# Mainstream Article on the mysogyny in 50 Shades of Grey



## Morgan Gallagher (Feb 13, 2011)

"It really is about a domestic violence perpetrator, taking someone who is less powerful, inexperienced, not entirely confident about the area of life she is being led into, and then spinning her a yarn. Then he starts doing absolutely horrific sexual things to her &#8230; He gradually moves her boundaries, normalising the violence against her. It's the whole mythology that women want to be hurt."

The story's "subliminal message", said Phillipson, is the classic narrative of domestic violence - "that you can heal this broken man, that if you just love him enough and take his shit enough, he will get better.

That message is so dangerous," she added. "I've done this job for 30 years [domestic violence/refuge worker] and the chances of making a Christian Grey better by enduring the abuse he heaps on you - well, you would be physically traumatised and potentially dead. It is not going to happen. You have to walk away from the Christian Greys of this world."

---

I hadn't read the book myself, but on reading a review of it, decided likewise. Whenever it's mentioned, I do state how I think it's an awful thing for young girls to read, to be invariably told by my middle aged friends who don't read much but are on their second set of vibrator batteries, that I'm a party pooper.

My message to my middle aged friends who don't read much, who adore it is... there's a lot better porn on the internet, go find it.

Fantasies about sexual exploitation need to be clearly positioned as fantasy, in my opinion, and 50 Shades doesn't appear to do that. Between Twilight and 50 Shades, we seem hell bent on telling our young girls that not only is it okay to be in a damaged relationship, it's _desired_. Excuse me now, I need to go vomit.

Thought you'd all be interested in the article. Especially the nonsense of burning it! Oh yeah, burning a book for the media cameras... that's so gonna persuade young girls _not_ to read it. *Headdesk*

As usual, skip the comments. _sigh_

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/aug/24/fifty-shades-grey-domestic-violence-campaigners?fb_action_ids=10150982760872202%2C3923055832207&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210150982760872202%22%3A10151185123891041%2C%223923055832207%22%3A10151185123891041%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210150982760872202%22%3A%22news.reads%22%2C%223923055832207%22%3A%22news.reads%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

Wow, that's like a time machine back to the anti-sex second wave 1980s. Even Michfest got over the BDSM thing and they're so out of touch it's painful.


----------



## Morgan Gallagher (Feb 13, 2011)

Katie Elle said:


> Wow, that's like a time machine back to the anti-sex second wave 1980s. Even Michfest got over the BDSM thing and they're so out of touch it's painful.


No, I don't think they are. Actual BDSM fiction is a separate genre, and has it's own labeling and audience relationship.

The point is that 50 Shades, like Twilight, does not engage in the reality of BDSM, but presents violence and abuse, male to female, as something the female wants, needs and enjoys in normal life without the fantasy element. BDSM is not about abuse, but is about adult play with very particular rules and conventions.

If it was BDSM fiction, there wouldn't be an issue.

50 shades was lifted out of its own genre with clearly recognised context and moved over to mainstream where the younger reader would have no way of accessing both the context, or the concept that BDSM is based on fantasy play.

Absolutely fine for the readers with the maturity to know the difference and to enjoy the fantasy for what it is. Most women I know who love the book, would take a frying pan to the 'hero' if he tried that behaviour in real life. And it wouldn't be to his head.

It's young readers with no context that could be damaged by the world view of what men, and women, really are, that this book presents.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

we've discussed this, and we're going to move this to the Book Corner as a book discussion.  We've had this discussion several times there.  

Thanks for understanding.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## Morgan Gallagher (Feb 13, 2011)

TattooedWriter said:


> You haven't read the book yourself but you have an opinion on it which you express "whenever it's mentioned", even though your opinion is actually someone else's? Wouldn't you read the book yourself, if only to have your own opinion based on your own judgement?
> 
> And "skip the comments"...because they are written by people who _have_ read the book and don't agree with the article?
> 
> ...


Gosh, do you go in much for telepathy? I have to say, you're not very good at it, if you do.

Also, extrapolation from your inference, not so good.

I'll just stick to what I said, and not bother with refuting your translation of it, if you don't mind. Feel free to translate my words into what you think they mean, but do so without me.


----------



## Morgan Gallagher (Feb 13, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Folks,
> 
> we've discussed this, and we're going to move this to the Book Corner as a book discussion. We've had this discussion several times there.
> 
> ...


No probs Betsy. I really should remember there are other forums!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Morgan Gallagher said:


> No probs Betsy. I really should remember there are other forums!


  Come out of the Writers' Cave Café to the light! LOL!

Betsy


----------



## Morgan Gallagher (Feb 13, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Come out of the Writers' Cave Café to the light! LOL!
> 
> Betsy


And leave my precious... *grabs laptop and hides further back in the shades* _itssssssmine..._


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> The point is that 50 Shades, like Twilight, does not engage in the reality of BDSM, but presents violence and abuse, male to female, as something the female wants, needs and enjoys in normal life without the fantasy element.


I've read the book and IMHO that's not accurate.



> If it was BDSM fiction, there wouldn't be an issue.


