between consenting adults, along with the sexual desires that prompt such activities in the first place.

[Gravitycollapse]

155. If the politic informs all aspects of our lives, and it does, then sex is part of that.

Gaining a political identity is part of socialization. In essence, every aspect of our lives is socially constructed apart from some very basic principles. The rest is the summation of our social learning.

When you grow up in a society, you are raised within political institutions, be they formal or informal. And part of your identity is crafted around these institutions. How that plays into a specific life needs to be examined individually. But that it plays into everyone's life is not even a debatable subject. It's an actuality.

In the same way that a fundamentalist Christian and/or conservative might not perform certain sexual acts, or might not perform those acts until marriage, others with differing religious and political affiliation may or may not perform certain sexual acts. And it isn't all a matter of conscious interaction. Our entire social identity informs deeply private interactions in ways which may not even be overtly obvious.

On the other end of the spectrum, what we choose to do in the bedroom informs other parts of our lives. Especially in the process of socializing with others as we are doing right now in this very discussion. It in a way is a form of promotion, a method of social regulation, even if you aren't saying others must do this act or must not do that act, by saying you prefer one act or another act, and by stating these acts are outside the bounds of question, you are informing the minds of others, and ultimately the political system, through your sexuality.

That is only one aspect of many in which your personal sexuality informs the lives of others or the "system." Other aspects might involve the legal system, in which candidates and laws you choose to support, and economics, in which products you choose to buy or companies to promote. All of these interactions and effects come from your private sexual life.

[NanceGreggs]

158. Cool story.

I can assure you that the politic does not inform every aspect of my life. And I doubt that I am alone in stating that.

"what we choose to do in the bedroom informs other parts of our lives." Not necessarily. The probability is that you regularly interact with couples whose sexual proclivities you would never even guess at, no less be informed by nor affected by. I personally have known many people whose intimate sexual activities reflect the complete opposite of who they are and how they conduct themselves in public, or what their political values might be.

The man or woman who rails against spanking children might enjoy being spanked in the privacy of their own bedroom. One position does not preclude the other. The man or woman who rails against the use of words like "fuck" in movies, TV shows, or song lyrics might be sexually turned on by such words in private. Again, one does not preclude the other.

I cannot imagine what could be more personal than one's sexual preferences. And attempting to drag those intimate preferences into a discussion about political views seems to be a blatant attempt to bring what is a private matter into a conversation where it can be opined upon as legitimately being part of much broader subject.

It all just reeks of "same sex marriage impacts on my heterosexual marriage". What goes on between gay/lesbian couples is no more your business than what goes on between couples who engage in BDSM, or sexual role-playing, or the use of sets, props and costumes to enhance a sexual experience between two consenting adults.

Not into "kinky" sex? Just say so. Stop trying to portray those who ARE into it as people who are making a political statement, or expressing a particular political POV.

[Gravitycollapse]

160. Maybe you should take a step back and actually understand what I'm saying first...

I'm not asking anyone to tell me what kind of sex they are having. The poster up thread told me without any request on my part. I would never try to construct an argument in here around the sexual practices of someone who had not already submitted them to discussion. I am not trying to pry into your personal life. I don't have some voyeuristic wish to see what you do in bed.

The specific sexual act itself is very private. That is an obvious reality. But there can and should exist a nebulous discussion regarding the origins of sexual practices, how those practices effect the participants and how they inform the public discourse on power and sexuality.

Obviously, a social sexuality exists. Sexuality is prolific in the social sphere. To deny that this has any part in private sexuality, or to deny that private sexuality informs this social sexuality is, I think, rather ridiculous.

Just the same, I don't believe everyone who has "kinky" sex is knowingly making a political statement. This isn't a matter of proclamation. We don't run onto the rooftops to yell into the streets that we just had sex in this specific way. But we inform others of our practices in plethora of other ways.

For instance, how does one person find out about BDSM? Did the whole concept and practice just become in their mind? Of course not. Not only do we discuss things publicly, there's an entire community devoted to the practice. How can you know that and still say it's all a matter of private interest?

[Quantess]

163. How about minding your own fucking business?

What is it about that concept that is so difficult for you to grasp?

