50 Shades of Prudishness


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 393 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

One from La Principessa:

50 Shades of Socialist-Feminism

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

I like her work.

Is that her writing, or just a link she recommended?


The latter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*Sees thread*
To Self: "Hm. I actually heard the movie was better than the book, and even a bit less sexist. Maybe I'll post here and say people should probably chill out and focus their hate on the crappy novel, rather than on the movie that at least tried to give the FMC some agency. I mean, really, it sounds like the movie's main crime is just failing to make things entertaining for us haters by being crappy in a boring way. Wait. I'm getting ahead of myself. I should read some of the thread first, just to make sure I'm not repeating what anyone else—"

Argument wrote:
race

OOOOHHHohohohoh I do not get paid enough nope nope nope


For fun, an article by Chris Hedges where he recycles the Andrea Dworkin/Gail Dines party line: ‘Pornography Is What the End of the World Looks Like’

La Principessa sent it to me and asked me what I thought. I said, "Well, I can't say I'm an expert, but most of the porn I've watched doesn't include women saying 'I am a c$@*/I am a whore/I am a slut' and as for 'F&@* me harder with your big c+#*' well, I don't need to watch porn to hear that."

I could hear her blushing from three states away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

*Sees thread*

To Self: "Hm. I actually heard the movie was better than the book, and even a bit less sexist. Maybe I'll post here and say people should probably chill out and focus their hate on the crappy novel, rather than on the movie that at least tried to give the FMC some agency. I mean, really, it sounds like the movie's main crime is just failing to make things entertaining for us haters by being crappy in a boring way. Wait. I'm getting ahead of myself. I should read some of the thread first, just to make sure I'm not repeating what anyone else—"

Argument wrote:
race
OOOOHHHohohohoh I do not get paid enough nope nope nope

ROTFLLLLLLLLLLLLLL


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We haven't talked about a subtle point that particularly irritates me and that is the reward system this movie encourages.

"Just about everything you think is actually important, being true to yourself, dignity, honesty, compassion, integrity, is worth giving up if someone will give you a lot of money or nice things."


Except it is a fantasy, so YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE THOSE THINGS UP. And really, how is this different from a million other things marketed at women?


I didn't think the series was marketed towards anyone other than the curious and uninformed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Except it is a fantasy, so YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE THOSE THINGS UP. And really, how is this different from a million other things marketed at women?

I don't understand your point. If it is "a fantasy," then why raise any issue to discuss what is bothersome to us as individuals

it's racist

it's a fantasy

it's misogynistic

it's a fantasy

it encourages pursuits of unattainable goals

it's a fantasy

So I don't know what you are saying. Does quantifying it as "a fantasy" mean I am not supposed to be bothered by what I take away from it?

And second
How it is different (or the same as) "a million other things," marketed at women is not something I am in any way qualified to talk about as the category of "a million other things," marketed to woman is extraordinarily broad, and divisive.

I like to think that some things marketed at women are not as offensive, to me, as this story is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Exactly. I am so glad you understood my point, Terquem. Fantasies are a safe way to handle breaking the limits we live within. They are not something we should be bothered by. Anastasia gets given a wealthy lifestyle in a wonky relationship, far from having earned it herself. As fantasies go, it's far from the worst I have seen. Now, if you don't like it, it did not work for you. To me, it's a stupid plot and bad writing that makes me stay away.

And if we do criticize other people's fantasies, how about these?
It is unrealistic!
It is violent!
It gives questionable moral guidance!
It distracts people from the real world!
It is racist!
And of course,
it encourages pursuits of unattainable goals!

If those are reasons that something is bad, then let's scrap every kind of speculative fiction ever. All are criticisms that have been leveled at fantasy, SF and related fields since day one.

Yes, it IS a fantasy. And that is not by itself a problem.


With that I agree

but it's still fun to pick it apart anyway, hehe


So here is a question for another thread

Is all fiction fantasy?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Fantasy" is both a genre and a word on its own referring to impossibilities or falsehoods, so...yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem is fantasy is not always seen as such. And I'm not sure that viewing or reading works of fiction has no deleterious effects on a person. I mean, we all know fiction can have huge positive effects on a person. Why would we be immune from the opposite?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

So here is a question for another thread

Is all fiction fantasy?

fantasy has lots of different meanings.

The question isn't really useful.


Dustin Ashe wrote:
The problem is fantasy is not always seen as such. And I'm not sure that viewing or reading works of fiction has no deleterious effects on a person. I mean, we all know fiction can have huge positive effects on a person. Why would we be immune from the opposite?