I think quite the contrary. Ms. Phllipson, the woman who is planning the book burning (and that should tell you something right there), is a long term second wave anti-porn crusader. She's not worried that it doesn't properly express the true nature of trust in a BDSM relationship, she's in favor of BDSM erotica and porn being made illegal as an incitement to violence against women. She actually suggests in one essay that if a misogynist word is used as part of the depiction that a hate crime enhancement be added to the obscenity charge.

She also, btw, hasn't read the book. She said she read 2/3rds and gave up in disgust. Two thirds through the book, there's nothing more than having her hands tied to the bed with a tie, a little ice play, and a mild spanking.


----------



## Morgan Gallagher (Feb 13, 2011)

Katie Elle said:


> She also, btw, hasn't read the book. She said she read 2/3rds and gave up in disgust. Two thirds through the book, there's nothing more than having her hands tied to the bed with a tie, a little ice play, and a mild spanking.


She is being ridiculous about burning the book and banning anything makes it more attractive.

It is curious 'tho, that you can choose not to read a book as you don't like the premise, or how it's handled, and this is somehow deemed to make you not able to comment on not liking the premise, or the handling.

That's that blurbs and reviews are for. To see if you'd like to read it. And when you read blurbs and reviews and think "Not for me." then strangely, you're not able to say "This sort of thing isn't for me, and I worry about how it would affect young readers who probably won't have the context to understand the fantasy element."

Seems like word of mouth is only valid when it makes you want to read something.

Curious.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

I see it this way - the women who loved 'Twilight' are going to love '50SG'. The women who loathed the one are going to loathe the other.

They are the same basic story, same characters, SAME MESSAGE ABOUT PASSIVE WOMEN AND MEN WITH "ISSUES." So why is everyone surprised there is MORE controversy over the 'Adult BDSM' version?

I read 'Twilight' - thought it was boring. I read parts of '50' - thought it was boring too.

I'm starting to think that 'Mommie Porn' is a better label all the time. '50' has merely brought the world of kink to the vanilla-minded. _They're just books._ They will likely be forgotten whenever the next 'Twi-fic' comes out.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I think it's perfectly valid to read blurbs and reviews and come to the conclusion that it's "not for me".

I don't think it's valid to say, "because I don't think it's for me, I also don't think it's for anyone else." Until I've actually read it, I can't really validly either recommend pro or con. The only thing I can say is, "It's not for me."

In fact, I've been asked several times whether I've read _50 Shades_. I haven't, so that's what I say when asked. If I'm asked why not, I just say that it doesn't appeal based on the description. And I usually acknowledge that it's quite popular, and even relate that I know folks who have read it and really liked it.

I've had nearly identical conversations about _The Hunger Games_, _Twilight_ and _The Shack_.

I'm not going to comment on the morality or ethics or anything else expressed in a book I've not read. I can't. I've not read it. I don't know what the author has said. I may have read _other_ peoples explanations of what opinions are expressed, but that's second hand. I prefer to form my own opinions. If it's something I feel like I should have an opinion on, I'll read the book.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

I'm sorry, but condemning a book you haven't so much as read a line of is just plain wrong.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> It is curious 'tho, that you can choose not to read a book as you don't like the premise, or how it's handled, and this is somehow deemed to make you not able to comment on not liking the premise, or the handling.
> 
> That's that blurbs and reviews are for. To see if you'd like to read it. And when you read blurbs and reviews and think "Not for me." then strangely, you're not able to say "This sort of thing isn't for me, and I worry about how it would affect young readers who probably won't have the context to understand the fantasy element."


The problem with that is she isn't accurately portraying the premise of the book. She's claiming that it involves random domestic violence. It doesn't. She's also not saying she doesn't like the premise as she understands it from the blurb and she worries about the effect it has (I've said that about Twilight). She's saying the book is a manual for domestic violence and is holding a book burning. Given her history, I suspect and believe its reasonable to suspect that she hasn't read the book at all and planned the book burning before she ever touched a copy.

KA Jordan, I think, offers a very concise criticism that I think accurately reflects the book and is a reasonable critique of it. Big difference between that and holding a book burning or lobbying for distributing it to be a criminalized.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

On a bit of a side note: I'm not sure what it means, but I find it interesting that the three times this year I have seen the word misogyny -- hatred of women -- used in reference to a work of fiction, in each case that work's author has been a woman.

Back to you regularly scheduled debate.


----------



## Morgan Gallagher (Feb 13, 2011)

NogDog said:


> On a bit of a side note: I'm not sure what it means, but I find it interesting that the three times this year I have seen the word misogyny -- hatred of women -- used in reference to a work of fiction, in each case that work's author has been a woman.
> 
> Back to you regularly scheduled debate.


Oh yeah, because patriarchy only exists because men uphold it. It's not an entire societal structure or anything.


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

Morgan Gallagher said:


> No, I don't think they are. Actual BDSM fiction is a separate genre, and has it's own labeling and audience relationship.
> 
> The point is that 50 Shades, like Twilight, does not engage in the reality of BDSM, but presents violence and abuse, male to female, as something the female wants, needs and enjoys in normal life without the fantasy element. BDSM is not about abuse, but is about adult play with very particular rules and conventions.
> 
> If it was BDSM fiction, there wouldn't be an issue.