[nomorenomore08]

196. He's not prescribing or prohibiting any specific action. Just throwing a bunch of theory at us.

[NanceGreggs]

187. "But there can and should exist ...

... a nebulous discussion regarding the origins of sexual practices, how those practices effect the participants and how they inform the public discourse on power and sexuality."

No there shouldn't be. When only the participants are affected, why should any discussion - "nebulous" or otherwise - be deemed necessary or appropriate?

What happens within the private lives of "participants" in any sexual activity is no one else's concern but theirs. And unless they make a public spectacle of it, their practices do not "inform the public discourse on power and sexuality".

Do you think that the missionary-position-only crowd, or the only-with-all-the-lights-out crowd, or the only-in-complete-silence crowd should have their sexual preferences discussed in terms of the origins of sexual practices, or how THEY are informing public discourse?

"There's an entire community devoted to the practice. How can you know that and still say it's all a matter of private interest?" How does anyone being "devoted to a practice", as you put it, automatically equate to their "practices" being legitimate fodder for public discussion?

Again this all reeks of the RW position that what takes place between same-sex couples is somehow open to discussion by the public at large - especially by those who don't "approve" of such behaviour - simply by virtue of its existence.

Apparently what happens behind closed doors is between consenting adults is, according to you, a matter of public concern.

It's not.

[Gravitycollapse]

190. "Do you think...the missionary-position-only crowd...should have their sexual preferences discussed"

Do you think that the missionary-position-only crowd, or the only-with-all-the-lights-out crowd, or the only-in-complete-silence crowd should have their sexual preferences discussed in terms of the origins of sexual practices, or how THEY are informing public discourse?

Not only should this "traditional" conception of sexuality be discussed, it is discussed and is probably one of the most analyzed aspects of sexual practice amongst the groups I've been a part of.

The discussion of things like BDSM are almost side projects in comparison.

[NanceGreggs]

192. And have you lectured the "missionary-position-only" folks ...

... on how their sexual preferences are "informing the public discourse on power and sexuality"?

There is nothing "traditional" about that concept of sexuality. Oral, anal, BDSM, role-playing, role-reversal, the use of sex toys/devices, pornographic images, etc. have always been a part of human sexual practice. These things are nothing new - nor do they "inform" public discourse.

If "50 Shades of Gray" depicted a sexual relationship between consenting adults that was limited to the missionary position, would you be here decrying THAT depiction as wrongly informing the public discourse?

[Gravitycollapse]

193. Do I "lecture" these other folks? Of course. I'm an equal opportunity buzzkill.

There's a reason why I put traditional in quotations. It isn't a traditional conception of sex. The "traditional" conception of sexuality we are speaking of grew out of the Victorian era. Which was remarkably recent in human history.

[NanceGreggs]

195. Did you know that anal intercourse ...

... was widely accepted by Victorians as a fool-proof means of birth control?

The "traditional" concept of sexuality that you describe did not grow out of the Victorian era. It grew out of a religious hierarchy that held out procreation as the only acceptable "excuse" for indulging in sexual activity of any description - a concept which pre-dates the Victorian era by centuries.

If the private sex lives of the population "informed" politics and social interaction, homosexuality - having existed since the dawn of time - would have been deemed "normal" rather than "deviant" behaviour a very, very long time ago.

[Gravitycollapse]

199. Anal intercourse, along with non-penetrative sex, has been a form of birth control for millennia.

The criminalization of sodomy, especially anal sex and especially anal sex among men, was extensive in the Victorian era. Not that such oppression was new. It simply became prolific.

Sexuality itself barely existed as a discourse in the West before the Victorian era. Sex was a monolithic act, an intellectually impenetrable object. Sex was something done, not discussed. The Victorian era created the framework under which the discourse of sex became prominent. It was in this way that it became part of the discourse of power.

That is the imminent legacy of the Victorian era; prolific discourse. Sexual practice was repressed which fueled an immense schema of discourse. Michel Foucault discusses this in detail and made an analogy between the catholic confessional and sexual discourse.

[NanceGreggs]

203. Your knowledge of history ...

... is sorely lacking.

Brothels that offered "unorthodox" sexual activity to customers thrived during the Victorian era, and were considered a suitable alternative to men whose sexual desires encompassed things that the "ladies" of the era (i.e. women who were considered 'suitable' wives) should not be expected to willingly indulge in, no less enjoy.