Because it is a reflective process, and one with no aspirations to reality to boot. We grow from it, we stretch our imaginatory muscles, we taste the things we read about. This is a good thing. It's once you get to works with aspirations of reality and toxic messages (the bible, the quran, dianetics, various political propaganda) that things can get dangerous.


It's like Sissyl said. All creative works are capable of doing is introducing ideas to us. How we handle those ideas comes down to our own issues. People who can't handle fantasy and avoid exposure to it will instead go nuts over politics or sports.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd object less if the author took any responsibility for her damned book. She claims it saves marriages, but ignores anyone who mentions it does anything negative, like trigger abuse survivors or show young men women that abuse and romance are totally the same thing. Or, of course, show people the absolute worse way to do BDSM so people get injured.

And of course it's saved some marriages. Abusive people often don't want there partners to leave, and so showing them it's totally romantic to stalk, mentally and sexually abuse and such is just dandy so far as they're concerned.

Argh, hate these damned books so damned much.

As for the actual topic, it's a weird rating for the UK. I've seen movies with a lot more sex with a lower rating, so I'm guessing it's the BDSM elements that are causing it. I'd like to think it's just they're horrible movies and we need to protect the young from them, but...


JonGarrett wrote:

I'd object less if the author took any responsibility for her damned book. She claims it saves marriages, but ignores anyone who mentions it does anything negative, like trigger abuse survivors or show young men women that abuse and romance are totally the same thing. Or, of course, show people the absolute worse way to do BDSM so people get injured.

And of course it's saved some marriages. Abusive people often don't want there partners to leave, and so showing them it's totally romantic to stalk, mentally and sexually abuse and such is just dandy so far as they're concerned.

Argh, hate these damned books so damned much.

As for the actual topic, it's a weird rating for the UK. I've seen movies with a lot more sex with a lower rating, so I'm guessing it's the BDSM elements that are causing it. I'd like to think it's just they're horrible movies and we need to protect the young from them, but...

Ugh. These books glorify the hell out of a straight up abusive relationship. I enjoy some light BDSM, and have many friends who get far more into it and are extremely active in the community and very happy. Being in a consenting, sane relationship is not abuse, the relationship depicted in the books is. It is emotional, verbal and at one or two points straight physical abuse, which is being romanticized. I hate these g@$*+*n books.

The Exchange

JonGarrett wrote:

I'd object less if the author took any responsibility for her damned book. She claims it saves marriages, but ignores anyone who mentions it does anything negative, like trigger abuse survivors or show young men women that abuse and romance are totally the same thing. Or, of course, show people the absolute worse way to do BDSM so people get injured.

And of course it's saved some marriages. Abusive people often don't want there partners to leave, and so showing them it's totally romantic to stalk, mentally and sexually abuse and such is just dandy so far as they're concerned.

Argh, hate these damned books so damned much.

As for the actual topic, it's a weird rating for the UK. I've seen movies with a lot more sex with a lower rating, so I'm guessing it's the BDSM elements that are causing it. I'd like to think it's just they're horrible movies and we need to protect the young from them, but...

Do you have any actual hard data on any of this? Or is this one of the "Violent video games teach young people that shooting people is good" things?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
JonGarrett wrote:

I'd object less if the author took any responsibility for her damned book. She claims it saves marriages, but ignores anyone who mentions it does anything negative, like trigger abuse survivors or show young men women that abuse and romance are totally the same thing. Or, of course, show people the absolute worse way to do BDSM so people get injured.

And of course it's saved some marriages. Abusive people often don't want there partners to leave, and so showing them it's totally romantic to stalk, mentally and sexually abuse and such is just dandy so far as they're concerned.

Argh, hate these damned books so damned much.

As for the actual topic, it's a weird rating for the UK. I've seen movies with a lot more sex with a lower rating, so I'm guessing it's the BDSM elements that are causing it. I'd like to think it's just they're horrible movies and we need to protect the young from them, but...

Do you have any actual hard data on any of this? Or is this one of the "Violent video games teach young people that shooting people is good" things?

Is this one of the "literature and media never have any effects on anyone ever" things?


Some people here sound way too much like the folks who say video games cause violence or murderous tendencies.

There's been research done that has disproven those theories. Why are people getting worked up about this movie then?

It's clearly meant to be an escapist fantasy (as others have also pointed out), not an educational film about relationships or BDSM.


