# What Fifty Shades Of Grey's popularity says about women



## philstern (Mar 14, 2011)

Could one argue that the popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey demolishes the stereotypical views women have of themselves? Here's a book about a sexual sadist deflowering and debasing a young virgin, yet women can't get enough of it. To be honest, as a man, it all seems rather silly. Entertaining, but not arousing. I'm curious as to why women find it so compelling.


----------



## Candee15 (Jan 31, 2010)

philstern said:


> Could one argue that the popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey demolishes the stereotypical views women have of themselves? Here's a book about a sexual sadist deflowering and debasing a young virgin, yet women can't get enough of it. To be honest, as a man, it all seems rather silly. Entertaining, but not arousing. I'm curious as to why women find it so compelling.


I sooooooo agree with you! I am one woman who does NOT like the premise of the book. I don't understand how women could like this story. I honestly don't get it.


----------



## philstern (Mar 14, 2011)

Oh, I'm not even saying women shouldn't like it. People like what they like, and its popularity speaks for itself.

But if you stopped fifty women on the street and described the plot, all fifty would say they wouldn't read it. Yet they do. That's the really fascinating thing about the whole Fifty Shades Of Grey experience.


----------



## charlesatan (May 8, 2012)

For me, there's no single, defining archetype for women (or men for that matter).

Erotica has always been popular and has a strong niche/following.

The same goes for Twilight. And this series in particular has been linked to that, acquired much hype, etc.


----------



## Twofishes (May 30, 2012)

philstern said:


> I'm curious as to why women find it so compelling.


Mainstream American and British culture focus almost entirely on male sexuality(i.e. The part of mainstream, first world culture that explores sexuality almost always caters to heterosexual men.). Women are sexually repressed by society. Whenever any mass market media that explores women's sexuality gains a foothold in society it stands a good chances at becoming a runaway success(The Sex in the City effect).



philstern said:


> Fifty Shades of Grey demolishes the stereotypical views women have of themselves?


I think it's naive(and quite possibly sexist) to assume(and insinuate) that a woman who enjoys BDSM cannot also be a woman who is empowered. 


philstern said:


> But if you stopped fifty women on the street and described the plot, all fifty would say they wouldn't read it. Yet they do. That's the really fascinating thing about the whole Fifty Shades Of Grey experience.


I don't think it's odd that women don't usually freely admit there sexual lifestyles or desires to people giving street surveys on the topic of BDSM erotica///


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

philstern said:


> Here's a book about a sexual sadist deflowering and debasing a young virgin, yet women can't get enough of it.


That isn't new. That was the theme in a lot of the older type historical romances in the 70's, early 80's.

A book says nothing about women. What women read says nothing about them, just like what men read says nothing about them. Its fiction. Nothing more, nothing less.

It would be nice to get to a point where women's reading choices aren't snickered about though. Oh wow, women reading about sex. Kinky sex. Imagine that  Are people really that surprised about that? Really?

By the way there are many many better books out there doing what fifty did a lot better. Again, not new though.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

Remember _Dracula?_


----------



## A. Cross (Jun 13, 2012)

I haven't read the book, but am interested in this debate nonetheless because it's thought provoking.  Isn't a woman being apologetic about or ashamed of her sexual preferences just caving in to stereotypes?


----------



## AshleyAndrews (Jun 13, 2012)

charlesatan said:


> For me, there's no single, defining archetype for women (or men for that matter).
> 
> Erotica has always been popular and has a strong niche/following.


I think these are good points. And we must remember that Romance Novels have been the number one selling mass market paper back category for a long time. I believe I heard that 55% of all paperbacks sold are romance novels.

I think the introduction of e reader devices like Kindle make it even more tempting to read romance novels. Now no one has to know what you are reading on your kindle while you are in public places. The cover of the book is hidden within the kindle device compared to reading a paperback where everyone can see what you are reading. Plus wives can easily hide the books they are reading on their kindles from their husbands! 

PS. It is not just women who read these. I've heard that there is a growing segment of men who also enjoy reading romance novels.


----------



## bltackett (Jun 13, 2012)

I enjoy a good romance novel and I'm not ashamed to admit it, but I do stress the phrase "good romance novel".  As far as Fifty Shades goes I'm not one bit surprised by it's popularity or it's success among women.  As free and open as the vast majority of America is we are still a very sexually repressed nation, women and men a like.  We are also a rather conservative nation and we place a lot of importance on appearance and social norms.  I'm not going to dive into the sociological stand point on this one, but I will say it is in our nature to gravitate toward things that we are taught are bad, wrong, or naughty.  Herman Melville said it the best.  "One trembles to think of that mysterious thing in the soul, which seems to acknowledge no human jurisdiction, but in spite of the individual's own innocent self, will still dream horrid dreams, and mutter unmentionable thoughts."