Many Victorian women accepted anal intercourse as the more-than-acceptable alternative to endless pregnancy and raising more children than they could reasonably look after.

Sexual activity, in all of its permutations, has existed since the dawn of history. To say that the Victorian era - or any other era - defined sexual conduct is incredibly naive. The acceptance of certain political and social "norms" may have, at times, driven certain sexual practices "underground" (i.e. We still do it, we just don't talk about it in public), but the publicly proclaimed definition of what is "normal" never stopped the populace from indulging in what they considered "normal" behaviour behind closed doors.

[Gravitycollapse]

206. Yes, "behind closed doors" is an exceptional description of Victorian and post-Victorian era.

Just under the surface, never to be spoken aloud but conceptualized endlessly; thus the immense pleasure from the speaking of sex. That is the discourse I am talking about.

In it's attempt to confine and repress sexuality, it drove it underground, but only to a point where a discursive explosion took place. A discussion of desire. This is what I suspect Deleuze is partly referring to when he discusses desiring machines, production of production and the desire of desire. So part of this issue also has to do with the shift from feudal to capitalist society and the advent of the industrial age.

Was this the failure of the Victorian era or its ultimate aim? I suppose that depends on who you talk to. Many of the psychoanalysis bend tend to think this discursive explosion, the dirtiness associated with sexuality and thus the explosion of things like "dirty talk" were the ultimate goals, if unconsciously, of the movement.

The brothel existed before, but it took on new meaning. It became a place of sexual confinement, rather than an outlet. This is the same era when the panopticon became the center piece of social regulation, be it in insane asylums or prisons or poor houses or state surveillance.

[NanceGreggs]

217. You keep equating ...

... what was deemed to be "behind closed doors" with what was openly discussed and accepted.

They were one and the same.

"The brothel existed before, but it took on new meaning." No, it didn't. The brothel has, throughout history, been a place where sexual desires considered "socially unacceptable" have been offered at a price. Depending on the era, the social norms of the day, etc., what has been deemed "socially unacceptable" has ranged from homosexual encounters to BDSM encounters to encounters that merely include a young man's desire to have sex with a woman not his lawfully wedded wife.

To pretend otherwise is to ignore history.

[brooklynite]

127. Right...so all conservatives have sex one way and liberals have it another, right?

[Gravitycollapse]

136. Is your conception of the political that polarized?

[brooklynite]

167. Is yours?

You're arguing that people who engage in BDSM are in some ways influenced by political messaging. I'm arguing that people who engage in this kind of activity are doing say because it appeals to them for any number of reasons having nothing to do with politics. My position is supported by the fact that both liberals and conservatives engage in this activities. How is your position supported?

[Gravitycollapse]

172. My position is supported because the power structure exists above political order...

Using it as a tool to its own ends. Why do conservatives and liberals participate in BDSM? Well, they may justify their participation differently, but they are likely gaining pleasure out of affirming the power structure. Because the system rewards its proliferation, it feels good to participate. We feel good playing into the standard narrative of domination and submission.

It is decidedly difficult to break free of this even if one isn't participating in BDSM.

But if you're arguing that something isn't political because all political sides participate, I'm really genuinely confused. It would seem that something which is so universally held politically is deeply political by definition.

[brooklynite]

174. And what "power structure" are they affirming?

Male dominance over women?

Female dominance over men?

Male dominance over men?

Female dominance over women?

All of which exist in the BDSM lifestyle.

Sometimes, sex is just sex.

[Gravitycollapse]

176. Probably one of the most elemental. The dominant/submissive.

Even though the classical manifestation usually has the male as the dominant and the female as the submissive, there's nothing inherent to the power structure which requires this gender binary to exist.

[brooklynite]

177. Please provide us with a description of your sex life...

...and what you consider acceptable behavior. Any particular fantasies you find acceptable? I'm sure we'll all be impressed with your equity and sensitivity.

[Gravitycollapse]

180. This isn't about what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior.

It's about critically understanding the nature of the behavior itself. This discussion can take place nebulously, detached from personal example and likely should except under very specific conditions. Which is why I've never once asked anyone in here to describe their sex lives.