And here's where your argument falls apart a bit. I started reading it, stopped not because I didn't like the subject matter, but because I couldn't stand the writing style.  I did get far enough to know, though, that it does address those rules and conventions - Grey explains to what's-her-name what's involved beforehand, shows her the "playroom", and even has her sign a very detailed contract (which includes the use of "safe words", IIRC) after encouraging her to ask whatever questions & do whatever research she needs to, and make (almost) whatever changes she wants to, before signing.

I will say my daughter has read a good bit of BDSM and told her friends who liked "50", "here's a list of books you'll like a whole lot better" (because the writing is so much better). I can't remember the authors but I should ask - they're in my Kindle Archives... 

Oh, and I did enjoy the Twilight books when I read them - I'd never read them again because I know I'd be more aware of the writing flaws a second time around, not to mention the movies pretty much put the nail in the coffin...so to speak. But I couldn't even get to the "naughty bits" of "50", my Kindle was in danger of being thrown against a wall.


----------



## Morgan Gallagher (Feb 13, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I think it's perfectly valid to read blurbs and reviews and come to the conclusion that it's "not for me".
> 
> I don't think it's valid to say, "because I don't think it's for me, I also don't think it's for anyone else."


Well, we should be fine then. As I've not said that.

What I said, was that I think there are problems with the underlying message in this type of thing (when it's all over mainstream media without context) for some sections of the population who may not be able to form accurate impressions of the real world, from this type of portrayal without an overt fantasy over-structure

Just like I don't let my 5 year old watch television adverts designed for five year olds. If I had a fifteen year old daughter, I'd be doing some serious work on contextualising Twilight and 50 Shades for her, if she wanted to read them.

I'd be aware that forming minds need support and context, in understanding some media and genre codes.

And I will certainly be having the same conversation with my son when he gets to be fifteen.

Because supporting younger minds as they form their own sense of identity, in how they approach, absorb and understand adult concepts and situations is something that's pretty vital.

And teaching our daughters that men who act this way in books, to play out fantasies from middle aged women who are so dang tired of doing it all and being it all, it's nice to fantasise about the man who takes choice away from us, but its not real... and therefore they shouldn't see this as real, or a role model or desired... is pretty dang important.

Just like it's important for them to see open debate about it when they look themselves. Given the rate of sexual abuse from their peers that teenage girls currently suffer, it's pretty important to say "You have a right to say no, and for that to mean no." and "Your love won't make him better." In fact, it's desperately important to say that to teenage girls, every single day, until they absorb it and understand it and live by it. So that when they go to college and find a sexual stalker refusing to hear 'no' as 'no', that they call the police on his ass and have a restraining order put on him.

It's important to look between how women are treated in fiction, and how they are treated in real life, and perhaps draw conclusions that one may inform the other and to empower young girls to see those connections and to allow them to develop a pathway out of it for themselves. It's certainly a skill all emerging adults should have.

What is a meme at the moment, may indeed serve to look at underlying social issues and pressures of the day and may say something about the role and status of women in the world. I'd perhaps encourage a daughter to have the self-resolve to reject such a damaging paradigm as anything to do with her. It's certainly something I work on every day with my son, when he comes across this sort of paradigm as what it is to be male.

But hey, it's just a book. Not a reflection on current society, right? It's not a race away best seller for any other reason than how it's well written, and how superbly constructed it is. It's not like is speaks to us, of something in the air, at the moment. No zeitgeist here, right?

It's just a book.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Morgan, I basically agree with you, but I'm not going to try to help you make the argument because in my experience this is like politics and religion. No one convinces anyone else, and people make each other angry. I'm old enough to have seen things swing toward the anything goes side in my lifetime, and I believe it will swing back eventually although I won't live to see it.

However, I will make the argument that if 50 Shades had been written with a less than super rich "hero," it would never have such an audience, so in evaluating it as a reflection of society, you have to take into account how materialistic we've become. I truly believe that a lot of what is sexy and appealing from a billionaire would be perverted and even criminal if done by a gangbanger. It would also make a big difference if the guy were ugly.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

ellenoc said:


> However, I will make the argument that if 50 Shades had been written with a less than super rich "hero," it would never have such an audience, so in evaluating it as a reflection of society, you have to take into account how materialistic we've become. I truly believe that a lot of what is sexy and appealing from a billionaire would be perverted and even criminal if done by a gangbanger. It would also make a big difference if the guy were ugly.


Oh - GOOD POINTS! The last are the best ones!

Handsome rich men can be heroes while doing things that would make a 'poor' man into a black-hearted villain!


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I stay out of people's sexual fantasies. What they fantasize about is simply none of my business. People fantasize about all sorts of stuff. I don't see why a BDSM fantasy book should look like an actual BDSM relationship. It's fantasy, fantasy often doesn't look like the reality.