Icyshadow wrote:

Some people here sound way too much like the folks who say video games cause violence or murderous tendencies.

There's been research done that has disproven those theories.

Actually, it's far more complicated than that:

New York Times, 2013 wrote:

A burst of new research has begun to clarify what can and cannot be said about the effects of violent gaming. Playing the games can and does stir hostile urges and mildly aggressive behavior in the short term. Moreover, youngsters who develop a gaming habit can become slightly more aggressive — as measured by clashes with peers, for instance — at least over a period of a year or two.

Yet it is not at all clear whether, over longer periods, such a habit increases the likelihood that a person will commit a violent crime, like murder, rape, or assault, much less a Newtown-like massacre. (Such calculated rampages are too rare to study in any rigorous way, researchers agree.)

Media does not leave us completely unscathed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Part of the problem is the noticeable spike of people accidentally injuring themselves or their loved one emulating the absolutely awful idea of BDSM in that book.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/10/sex-toy-injuries -surged-after-fifty-shades-of-grey-was-published/


Dustin Ashe wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

Some people here sound way too much like the folks who say video games cause violence or murderous tendencies.

There's been research done that has disproven those theories.

Actually, it's far more complicated than that:

New York Times, 2013 wrote:

A burst of new research has begun to clarify what can and cannot be said about the effects of violent gaming. Playing the games can and does stir hostile urges and mildly aggressive behavior in the short term. Moreover, youngsters who develop a gaming habit can become slightly more aggressive — as measured by clashes with peers, for instance — at least over a period of a year or two.

Yet it is not at all clear whether, over longer periods, such a habit increases the likelihood that a person will commit a violent crime, like murder, rape, or assault, much less a Newtown-like massacre. (Such calculated rampages are too rare to study in any rigorous way, researchers agree.)

Media does not leave us completely unscathed.

If that was true, then I would have murdered at least three people by now. I remain skeptical at best.

Sure, they can leave a mark, but mere marks do not make a monster. I think it takes more to push a person over the edge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
Dustin Ashe wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

Some people here sound way too much like the folks who say video games cause violence or murderous tendencies.

There's been research done that has disproven those theories.

Actually, it's far more complicated than that:

New York Times, 2013 wrote:

A burst of new research has begun to clarify what can and cannot be said about the effects of violent gaming. Playing the games can and does stir hostile urges and mildly aggressive behavior in the short term. Moreover, youngsters who develop a gaming habit can become slightly more aggressive — as measured by clashes with peers, for instance — at least over a period of a year or two.

Yet it is not at all clear whether, over longer periods, such a habit increases the likelihood that a person will commit a violent crime, like murder, rape, or assault, much less a Newtown-like massacre. (Such calculated rampages are too rare to study in any rigorous way, researchers agree.)

Media does not leave us completely unscathed.

If that was true, then I would have murdered at least three people by now. I remain skeptical at best.

Sure, they can leave a mark, but mere marks do not make a monster. I think it takes more to push a person over the edge.

We're dealing with population statistics here. Anecdotes aren't evidence. "I played violent video games and haven't murdered anyone" doesn't prove anything, anymore than "I rode a motorcycle for 10 years without a helmet and I didn't die" proves that motorcycle helmets don't save lives.

The connection certainly isn't proven and it's certainly not one to one. Playing video games absolutely does not cause one to kill people in that narrow sense. Luckily that's not the claim at hand., with video games or any other effect of any media.

Disproving any connection is a lot harder, even if some older claims have been shot down and others haven't been proven. The evidence on videogames certainly can't be used to prove that popular media has no effect whatsoever on culture or even individual behavior.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I think media does have a decent amount of influence over us, even if it is only by introducing ideas to us and making us curious. I don't think that it is necessarily a bad thing though.

Speaking from personal experience this wacky video is what led me to accept a friend's long standing invitation to her BDSM parties.

Before I had turned her down out of disinterest, but then I got curious.


Another silly thing I noticed about media influencing me is that back when I first played the Grand Theft Auto series if I drove immediately after playing I would often speed a bit, which is out of character for me, and I realized it was because I was so bored with the long driving sections of the game that when I had to then get somewhere in real life after I just wanted to get there quickly lol.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
Is this one of the "literature and media never have any effects on anyone ever" things?

Sounds more like a Truthiness trumps evidence thing.

They're horrible books about horrible people doing horrible things for horrible reasons, but anyone who use them as a excuse for staying in or getting involved in an abusive relationship with a narcissistic, sadistic predator would have wound up there or in a similarly fscked up situation eventually anyway.


Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Is this one of the "literature and media never have any effects on anyone ever" things?

Sounds more like a Truthiness trumps evidence thing.

They're horrible books about horrible people doing horrible things for horrible reasons, but anyone who use them as a excuse for staying in or getting involved in an abusive relationship with a narcissistic, sadistic predator would have wound up there or in a similarly fscked up situation eventually anyway.

So, you fall on the side of "literature has no effect on people". It doesn't help shape your world view or anything else.

Mind you, I suspect you're right in the vast majority of cases. But for some who might be inclined any way this might be the last straw that lets them justify it to themselves.
Neither a necessary or a sufficient condition, but one more weight in the balance.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I heard that the book and movie leaves out a very important part of healthy dom/ sub relationships. Aftercare. This bothers me. I wonder how many people reading the book or seeing the movie will try this stuff without any kind of aftercare and get eemotionally scarred.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't have a problem with the books or the movie's kink and sex parts. It is fine. What I have a problem with is outside of that...it is a story about a dude who is using mental and verbal abuse to reduce his girlfriend's mental image of herself into her being nothing but his property to do with as he pleases, not just in a sexual manner. He is imposing martial law over her entirety. If you replaced the BDSM elements with straight up beatings, punching, yelling and such you would see better the controlling abuse and mental breaking down of the victim until she has no self-worth and is nothing without her man.
Why women see this as a sexual awakening film is beyond me. I like BDSM, participated in some cool stuff and have no issues with such but is there really a large population of women in the world that want to lose all self worth and be nothing but a meat-puppet for some spoiled brat to play with? I don't think so. I think some are interested in the BDSM parts and purposely blinding themselves to the mental and verbal abuse that goes beyond the bedroom games.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Is this one of the "literature and media never have any effects on anyone ever" things?

Sounds more like a Truthiness trumps evidence thing.

They're horrible books about horrible people doing horrible things for horrible reasons, but anyone who use them as a excuse for staying in or getting involved in an abusive relationship with a narcissistic, sadistic predator would have wound up there or in a similarly fscked up situation eventually anyway.

So, you fall on the side of "literature has no effect on people". It doesn't help shape your world view or anything else.

Mind you, I suspect you're right in the vast majority of cases. But for some who might be inclined any way this might be the last straw that lets them justify it to themselves.
Neither a necessary or a sufficient condition, but one more weight in the balance.

No, I fall on the side of "Stop blaming others for your own issues," combined with "stop enabling others to hide from their own issues and problems by letting them blame video games or bad novels or whatever" and a whole fscking lot of "It's ok to not like X or Y or even to find it repulsive or abhorrent or question the mental health of people who like them*, but stop trying to claim the moral high ground by saying or implying that it's harmful to mentally healthy adults just because you find it icky."

There are so many other environmental and cultural things that influence and feed into those sorts of problems that wringing you hands and clutching your pearls and saying that video games or bad fanfiction turned into fifth rate pastiches of Sade or Seinfeld reruns is really just using it as an excuse to blame something you don't like or understand for societies ills.

* Sorta, just let it slide here.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

As far as the popularity of FSoG goes, its all about timing, i doubt it would get this amount of press and box office receipts facing off against Jurassic World in July. but when its February and your choices are Spongebob or Bondage, most adults without kids will choose the latter if only to avoid the former:-)

FYI: the new Spongebob movie is awesome:-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Is this one of the "literature and media never have any effects on anyone ever" things?

Sounds more like a Truthiness trumps evidence thing.

They're horrible books about horrible people doing horrible things for horrible reasons, but anyone who use them as a excuse for staying in or getting involved in an abusive relationship with a narcissistic, sadistic predator would have wound up there or in a similarly fscked up situation eventually anyway.

So, you fall on the side of "literature has no effect on people". It doesn't help shape your world view or anything else.

Mind you, I suspect you're right in the vast majority of cases. But for some who might be inclined any way this might be the last straw that lets them justify it to themselves.
Neither a necessary or a sufficient condition, but one more weight in the balance.

No, I fall on the side of "Stop blaming others for your own issues," combined with "stop enabling others to hide from their own issues and problems by letting them blame video games or bad novels or whatever" and a whole fscking lot of "It's ok to not like X or Y or even to find it repulsive or abhorrent or question the mental health of people who like them*, but stop trying to claim the moral high ground by saying or implying that it's harmful to mentally healthy adults just because you find it icky."