The only time I've ever critically analyzed specific moments in my sex life with anyone else was within a small group of close academic peers. This was because we were analyzing the acts rather than analyzing the appropriateness of the analysis of the acts.

This discussion we are having is still on the ground level. We would have to be much further along in the discussion, with many more established assumptions, before I would ever consider talking about my own sex life.

[brooklynite]

209. ...but it IS about "what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior"

36. You find torture and humiliation empowering?

You've made it clear you object to this type of behavior. Why is it unreasonable to ask what you DO consider acceptable?

[lunasun]

200. So far you have used terms like non normative sex,subversive sex

I have heard these terms used for homosexuality also
Subvert

To undermine the character, morals, or allegiance of; corrupt.
It's OK to like heterosexual mission position for conception purposes only but why tell others what is and should be normal for them by using terms like subversive and not normal?
Your belief system seems to include judging others desires and condemning their lifestyle by using terms like "non normative"
I think we have heard it all before. Bdsm is a segment in the gay community that moral judgers always focus on to point out how immoral homosexuality can be. Someone always wants to enlighten homosexuals to how it would be better for them and society to be heterosexual

[Gravitycollapse]

204. You're actually completely backwards on your analysis.

I am questionable of the subversive potential of BDSM. In other words, I am a supporter of subverting normative sexuality but I do not feel that BDSM participates in such subversion.

You've actually confused me with the exact opposite.

By the way, the BDSM community is not a segment of the gay community.

[lunasun]

205. You have got to be fucking kidding me!

http://www.thebdsmeventspage.com/events.html

[Gravitycollapse]

207. The point of a discussion is to discuss. Explicate, please.

[lunasun]

212. By the way, the BDSM community is not a segment of the gay community.

Unreal !
http://www.queerty.com/tag/bdsm

[Gravitycollapse]

213. Yes, the gay community is a segment of the BDSM community.

Again, you've gotten in backwards. Within the BDSM community exists gay BDSM. But BDSM is not singularly gay in nature.

[NaturalHigh]

111. I agree with your post.

The idea that anybody's private, consensual decisions should conform to some sort of norm or the value systems of others is offensive.

[Gravitycollapse]

112. BDSM is part of normative sexual practice. It isn't necessarily subversive.

[moriah]

130. Isn't "necessarily" subersive? Please, tell me who you are to judge what is "subversive" sexual....

... activity, when its between two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom?

[Gravitycollapse]

139. Subversive to the system is what I am referring to.

That is kind of the point of BDSM to try and subvert conventions on sexuality. What I'm saying is that it isn't really at all subversive. It's actually, in many aspects, incredibly normative in behavior.

So it becomes ironic when people accuse me of promoting normative sexuality.

[Quantess]

165. The hell I will sit by and let someone like you or Rick Santorum

be the snoopy, peeping-tom types who can't mind their own business, try to play referee as to what I do in my own private life.

[Gravitycollapse]

166. It's almost awe inspiring how badly you've misinterpreted my statements or position.

[Shankapotomus]

125. That's good

because I agree with you.

[NaturalHigh]

128. Maybe I misunderstood your post.

If so, I apologize.

[Shankapotomus]

116. I don't care what the public forum has to say

The public shouldn't have anything to say about it. It's a personal choice and should stay a personal choice.

So if two people mutually believe a behavior is good, it just is? I can think of a lot of examples where that logic would fall apart and I'm sure you can too.

[NaturalHigh]

118. "So if two people mutually believe a behavior is good, it just is?"

Well, for the two of them, yes, and if they're not hurting anybody else, who really cares?

[NanceGreggs]

120. What do you define as "good" behaviour ...

... in the context of sexual activity between consenting adults?

And more to the point, why do you believe that what you determine to be "good" or "bad" sexual behaviour is relevant to anyone other than yourself?

[Shankapotomus]

122. I wouldn't go as far as to define

intimate activities between two people as "good" or "bad". It's not what two people define as enjoyable that is the issue. I only know that, when we look around, subjugation and dominance seem to satisfy a very primitive aspect of human nature.