If 50 Shades is no objectionable, what about The Story of O, or all those Victorian erotic novels? Plenty of people enjoyed them, but didn't want to actually live out the book. I haven't read 50 Shades, nor do I intend to, so I can't have an informed opinion on the book. But if people like it, I'll show them the respect of not condemning their fantasies.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

I don't worry too much about the effect of _Fifty Shades_ on teen readers, because so far it mainly seems to appeal to a demographic of women over thirty, unlike _Twilight_ which actually was a huge hit with teens before the Moms discovered it. Of course, teens will eventually read it, if only because it's got the reputation of a book with a lot of sex and few things are more fascinating to teens than the promise of sex.

Besides, most of us have read or watched things as teenagers that were hugely problematic. _Flowers in the Attic_ or a 1970s rapetastic bodiceripper romance are not exactly hot models for relationships either. Yet I bet that most of us didn't grow up to commit incest with our own brothers or constantly get our clothes ripped off and ravished by some guy looking suspiciously like Fabio. So most teens can handle problematic material.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't point out that the kind of sex depicted in _Fifty Shades_ or a porn video on the internet or a 1970s bodiceripper has no more to do with real sex than a car chase heavy action blockbuster has to do with real police work. I'm a teacher and most of my students, including 11 or 12-year-olds, have probably seen porn videos on the internet at some time. I'd be much happier, if they didn't see that, but the truth is that most of them have. And really the best way to deal with that reality is telling the students that porn has very little to do with real sex and real life, that some people like things about sex that others find weird or downright icky and that they should switch off and/or call an adult if they come across something that makes them uncomfortable.

I agree about the widespread lack of boundaries among teenagers. I often find myself forced to tell kids that it's normal and natural to have sexual desire, but that it's not okay to touch another person intimately without asking for their consent first and that you should respect their right to say "no" and that it's perfectly okay to say "No", if someone touches you or does something else that makes you uncomfortable. Shockingly, the fact that it's okay to say "no" is a revelation for many kids. This is really basic stuff that the parents should tell their kids, but way too many of them don't, either because the subject makes them uncomfortable or because they don't want to imagine that their 12-year-old kid is interested in sex and might try to touch a girl's breast or a boy's crotch.

Back to books, I didn't actually mind _Twilight_ so much, though I was a bit baffled why this particular series was so popular, when there were so many better paranormal romances and urban fantasy novels, including some YA, out there. But while the relationship dynamics in _Twilight_ were clearly problematic, Bella is not as passive as many make her out to be. Because the whole Twilight saga is basically a repetition of the same pattern over and over again. Bella wants something. Edward/Jacob/the other Cullens/Charlie try to stop Bella for her own good. Bella ignores them all, does what she wants anyway, gets herself in danger, but finally gets what she wants. Of course, the things that Bella wants (Edward, get married right out of school, have a baby at 20) are not things that young woman Bella's age should want. So yes, Bella makes stupid choices, but she's quite active about making them.

As for _Fifty Shades of Grey_ (which I've not read, though I've read the sample and detailed summaries), I must admit that the book's success does bother me. Not just because it's badly written (though it is), but because the stone age gender relations bother me. Now the majority of the readers of this book are not teen girls, but adult women, modern educated adult women. And these women turn a borderline abusive billionaire with the sort of biography that's normally only found in the serial killer of the week on _Criminal Minds_ (and I totally want _Criminals Minds_ to make a _Fifty Shades_ parody where a Christian Grey like character leaves behind a string of dead submissives) into the greatest romantic hero of our age. For goodness' sake, why? It can't be the sex, because there's a lot of erotica out there (including BDSM stuff) that's better written and contains hot sex, whereas it takes a long time for _Fifty Shades_ to get to the sex at all and once it does, it's described in almost ridiculously polite terms. So what is it? That the guy is rich and hot and gives the heroine Audis (I guess the Ferrari dealer was closed)? And haven't women put the Cinderella fantasy behind them already?

On it's own, _Fifty Shades_ would just be one bad book or three, but since it's become this huge media phenomenon the copycats (like _Bared to You_) have started popping up all over. Now I have read Silvia Day and she's a good writer, so _Bared to You_ is almost certainly superior to _Fifty Shades_. But if like me you prefer your romance with equal gender relationships, which can be difficult enough to find in a genre still obsessed with controlling alpha males even under normal conditions, you won't be exactly thrilled about the coming flood of romances featuring ultra-controlling billionaires and innocent virginal doormats with gender relations straight from the stone age. Especially since the romance genre has finally recovered from the "raped into love" plots so common in the 1970s and 1980s and now features more equal relationships and stronger women.

And yes, there is a cultural component here, because so far _Fifty Shades_ has only been this really huge success in the what could be called the Anglosphere for lack of a better term, i.e. the US, UK, Australia and other English speaking countries. It did come to Germany last month with some advance hype as "this erotic mega bestseller from the US", but so far the response has been "Meh, badly written, lame sex and not proper BDSM either". The success is nowhere near US levels and also trails behind that of other erotic bestsellers such as _Wetlands_ or _Salt on our Skin_ (neither of which ever did well in the US).