There are so many other environmental and cultural things that influence and feed into those sorts of problems that wringing you hands and clutching your pearls and saying that video games or bad fanfiction turned into fifth rate pastiches of Sade or Seinfeld reruns is really just using it as an excuse to blame something you don't like or understand for societies ills.

* Sorta, just let it slide here.

I at least partly agree here. I don't think this film (or any cultural influences) excuse people for making bad decisions. I don't think this particular book or film is the sole influence or even the sole influence pushing in this particular direction. There are entire sub-genres of Romance that are similarly abusive - often starting with rape rather than the BDSM thing. This one hit big in the mainstream and thus makes a convenient example to point out just how f~**ed up it is. (Not the BDSM, but the abusive controlling relationship.)


captain yesterday wrote:

As far as the popularity of FSoG goes, its all about timing, i doubt it would get this amount of press and box office receipts facing off against Jurassic World in July. but when its February and your choices are Spongebob or Bondage, most adults without kids will choose the latter if only to avoid the former:-)

FYI: the new Spongebob movie is awesome:-)

I don't know. The book was already a huge hit. The movie might not do quite so well, but there's obviously plenty of interest.


So glorifying an abusive relationship isn't harmful? That's... Really thoughtless don't you think. I know a lot of teens and twentysomethings who don't know what a healthy relationship looks like. Saying "this is what you want" is not healthy In this case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryuko wrote:
So glorifying an abusive relationship isn't harmful? That's... Really thoughtless don't you think. I know a lot of teens and twentysomethings who don't know what a healthy relationship looks like. Saying "this is what you want" is not healthy In this case.

To a lesser extent that is a criticism that can be leveled against most portrayals of relationships in media though. Drama free healthy relationships don't make for good entertainment.

Hopefully younger people are mapping their healthy relationships off of real people around them, like their parents or older peers. If they don't have that in their life at all a positive media representation prolly isn't going to help much anymore than a negative one will hurt.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And that's not the book's fault. It's the fault of their parents and communities continual and exponentially expanding infantilization of the young so that you find people saying stuff like "there are hyperannuated children twenty somethings who need to be protected from this depiction of an abusive a-hole and his eager, willling victim because it might warp their world view".

If a crappily written novel is going to convince them that the relationship in the book is what they want and pursue it then they already have a broken relationship value center.

No one should read the book. Because it's horrible and giving the publisher and author money just encourages crap. And it's crap by the standards of supermarket bodice rippers, let alone actual novels. Heck, as has been pointed out both Sade's work and the Story of O (a pastiche of Sade written to win a bet) are better novels and they're horrible novels.

Similarly I encouraged my friend to make their daughter read Dracula and Carmilla before letting her read the Twilight schlock. Considering that she gave up that series after the first few chapters I put it in the win column.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yuugasa wrote:
Ryuko wrote:
So glorifying an abusive relationship isn't harmful? That's... Really thoughtless don't you think. I know a lot of teens and twentysomethings who don't know what a healthy relationship looks like. Saying "this is what you want" is not healthy In this case.

To a lesser extent that is a criticism that can be leveled against most portrayals of relationships in media though. Drama free healthy relationships don't make for good entertainment.

Hopefully younger people are mapping their healthy relationships off of real people around them, like their parents or older peers. If they don't have that in their life at all a positive media representation prolly isn't going to help much anymore than a negative one will hurt.

There's nothing wrong with portraying bad relationships. It's the "glorifying an abusive relationship" part that's problematic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:

Some people here sound way too much like the folks who say video games cause violence or murderous tendencies.

There's been research done that has disproven those theories.

Correct. This research also shows that while the media cannot cause behavior, it does cause us to regard that behavior as more "normal". This is the same reason media that displays diversity is so valuable, especially for kids.

This is likely what people are worried about—a book that acts like an unhealthy relationship is "healthy" could give some readers a warped perspective on what is considered healthy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's a difference between entertainment In watching something negative and that negative being treated as something to want and aspire to. Negative relationships are all over media but are most often called out as negative. Fifty shades attempts to pass off stalking, abuse and (in the book, no knowledge of the movie) at one point a literal rape as a relationship every woman should want. I quite honestly find that not just discomforting but frightening. Not because its there, there's always some media claiming up is down and wrong is right, but because so many women and girls seem to agree. That's damn terrifying.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

Some people here sound way too much like the folks who say video games cause violence or murderous tendencies.

There's been research done that has disproven those theories.

Correct. This research also shows that while the media cannot cause behavior, it does cause us to regard that behavior as more "normal". This is the same reason media that displays diversity is so valuable, especially for kids.

