Random Politics & Religion #00

Here's the kicker: Fifty Shades is a trilogy and we're likely to see the other two books in the series made into a movie as well.

/buzzes in

HEATHCLIFF IN 'WUTHERING HEIGHTS'!!!

Have I ever mentioned that just because something is tagged "classic literature" that doesn't mean I necessarily think it's any good?

That is to say, I vaguely remember reading part of it for school at some point and then basically going cliff notes on it, b/c it was terrible, and I remember nothing about it. The same goes for The Return of the Native.

It's certainly a kicker. Right in the genitals.

But it's also entirely expected, as they rake in money hand over STPD-infected hand, and the producers aren't going to give a *** what the books portray as long as it gets toned down to an R rating and gets people to the box office.

I haven't read this specific novel(and I don't regret it), but just to clarify, masochism doesn't necessarily diminish a female as a human being. Most of it is psychological and seeking it has no implications other than personal(and the partner's) gratification.

I'll just leave this here.

I don't think the author would be even capable of it <.<' given the quality of her writing I hold some doubts on her thoughtfulness...

So, I take it, you shucked the role of Trebek foisted upon you earlier this week, or should I answer in the form of a question?

I'm sorry, I'm sure you have a point and I have no reason to not believe you as I haven't read it, but this blog just comes off as an emotional reaction to the book and gives no real insight for someone who hasn't read it. Dropped it at point 2.

Verda, the actual BDSM community hates this book.

Specifically, she thinks it's peachy keen and she doesn't understand what the fuss is about.

The bottom line is pretty much all of Christian Grey's actions are less romance and BDSM, more abusive, manipulative stalker.

lol...

Here's what I think you want to say:

Bring your kids up with a healthy respect for themselves in all aspects!

50 shades of grey has nothing to do with that. Discussing what happens in that book will probably bring the small child more confusion on the topic than anything else. There are right ways and wrong ways to go about it and on one hand you discuss a few ways as being inadequate (the talk, some teacher jumping through beuracratic hoops) and then on the other say that something is better than nothing when referring to this kid and his costume and it at least getting the mother to talk to the kid about sex like that would erase the shame cloud somehow. Do you think a mother and father talking about their own personal sex life with their kid would be appropriate or effective? I mean at least they're talking about sex and not being ashamed about it right?

You're all over the place. All you need to do is support your kid, make them feel safe coming to you with anything and then answer their questions as honestly as possible. There is a difference upon approaching the situation when they're ready/being there for them and forcing it down their throat! Accept that you are a sexual being so says your mother!!!!!!

Have you been ignoring everything I've written?

I have NO PROBLEM with sexual liberation of women, of us as a race. Sexual health and well being needs to be more openly discussed. Sex as a "bad, dirty" thing is really, really stupid and I despise the process by which it became such nearly worldwide.

My problem is with this specific book and character.

I would go so far as to suggest that so many women love this crap because it's probably similar to the situations they find themselves in already, except in this case the guy is a billionaire and not a truck driver with a bourbon habit.

They do and they don't. They love the exposure and further acceptance it brings to the community but it also misrepresents the culture on the whole. At least according to an NPR interview...

Let me clarify, Verda.

There's being a Sadist/Masochist ,(Enjoy delivering pain, but never harm/receiving pain but never harm) and then there's being absolutely abusive and enabling such abuse based upon misconceptions.

The reason the majority of people who live the lifestyle or have actual intimate knowledge of it's innermost workings are against this book and what it portrays, is that the author portrays this as common, acceptable behavior in BDSM - it's not.

The BDSM community at large has gone to great lengths to teach safety and proper support groups, lessons, and such, where as this book, and the subsequent interviews by the author stating she was "inspired" but notably not informed, by what she saw rather than what she knew, ultimately has left a destructive image on much of the practices held within.

Also, people are highly uninformed as to what being a submissive means. Most people simply believe it's a sexual thing. Rarely the case. In that instance, they would simply be referred to as being a "bottom", and the other a "Top".