----------



## Morgan Gallagher (Feb 13, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Besides, most of us have read or watched things as teenagers that were hugely problematic. _Flowers in the Attic_ or a 1970s rapetastic bodiceripper romance are not exactly hot models for relationships either. Yet I bet that most of us didn't grow up to commit incest with our own brothers or constantly get our clothes ripped off and ravished by some guy looking suspiciously like Fabio. So most teens can handle problematic material.
> 
> That doesn't mean that you shouldn't point out that the kind of sex depicted in _Fifty Shades_ or a porn video on the internet or a 1970s bodiceripper has no more to do with real sex than a car chase heavy action blockbuster has to do with real police work. I'm a teacher and most of my students, including 11 or 12-year-olds, have probably seen porn videos on the internet at some time. I'd be much happier, if they didn't see that, but the truth is that most of them have. And really the best way to deal with that reality is telling the students that porn has very little to do with real sex and real life, that some people like things about sex that others find weird or downright icky and that they should switch off and/or call an adult if they come across something that makes them uncomfortable.


Well see this is where we disagree. I didn't live in a culture where locking your kids in the attic and trying to poison them in an attic was a societal norm. So when I read it as a teenager it was just something horrific and out of the ordinary. Likewise, I never wore gowns and rode about in carriages.

However. Where I grew up it was normal for a proportion of the women to be knocked around by their men. And women would turn up with black eyes, and women would have fights in the street over over their men. And it was generally recognised that all women needed a slap now and then to keep them under control, and the men who didn't slap now and then, where the odd ones.

In that culture, the concept that the woman had to do the work to keep the man happy, and that most, if not all women, required a slap to make them happy, was pretty strong. And that beauty was suffering, and you did it as you were expected to suffer for your beauty.

To day, you will still here in every playground, that when a boy is bullying a girl in his class, the girl is told "He just likes you." I have friends coping with this right now, today. And the message is the girl should be pleased she's been singled out by that by for aggressive attention, as it's his way of saying he likes her whilst staying cool with his mates. And if she fights back, she's going to lose the chance of 'getting' him.

These things happen every day, today. And they are not healthy messages for girls to get.

On the porn, we have huge problems with the type of porn being viewed by our teenagers here Cora. It's causing massive self-respect issues based on doll like stereotypes in the porn being accessed. As you're in Germany, there is a good chance you're not aware of what a lot of the porn being fed out teenagers on the Net is like. The women are hair free and have had labia surgery to give them the vulva of children. Young girls are begging for labia surgery for their own bodies at 12, 13, 15. They are 'wrong' as they have labial lips and they are asking parents for the surgery in order to allow them to be 'normal'.

Likewise, few young girls have genital hair. It has to be shaved. They are made fun off for having 'dirty' fur muffs, and it is expected they must be smooth for their boyfriends. And we're talking 14 and 15 year olds here.

The impact of media en masse is extremely problematic for our teenagers at the moment, particularly the girls. As a teacher of teenagers, I could tell you stories that would get me banned in here for telling them. It's bloodcurdlingly awful, what a lot of girls are going through, in order for them to fit into 'normal' stereotypes. The girl who can stand against this, and tell everyone to go do one, does exist. The strong girl isn't going to be touched by much.

The a proportion of the rest is already being bombarded with negative images about how to be a female (a clean shaven neutral porn star) how to act like a girl (If you love him, you shave and give in, you don't want the other boys laughing at your boyfriend as you have a dirty muff) and that having and keeping that boyfriend sexually, defines their status. These are huge problems. For our boys and for our girls.

In this light, I worry about the mainstream presentation of Twilight and 50 Shades, without serious objection to the sub-text, and context for such teens to understand they are metaphors, analogies, fantasies etc.

Therefore I think it's important to state the problematic nature of how it's being presented in the mainstream media without reference to the sub-text being labelled and discussed as 'not how people act' in real life. These books are in the supermarket 'special offer' dumpsters in our supermarket. The presentation is that they are like bread, butter and veggies. There is no context in which those kids can know they have very specific conventions and are speaking to a very specific type of adult play. They're stocked as commodities on the same level as apples. Teenagers seeing that, and then reading the story, have no way of knowing this isn't perfectly normal behaviour for a (rich, very good point on the rich) male and they shouldn't respond badly if they get to go to college and are lucky enough to be stalked in this manner until they give in.

Interesting that people have gone on about the sex. I've not mentioned the sex at all. I view this book in exactly the same way I view Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty. Another story where the girl is abused and made to suffer, whilst awaiting the hero who will rescue her. And very much the Beauty and the Beast - where the girl is taken from all she knows, made to be a prisoner for a monster, and whose job it is to save the monster from himself by loving him enough for him to get past his monsterhood.

These are pernicious stereotypes in our culture that have existed for hundreds of years that teach our girls to suffer for the cause of putting up with a man and healing him. They are utterly horrible. And we need better stories.

Just like we need open discussions where you can say "I don't like this." and "I worry about the damage this may do in context."