We all know violence is wrong but does the fact that two boxers enjoy boxing and voluntarily engage themselves in that activity make boxing any less brutal and violent? Now, in the case of intimate activity, does the fact that two people voluntarily engage in pseudo-sadomasochistic behavior or dominant/subservient role playing change the fact of where those motivations are coming from? You have to ask why someone would what to dominant or humiliate someone else before you can trace where those motivations are coming from.

Of course, it remains nobody's business but the two people involved and it's up to them to determine where the attraction to such behavior is coming from. As for myself, I would conclude it was coming from a very bad place or at least a very confused place.

"And more to the point, why do you believe that what you determine to be "good" or "bad" sexual behaviour is relevant to anyone other than yourself? "

I don't. I never said I did.

[NanceGreggs]

132. ...

"Now, in the case of intimate activity, does the fact that two people voluntarily engage in pseudo-sadomasochistic behavior or dominant/subservient role playing change the fact of where those motivations are coming from?"

Where those motivations come from is none of your god-damned business.

"You have to ask why someone would what to dominant or humiliate someone else before you can trace where those motivations are coming from."

No, you don't "have to ask" anyone anything - again, because it's none of your business.

Do you also feel a need to psychoanalyze why someone enjoys sex that is steeped in romance and poetic declarations of undying devotion? How about couples who most enjoy sex if it follows a structured routine that both partners find mutually satisfying? How about those who enjoy prolonged foreplay as opposed to those who enjoy an immediate "cut to the chase"? Do you feel a need to ask those people what their motivations are in enjoying one form of sexual behaviour over another?

You seem to believe that certain sexual activities are unacceptable and, by virtue thereof, should be analyzed, weighed and assessed based on your criteria. The RW have used these same arguments for decades: Why would a man only be sexually satisfied by sex with another man? Why would a woman want to have sex with another woman - what is her "motivation"?

Honestly, I don't know what part of "none of your business" you're having trouble with.

[Shankapotomus]

151. I think you're mistaking

an intellectual inquiry into the factual roots and evolutionary motivations of dominant behavior in humans for moralizing.

Let's take a step back.

Why do you suppose a human being would need to feel dominant over another human being?

[LittleBlue]

198. Power is a crucial part of sexuality

Dominance and/or submission can enhance pleasure. Feeling vulnerable or having control over a vulnerable partner (like when they're blindfolded and tied up) releases adrenaline, which can feel really amazing when combined with sex. Even physical pain can heighten pleasure, like biting, spanking or scratching. Some take it farther with whips, heels and other objects.

I'd also like to add that giving someone absolute power over you, or taking absolute power over another and not abusing the boundaries can heighten trust. Like trust-building exercises where someone on the sales team falls backwards and the team catches them.

[ancianita]

235. Thank you.

[panader0]

99. When I was young we passed this around study hall....

Or maybe it was Moll Flanders, I forget.

[kelliekat44]

108. Land of the free????? nt

[jmowreader]

123. The difference between porn for men and porn for women

Porn for men is downloaded from the Internet, or sold in stores named "Parking In Back."

Porn for women spends a hundred weeks on the New York Times bestsellers list.

[brooklynite]

126. A pretty clichèd statement...

...Plenty of women will watch video porn, and plenty of men will read erotica, whether on the Times list or not.

[Warren DeMontague]

134. Best way to get me to read or watch something, is for religious right fuckturds to tell me not to.

But in this case I'll still probably pass.

[NaturalHigh]

143. Well, it's not just the religious right that seems to hate it.

There's been plenty of hate on here to go around too.

[Warren DeMontague]

145. I'm sure that's just a freak coincidence

[NaturalHigh]

147. It may be a coincidence...

but it sure seems like the two groups are in agreement a lot when it comes to judging what others watch, read, or enjoy in the bedroom.

[Warren DeMontague]

148. I never noticed that!

I mean except for the time Andrea Dworkin was helping Reagan and Meese try to censor porn.

[NaturalHigh]

149. That's one example.

I think if I tried I could probably find a few more.

Actually, I think I could find them with just a few clicks of the mouse on this board.

[brooklynite]

168. How about having liberal ideologues do the same thing?

[Warren DeMontague]

215. Depends, as with many things, on your definitions.

I don't consider getting bent out of shape over consenting adult sexual behavior, to be a particularly "liberal" position.