Offering submission to someone who is worthy is more cathartic than anything, as it alleviates certain psychological burdens where someone you trust can guide you to "subspace" - a place of pleasure which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with pain or sex as a means of cathartic release.

That's the joke.

If an 11-year-old is walking home from school with his mom and joking that he wants to mock really bad slashfic that has inexplicably become popular, that indicates he has a pretty good idea of the point he's getting across.

Also, the notion that children are innocent and pure is a function of Victorian thinking. It's pervasive in American parenting these days to assume that Sally, who is 8, can't grasp certain concepts and/or will be ruined if she does. It's horseshit. Kids are naturally rather asexual (they don't have testosterone and estrogen making their pre-frontal cortex an optional player in conscious thinking), but they're far from unsophisticated and utterly pure. An 11-year-old is a long way from a kid, too.

I once had the misfortune of teaching a class of 9- and 10-year-olds about adultery while being observed by my employer (who was my own former teacher when I was that age). I managed to do it, mostly only stumbling because I never really made lesson plans and realized too late that I was halfway through the Ten Commandments and that ***was looming fast. More to the point, the kids understood the concept without having to go deeply into the nature of sexual fidelity. I am fairly sure they had a good idea what I was saying in between the lines, too. Most kids aren't remotely as naive as I was when I was 10.

But, by the same token, I was making sarcastic mockery of everything I could see by 4th grade, naivete notwithstanding. I'd be more worried no one would get the joke if I'd come into class dressed as Christian Grey. I know that I personally, the 32-year-old man, wouldn't recognize Grey without first being told and I'd still have to think for a while who the hell Christian Grey is.

I'm saying you seem to have a hard time expressing any kind of thought with any amount of clarity and bounce around like a ball in a steel cage.

It might make sense to you in your own head...

No, not necessarily. Not all sadist/maso are into whips. Some people just like to be in control, and others to be controlled, not only in bed.

The only issue is when it's not consensual. Then it's abuse. But if both are fine in their roles that gives them relief.

edit: I commented on this cause it contradicts what you said at the bottom

edit2: I guess dominant-submissive is more in line with what I mean

Look, I'm not trying to call into question your apparent vast knowledge of everything, but chances are slim that an 11-year-old has the wherewithal to understand the level of satire you're suggesting, as it indicates he's read and understands the books and the nuances of satire, and then put all of those things together to form this notion. And in the freak chance occurrence that he does, that his classmates -- or even teachers, for that matter -- would "get" it and not take it at face value is slim.

One way or another, it was a bad idea.

This is rich coming from a person that just backpedalled on most of his responses in the last page or two lol.

I think this is the problem, as you're defending it without reading or examining it.

It's not regular ol' erotica. That'd be fine and I'd even support its success if it were.

- It glamorizes the extreme elements of BDSM that even many in that community frown upon.

- It suggests stalking, emotional & physical abuse, as well as emotional manipulation are "romantic".

- It's just terribly written.

There is nothing redeeming about these books.

Except that it doesn't contradict what was said at all.

I pointed out in the previous post, what was cathartic about Sadism/Masochism, and that it differs greatly from abusive harm.

Nor that all sadism or masochism is limited strictly to whips and things, as Sadism can be further expanded to include "Emotional pain, but never harm".

Pain itself can be cathartic, causing someone harm, versus inflicting pain, is not, and there many people who consider themselves to be Dominant, but are simply abusive ***, much like the title character of this horrible shitstorm, Christian Grey.

Causing/receiving pain and/or humiliation can be cathartic for various reasons, such as keeping us humble, learning, exploring etc.

On the other hand, abuse does nothing of the sort. Anastasia Steele suffered innumerable punishments, many of which were not consensual by any stretch of the imagination, most often for wrongs perceived by Mr. Grey. Not to mention the stalking, possessive behavior exhibited, and so forth, as mentioned a number of times.