I don't watch boxing matches or bull fighting. I think both are wrong. I don't ban others from taking part, and I don't condemn others for taking part. My son loves fake boxing in cartoons. I tell him I won't watch it, and why. I try and give him context so he'll understand why I think it's damaging to watch people hitting each other for other people's pleasure and as they need to earn money to pay the bills.

I'll leave this debate with a picture that says it in less than a thousand words.










Oh yeah, it's the internet. So I have to say it again: not saying anything should be banned. Not saying anyone should be told not to read. Am saying the subtext needs to be put into clear context, so those still growing their sense of self, know it's not 'real'.

Because heaven knows, the messages girls are bombarded with, constantly, that their role is to support the monster, are all too real. And those messages need context and kids need support in understanding them. So I really do agree with a lot the article says. You know, the article that this debate here, is about?

Oh yeah,the internet, again. I don't support the preposterous way the women in the article proposes to deal with the debate. I said that up there a few miles back. But, you know, it's the internet, so like, you have to launch on all sides. I said I support much of what she says. I think how she is dealing with her view of it, it foolish and stupid. There, hope that is clear enough.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Morgan, with all due respect, have you read the book? Because, again, my problem with your comments is that they seem to be based on what you _think_ the book is about rather than on what you _know_ the book is about from actually having read it yourself. If I've misunderstood that, I apologize.

I've not read it either. Maybe all the things you say are true. But I'm not going to make that judgement, or suggest that others should agree with me on it, unless I've actually read the book and know for sure whereof I speak.

If one of my nieces wanted to read it, I wouldn't tell her she couldn't, or shouldn't, or warn her about how bad the message is. (I haven't read it, I don't _know_ what the message is! ) What I would do is say, "Hmmm, how about I read it first and make sure you're ready for it?" With the older one I'd probably just suggest we read it at the same time. And then we'd discuss it. And frankly, I'd not be telling her what I thought, but asking her questions to help her figure out what she thought. I couldn't do any of that unless I'd read the book too.

FWIW, I did this all the time with my son when he was in school. . . .I always read his assigned reading and we'd talk about it. Made him into a thoughtful, discerning reader and, even now, he'll give me excellent feedback on the books he reads.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

Just a note, 50 Shades is not a book for teenagers. Also, as far as I can tell, since it's predominantly being read by older women, it's also not a book I see teens as having any interest in.

Also, I see a very different group of teens and young adults. BTW, pubic shaving seems to really drive some older people to apoplexy, but near as I can tell everyone in Gen Y has their pubes shaved. It's men and women. It's voluntary. It's not a big deal. It's a generational thing that I suspect has more to do with the societal obsession Gen Y grew up with about being super clean germ free than it does with looking childlike. It doesn't seem to be about some kind of negative peer pressure. In fact, I think Gen-Y has the healthiest attitude to sex of any generation. They seem to have internalized a lot of the changes in culture and dropped a lot of the negative baggage.

Also, I'm only 5 chapters into Twilight (listening to the audio book from the library), but I already feel like Twilight is a lot more regressive on messages than 50 was. I'm less troubled by the "courting the screwed up alpha" than I am by what I've heard of the abstinence (something you sure can't accuse 50 of!) and early marriage stuff.



> Flowers in the Attic or a 1970s rapetastic bodiceripper romance are not exactly hot models for relationships either. Yet I bet that most of us didn't grow up to commit incest with our own brothers or constantly get our clothes ripped off and ravished by some guy looking suspiciously like Fabio. So most teens can handle problematic material.


I should toss this in as a bit of an amusing aside, but while I don't think it had any negative effects on our generation, I will say that there is a ludicrously voracious market for incest erotica and I wonder if it's part of why.


----------



## Morgan Gallagher (Feb 13, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Morgan, with all due respect, have you read the book? Because, again, my problem with your comments is that they seem to be based on what you _think_ the book is about rather than on what you _know_ the book is about from actually having read it yourself. If I've misunderstood that, I apologize.
> 
> I've not read it either. Maybe all the things you say are true. But I'm not going to make that judgement, or suggest that others should agree with me on it, unless I've actually read the book and know for sure whereof I speak.


I've never suggested anyone agree with me. I've stated what I think and feel on the subject. That's called 'debate'. You put your side, others put their's. At no point have I stated anyone should agree with me, or tried to make them change how they feel. Just Making That Clear.

My judgement is not made in isolation. People I know and trust have read the book. Hell, people I know who like the book for them, agree that they'd not want to see it in the hands of their own 15 year old.

You can form your opinion in conjunction with others, you know. I've _researched_ the book and decided I don't want to bother reading it. I've read comments from sensible, intelligent people who have read the book, and who've pointed out the flaws in the sub text.

I posted an article highlighting the flaws in the sub-text. I agree with everyone who has read the book and pointed out the flaws in the sub-text.

It's a pretty common stereotype, the flaw in the subtext.

I don't read books, with that flaw in the sub-text.

When that flaw appears in the sub-text of books, I point out to others, that the flaw in the sub-text is pretty major for me, and that I consider it to be a challenging in terms of how that pernicious stereo type in major mainstream culture is pretty problematic for how we raise our kids, especially our daughters.