But me personally, any chance I was going to read that particular series of books went out the window when I heard the words "Twilight Fan Fiction".

[Quantess]

140. OH NOES!1 This will destroy the fabric of society as we know it!?

Fucking in ways that I have not given my stamp of approval upon.
Our human society is totally going to fall apart!

[Katashi_itto]

141. Batman...Bedroom Fantasy

[In_The_Wind]

227. Looks disappointing

just like the reviews of the book.

[Blaukraut]

169. How condescending. So every person who enjoyed the books

Now is jonesing for domestic violence in relation to sex? Women and men can't draw their own boundaries and know the lines that shouldn't be crossed in their own bedrooms? Who draws that line? Shouldn't it be up to each individual couple as to what is acceptable? I certainly don't need anybody telling me what I should and shouldn't fantasize about when it comes to sex.

[brooklynite]

175. Could those who find this kind of activity politically offensive help us out?

What kind of activities are acceptable for liberals to engage in?

[lunasun]

202. It's a lot like life!

Depeche Mode - Master And Servant (HQ) - YouTube

[Laelth]

226. Bookmarking. n/t

-Laelth

[Scootaloo]

229. Problem is, this is a pretty accurate description

The newly released trailer for Fifty Shades of Grey deceives the public with a visually appealing melodramatic love story that romanticizes and normalizes sexual violence. The main character is a mousey young woman, lacking confidence and capability, who becomes the target of a powerful, intimidating, older man who puts her under contract to serve as a sexual “submissive.” The implications of such a relationship—abuse of power, female inequality, coercion, and sexual violence—glamorizes and legitimatizes violence against women. The popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey among women sends a message to men that this is what women really want. Even more dangerous, it also sends the message to women that they can “fix” violent, controlling men by being obedient and loving. A warning to the women lining up to see this film: There is nothing empowering about whips and chains or humiliation and torture. Women as a group will not gain power by collaborating with violent men. Women would be serving only as an agent to further their own sexual degradation, handing themselves on a silver platter to exactly the sort of men who want to use and abuse them, and take away their power.

There's a lot of obfuscatory bullshit flying around here, so let's make something clear. The problem with the books - and no doubt the movie - isn't "kinky sex."

The problem is that the book portrays a deeply abusive and violent "relationship" between an increasingly isolated and co-dependant victim, and the manipulative and omnipresent abuser who strives to control every aspect of her life - I almost said "every waking aspect" but no, he tries to control her sleep, too (and even abuses her over dreams she has!)

...And then tries to pass that hideous bullshit off as "kink." it's not. It's just physical and emotional abuse.

Which is funny for all these people rallying around this shit to "defend" the kink community, because the entire perspective of the book is that people who are into kink are broken, damaged, deranged, dangerous - Christian isn't a dominant because he's into it (it could be argued he's not dom at all, and is just a controlling asshole, of course) but rather because he's the son of a "crack whore," who was abused as a young child, then raped as a younger teenager by a woman who forced him into a "slave" relationship. His prior "subs" are not named - they are simply numbered, and spoken of with disgust and loathing. The notion of a Dom/sub relationship is portrayed in this book as a cold, vindictive, emotionally stunted relationship that only the deranged and the sexually "irredeemable" could ever really be into.

basically, for all of you prattling on about "dur hurp-a-durp, whut pipples does in der bedrooms ain't muh bidness duh-HURR!,' this book potrays the people you think you're siding with as being horrible people, mutants, and "damaged goods" incapable of love (true love, according to Fifty Shades, only comes as slow "vanilla" sex, all else is horrid and vile.)

Doms do not break into a sub's house, tie them up and fuck them dry while the person begs them not to. Nor do they leave that person crumpled on the floor sobbing afterwards. This is what christian Grey does to Ana Steele, and this is what you are rallying for and portraying the kink scene as when you do so.

E. L. James is representing the kink scene as being a place where there is no consent, where the kink sex is an expression of trauma, where there is not even the remotest sign of compassion (or even passion), and where hte participants are either "damaged goods" *(as Christian is) or "disgusting sluts" (as Ana fears people will think she is)

And this is just the sex. Fifty Shades of grey could be a fucking how-to manual for identifying the warning signs of an abusive relationship. christian stalks Ana - hacks and traces her phone. Flies three thousand miles to stalk her when she visits her mom in Atlanta. He buys her weaponized gifts and attacks her emotionally if she tries to turn them down. At every step he is belittling her, while isolating her. Making her dependent on him, while making himself unavailable to her. To the point where she regards not being slapped as a victory for herself.