This is likely what people are worried about—a book that acts like an unhealthy relationship is "healthy" could give some readers a warped perspective on what is considered healthy.

Kobold Cleaver and theJeff, making my points better than I could have myself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:

And that's not the book's fault. It's the fault of their parents and communities continual and exponentially expanding infantilization of the young so that you find people saying stuff like "there are hyperannuated children twenty somethings who need to be protected from this depiction of an abusive a-hole and his eager, willling victim because it might warp their world view".

If a crappily written novel is going to convince them that the relationship in the book is what they want and pursue it then they're already have a broken relationship value center.

And it's all purely an individual thing. It's only individual parents and their individual children who can ever fail.

What kind of relationships are portrayed as desirable or socially acceptable in media or in the culture at large have absolutely no effect on people - except possibly already broken people who would have had bad relationships anyway, so it's still having no effect.

This also means, by the way, that all the critically acclaimed children's and young adult books that help kids deal with various life issues and concepts are also having no effect right? Works both ways, doesn't it?

No, this single novel/movie isn't going to make a huge difference. It's just one particularly creepy, particularly popular example of a type of portrayal that does have an effect.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

honestly i had never even heard of the book until a week before the movie was released:-D

i am a little curious what it has to do with Vampires? (wait, Twilight are at least tangentially Vampire books and movies right?)

any way both the movie and book sound positively dreadful:-)


thejeff wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:


To a lesser extent that is a criticism that can be leveled against most portrayals of relationships in media though. Drama free healthy relationships don't make for good entertainment.

Hopefully younger people are mapping their healthy relationships off of real people around them, like their parents or older peers. If they don't have that in their life at all a positive media representation prolly isn't going to help much anymore than a negative one will hurt.

There's nothing wrong with portraying bad relationships. It's the "glorifying an abusive relationship" part that's problematic.

Sure, but that's nothing new. Media has always glorified s+&!ty relationships, remember Romeo and Juliet? That's talked about like one of the greatest romances of all time and it's about a pair of dumb ass kids that barely know each other killing themselves. I wish that a*!##@@ Shakespeare would stop glorifying this s~&&.

But anyway, I agree that it can help set the default for expectations on what is considered acceptable and desireworthy, which isn't good, but once again hopefully they have some positive real life influences that are more present, parents, peers and the like.


captain yesterday wrote:

honestly i had never even heard of the book until a week before the movie was released:-D

i am a little curious what it has to do with Vampires? (wait, Twilight are at least tangentially Vampire books and movies right?)

any way both the movie and book sound positively dreadful:-)

Consider thyself lucky.

The book began as an awful twilight fan-fiction. That's not a joke its simple truth. Eventually it got popular enough that E L James changed the names from Edward Cullen and Bella Swan to Christian Grey and Anastasia Steele so that it could be published. The final version has nothing to do with vampires.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yuugasa wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:


To a lesser extent that is a criticism that can be leveled against most portrayals of relationships in media though. Drama free healthy relationships don't make for good entertainment.

Hopefully younger people are mapping their healthy relationships off of real people around them, like their parents or older peers. If they don't have that in their life at all a positive media representation prolly isn't going to help much anymore than a negative one will hurt.

There's nothing wrong with portraying bad relationships. It's the "glorifying an abusive relationship" part that's problematic.

Sure, but that's nothing new. Media has always glorified s#~#ty relationships, remember Romeo and Juliet? That's talked about like one of the greatest romances of all time and it's about a pair of dumb ass kids that barely know each other killing themselves. I wish that a&~*~!~ Shakespeare would stop glorifying this s$*#.

But anyway, I agree that it can help set the default for expectations on what is considered acceptable and desireworthy, which isn't good, but once again hopefully they have some positive real life influences that are more present, parents, peers and the like.

Mote that Romeo and Juliet was never considered by Shakespeare or the people of the time to be a hugely romantic story. That's a more modern interpretation. The real read of the play comes out more like "look at these dumb f&#*ing kids. Christ kids are dumb. Don't do stupid stuff for a pretty girl dudes. Ladies, the guy wants to bone you, just know that now." Which remains a pretty good message today.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Yuugasa wrote:

I wish that a%~&~+$ Shakespeare would stop glorifying this s+*+.

Don't worry, he stopped glorifying profane things a while ago. But you should hear his new sonetts to praise the glory of Azatoth. They are really the peak of his creative work.

101 to 150 of 393 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 50 Shades of Prudishness All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.