It's not as if my opinion of the flaw in the sub-text is isolated. It exists with an entire body of published reviews by people who have read the book and _highlighted the flaw in the sub-text._ Have this one, it's a fun read.: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/340987215

She's read the book - so no doubt her views are valid? I agree with her, how shallow of me! I feel she argued her case well. I liked her style and argument. So sue me.

And on that, I am going back to work and not wasting another moment on defending why I don't like _the flaw in the sub-text of the book.._.


----------



## leep (Aug 25, 2011)

Perhaps the key to the success of the book is the topic, it certainly seems to get people talking about things which are normally off-limits (and from I can gather, it's success isn't down the writing, not read it myself).

Strangely I've seen arguments in both directions; it seems to be both a step forward and a step back for women in the bedroom, depending on who's arguing.

You take from it what you will I guess.


----------



## MalloryMoutinho (Aug 24, 2012)

I'm pretty sure that even at 13 I knew that the love scenes described in any book were not even close to what the reality would one day be. I mean seriously, think of some of the things you've read. Can you imagine your husband/bf/lover/whatever saying or doing some of those things? I can't. In fact, many of the things I enjoy reading would cause me to laugh uncontrollably if my husband ever attempted them.

And, let's be serious...a book burning will no longer suffice. This would require an e-reader burning! NOOOOOOOOO!


----------



## Karen Mead (Jul 2, 2012)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Back to books, I didn't actually mind _Twilight_ so much, though I was a bit baffled why this particular series was so popular, when there were so many better paranormal romances and urban fantasy novels, including some YA, out there. But while the relationship dynamics in _Twilight_ were clearly problematic, Bella is not as passive as many make her out to be. Because the whole Twilight saga is basically a repetition of the same pattern over and over again. Bella wants something. Edward/Jacob/the other Cullens/Charlie try to stop Bella for her own good. Bella ignores them all, does what she wants anyway, gets herself in danger, but finally gets what she wants. Of course, the things that Bella wants (Edward, get married right out of school, have a baby at 20) are not things that young woman Bella's age should want. So yes, Bella makes stupid choices, but she's quite active about making them.


THANK YOU. I'm not a big fan of Twilight, more neutral on the whole thing, but it amazes me the things people say about Bella that are completely at odds with the things the character actually does.

As to the OP, I think there's a reason why some women enjoy bodice-rippers, which is essentially what 50shades is. If I read a bodice-ripper, it doesn't mean I'm cool with some guy coming and ripping open my bodice on any given day. I don't condemn other people for their fantasy life, or assume they need to be protected from their fantasies for their own good.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

Good point on 'Bodice Rippers' - they're so infamous that all romance novels are still tarred with that nasty term. The fact is that 50 Shades of Spank me is a rehashing of the 'feminist backlash' books of the 1970's. I ran into a number of them as a kid - the only reason I remember them is because they were such stinkers. 

Let's see, what WAS her name?...Beatrice Small? She wrote some bodice ripping doozies back in the day. There was another one, Joanna Lindsey? And there was another series, Sci Fi - that was BDSM on a primative planet...John Norman? or a woman who wrote identical stuff - Sharon Green?

These authors were hugely famous at the time - their books were everywhere. Sound familiar?


----------



## Karen Mead (Jul 2, 2012)

Morgan Gallagher said:


> You can form your opinion in conjunction with others, you know. I've _researched_ the book and decided I don't want to bother reading it. I've read comments from sensible, intelligent people who have read the book, and who've pointed out the flaws in the sub text.


You certainly can, just don't be surprised if people don't harbor a lot of respect for an admittedly uneducated opinion. An opinion on a book you haven't ready will always be uneducated, regardless of how many "sensible, intelligent" people agree with what you _assume_ your opinion of the book would be.

I don't really understand where you're coming from. If you're that concerned with this particular "flaw in the subtext," I would think you would actually want to read books that contain it, to better know your enemy and to be able to more effectively skewer others' defenses of such books with first-hand knowledge. That is, if you're interested in actually participating in a debate.

K.A. Jordan: I'm not familiar with any of those authors, but I'm not surprised. The more things change...


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> And there was another series, Sci Fi - that was BDSM on a primative planet...John Norman?


Yes, Gor. The paperbacks used to be ubiquitous back in the 70s and 80s. Extremely misogynist stuff that portrayed women as having a biological essentialist submissive nature, which was the only true way to be happy, and which men had a responsibility to install into women. The author, a dweeby nerd college professor, seems to actually believe his crap.