Oh yeah, she doesn't actually like being hit by Christian. Reading the book, it's clear she doesn't like any of this stuff he's doing to her. The fear she has of this man is palpable and is distressingly well-portrayed. She is terrified of her "lover." However she feels she has no choice but to take what he gives her, or else she'll "lose him" and end up - her words "alone with her books and a million cats." When she starts backing away, he instantly shifts gears to become the soft and gentle kitten she wants... an when she comes closer again, he's back to the violent asshole

This is textbook abuse, people. Front cover to back, this is what the book is full of. Strip out the sex, and it's still full of this. And seeing as this is the framework on which the sex is hung (again, E. L. James presents kink as something only damaged people do!) having the sex just emphasizes the problem!

And all of this is presented as normal. As healthy. As desirable. As if a man you just met proclaiming he's going to "fix" your virginity, and proceeding to fuck you dry without you ever telling him he can is just a normal first step in a healthy relationship. Oh yeah, in the Shades universe, silence is consent. of course, so is "no."

All of you pounding yourselves on the back about how "with it" you are just reminds me of that time a school "commemorated" black history month with fried chicken and watermelon and DU's response was "I love soul food!" - good for you but you're missing the fucking point. 50 shades glorifies and attempts to normalize abuse, and in so doing it sucks bdsm up and transforms that into another form of abuse - which is exactly what you are pretending to be against even while you defend this shitty, shitty series.

Wise the fuck up, people.

[freshwest]

236. Awesome rant. Mocking justified concern will gain MIM support for real oppression.

Last edited Sun Jul 27, 2014, 01:34 PM - Edit history (1)

[Warren DeMontague]

244. The people 'defending' the book aren't the only ones who are confused.

I count several people in this thread alone, ostensibly on the side of "social critique" of the books (not censorship, of course, no robble robble oh no never) who likewise are making the exact same argument- that people who engage in consenting adult BDSM or power games during sex are "broken, damaged, deranged and dangerous".

Right there upthread, someone asserts that "Power discourse surrounding sex lends itself to violent behavior and fantasy".

Yeah, what was that bit about "deranged and dangerous"?

Here's another quote from this thread:

"If subjugation and dominance are not ok politically, then why do we somehow think they are ok in our psyches in regards to sex and relationships? The justification that some people find it "fun" and therefore there can't be any harm in it is beside the point. Seems to me subjugation and dominance are just hijacking the bedroom and people's sex lives and attitudes toward sex as another hiding place. Another vehicle in which abuse in our society lives on. "

So let's not pretend that this is all about confused ninnies defending something they don't understand, versus the anti-50 shades crowd who are totes on the side of freedom and understanding for real consenting adult BDSM relationships, all the time.

Not buying that.

Personally, me? I could give a shit about 50 shades. I heard "twilight fan fiction" and that was all I needed. But if the movie sucks- and I suspect it will- it will fizzle on its own. "critiquing" something; namely telling people not to watch it- only encourages more people TO see it.

[NaturalHigh]

252. That's just one awesome post right there, Warren.

[Kurska]

253. Don't you dare start injecting reason and sanity into this discussion.

It takes away all the fun of arguing.

[joeglow3]

265. Great post

Saddens me how many tens of millions of women (and men) can't see this.

[mainer]

231. Did they protest back when the book was a raging bestseller?

Or were they too busy reading it?

[nolabels]

232. FIFTY SHADES OF WEIRD

I still don't get what people see in the stuff, but then again it's also kind of hard to figure out why one would watch violent movies. That would be on the assumption, of course, the observer knew that subjects being studied were indoctrinated to the stuff since they were a kids.

Probably also has a lot to do with two or more primitive ideas of how things could function and how the more primitive parts of the brain that might carry some of stuff out being so closely tied together (unintended pun)

[GOLGO 13]

256. That's just precious but...

The wife is "dragging me" to see this movie.