I really do not see 50 Shades as at all reminiscent of these that type of thing at all. It has some issues with trying to fix a messed up guy, but it's nowhere in the same league. It's really no worse than any standard romance novel and better than many. It just has more sex, some BDSM, and a whole lot more sales.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I think I read one Gor book, when I was in high school. I had consumed all the science fiction our small school library had, so I grabbed up whatever I could find. I don't remember much of it. I don't recall that the Gor books were terribly popular with women, while with 50 Shades readership is domainated (so to speak) by women.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

I bought a Gor book for the same reason. I was expecting a random sort of Conan thing. Not quite what I got.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Morgan Gallagher said:


> "It really is about a domestic violence perpetrator, taking someone who is less powerful, inexperienced, not entirely confident about the area of life she is being led into, and then spinning her a yarn. Then he starts doing absolutely horrific sexual things to her &#8230; He gradually moves her boundaries, normalising the violence against her. It's the whole mythology that women want to be hurt."
> 
> The story's "subliminal message", said Phillipson, is the classic narrative of domestic violence - "that you can heal this broken man, that if you just love him enough and take his [crap] enough, he will get better.
> 
> ...


Horrible, damaging, dangerous message. It is also worthwhile to look at where the message is coming from.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

Karen Mead said:


> I don't really understand where you're coming from. If you're that concerned with this particular "flaw in the subtext," _I would think you would actually want to read books that_ contain it, to better know your enemy and to be able to more effectively skewer others' defenses of such books with first-hand knowledge. That is, if you're interested in actually participating in a debate.


I disagree - your argument sounds suspicously like 'don't knock it until you've tried it.' There are hundreds of excerpts of the book all OVER the internet. Several people, whose opinions I respect have quoted sections. A person does NOT need to read an entire book to know that they are going to offended by it's content.

I'm taking a very strong stand. Because Morgan finds the subtext in those novels offensive does NOT mean she has to read them.

There is nothing wrong wIth NOT WANTING TO READ THOSE BOOKS. I'll get off my soap box now. I've had this type of argument enough times to have really deep emotional reactions. The very first time it was someone who stated one MUST read child porn to in order to 'Know Your Enemy." It doesn't work that way.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Some people think the little darlings are just too weak-minded to know what books are acceptable for them to read, and think that someone needs to hold their hands and pick out books for them. I have no interest in 50 Shades, but I disagree strongly with this. I'll show people the respect of considering them capable of picking out their own books.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> There are hundreds of excerpts of the book all OVER the internet. Several people, whose opinions I respect have quoted sections. A person does NOT need to read an entire book to know that they are going to offended by it's content.


You seem to have a relatively solid handle on what is in the book. There are issues one can point out with romance books that feature a damaged male who love is supposed to heal. They go a lot further than just Twilight/50 Shades/Gabriels Inferno though.

However, in the case of the book burner, there is a marked difference between what she says the book contains and what it actually contains. It is not a book in which a woman is voluntarily subject to violent spousal abuse and endures this because she's trying to fix him. That's not true. The "violence" in the book is entirely about BDSM sexual practices.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

I started a tongue in cheek thread on facebook, 50 ways to cut the books up to make them enjoyable (for people who don't like the books.)

I'm getting some interesting responses.

One is tearing out the pages to make origami cranes.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Katie Elle said:


> You seem to have a relatively solid handle on what is in the book. However, in the case of the book burner, there is a marked difference between what she says the book contains and what it actually contains.


It reminds me of the people who condemn the Harry Potter books, without having read them. They don't have an informed opinion.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

QuantumIguana said:


> Some people think the little darlings are just too weak-minded to know what books are acceptable for them to read, and think that someone needs to hold their hands and pick out books for them. I have no interest in 50 Shades, but I disagree strongly with this. I'll show people the respect of considering them capable of picking out their own books.


This will a blow over when the next Twi-fic comes out. "The Professor and the Co-Ed" is sure to be a massive hit with the same people.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> This will a blow over when the next Twi-fic comes out. "The Professor and the Co-Ed" is sure to be a massive hit with the same people.


Too late. May I present The University of Edward Masen aka Gabriel's Inferno and Gabriel's Rapture. This one includes no BDSM, a far less domineering hero, and a whole heap of Renaissance theology and references.


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

K. A. Jordan said:


> A person does NOT need to read an entire book to know that they are going to offended by it's content.


True enough - but if that person wants to start a detailed debate about that book, he/she should be prepared to have some of his/her arguments shot down with facts about the book.


----------



## Karen Mead (Jul 2, 2012)

Meemo said:


> True enough - but if that person wants to start a detailed debate about that book, he/she should be prepared to have some of his/her arguments shot down with facts about the book.


Yes, that's exactly it. There's nothing wrong with the OP choosing not to read the book based on what she knows about it, in fact, quite the opposite- that's a good thing, to do research to determine what you may not like beforehand.

However, if you go on a message board to discuss the book, that's different from choosing whether or not you should read it as an individual. That's choosing to participate in a dialogue in which you are not informed.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Karen Mead said:


> THANK YOU. I'm not a big fan of Twilight, more neutral on the whole thing, but it amazes me the things people say about Bella that are completely at odds with the things the character actually does.
> 
> As to the OP, I think there's a reason why some women enjoy bodice-rippers, which is essentially what 50shades is. If I read a bodice-ripper, it doesn't mean I'm cool with some guy coming and ripping open my bodice on any given day. I don't condemn other people for their fantasy life, or assume they need to be protected from their fantasies for their own good.


Actually the theme that disturbed me in Twilight, or one of them, was that being stalked was normal and even desirable. It was creepy.


----------