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

philstern said:


> Could one argue that the popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey demolishes the stereotypical views women have of themselves? Here's a book about a sexual sadist deflowering and debasing a young virgin, yet women can't get enough of it. To be honest, as a man, it all seems rather silly. Entertaining, but not arousing. I'm curious as to why women find it so compelling.


One can argue just about anything, so I guess that's one possibility. *shrug*

I'm not sure what its popularity says about anyone except those that have actually read it. I don't get it and I don't plan on reading it. I never understood the mania over _The Da Vinci Code_ either.

I am getting tired of everything being "50 Shades of...." 

Betsy


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

philstern said:


> Oh, I'm not even saying women shouldn't like it. People like what they like, and its popularity speaks for itself.
> 
> But if you stopped fifty women on the street and described the plot, all fifty would say they wouldn't read it. Yet they do. That's the really fascinating thing about the whole Fifty Shades Of Grey experience.


People read it because they hear about it. Several of those in my book clubs have read it. Some like it, some don't. The hype is why most people read it, but I suspect its popularity will be short-lived in the scheme of things. The books make the nightly news for crying out loud. My MOTHER asked me what it was all about and said she heard it was naughty. I had to tell her I had no real idea because it wasn't something I was interested in reading. But the curiosity is the "mystique" surrounding a "naughty" book. Mother was quite appalled that such a book would be on the nightly news. Shrug. It's just another scandalous thing that will soon fade.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I haven't read it, and I don't intend to. But it doesn't say anything about women. It is said that men who visit dominatrixes tend to be people who have power in real life, doctors and lawyers and such. Men who don't feel powerful are less likely to have fantasies about being dominated. 

If men who visit dominatrixed tend to be be rather empowered, then we have no reason to think that women who read stories about women being sexually submissive must not be empowered. It's fantasy. The man visiting the dominatrix is really in control, if he doesn't get what he wants, he finds another dominatrix. The women who read such fantasies are also in control, they can put the book down whenever they want.

Even if it isn't just pure fantasy, and it isn't limited to the pages of a book, but gets played out in the bedroom, it still doesn't imply a lack of empowerment. When you are doing something in the bedroom that you want to do, that is empowerment. It is only when you do that which you do not want to do that there is a lack of empowerment.


----------



## jenniferlweil (May 22, 2012)

I actually hear all the hype about this book and picked up. I couldn't even get through the first chapter. Mostly for me it was just writing style. I couldn't get into it, but I agree with what you are saying.

And I think alot of people get swept up in the popularity of it.


----------



## mistyd107 (May 22, 2009)

the only thing that has me remotely curious about this series is that people seem to see it as this fabulous love story. and yet everything I've read myself about it suggests otherwise


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

All it shows me is that women are curious about a book that people talk about non-stop.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

If my critiquers are any indication, the reading tastes of men are quite prudish. Women, when they commented on sex scenes at all, tended to want more exploration, not less. The chorus of "Use fade to black!" was all from the male side.

Even the "boy book" technothrillers don't seem to have a lot of sex in them. Sure, their heroes may have lots of sex, but the reader doesn't see much of it. Those readers don't want sex, they want _sexy women_ lounging around in their bathrobes with their hair messed up, hanging all over the hero, paying him compliments and trying to wrestle him back into bed while he hurries off to his next gunfight.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

John Blackport said:


> If my critiquers are any indication, the reading tastes of men are quite prudish. Women, when they commented on sex scenes at all, tended to want more exploration, not less. The chorus of "Use fade to black!" was all from the male side.
> 
> Even the "boy book" technothrillers don't seem to have a lot of sex in them. Sure, their heroes may have lots of sex, but the reader doesn't see much of it. Those readers don't want to sex, they want _sexy women_ lounging around in their bathrobes with their hair messed up, hanging all over the hero, paying him compliments and trying to wrestle him back into bed while he hurries off to his next gunfight.


Cozy readers (and we are predominately women) are very adamant about "fade to black." It's part and parcel of the genre. There's even sub-genres of the romance genre that prefer fade to black so I don't think it's a male/female thing. It's just dependent on the individual--and the actual writing. Some writers can be quite detailed without being graphic or "too much" for some readers while others are going to be seen as wincingly bad. But like a lot of things, it's all in the eyes of the beholder.

It can make a difference too in how well-read a person is (meaning how much of any particular genre they have read). If they are used to reading romance, their expectations are going to be a lot different than otherwise. Same with any other genre.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Atunah said:


> A book says nothing about women. What women read says nothing about them, just like what men read says nothing about them. Its fiction. Nothing more, nothing less.


I'd say I disagree with that. I think that says something on an individual level and as a gender. Sure, individuals may read random books but most probably have favorite genres and themes.

And as a gender, women probably read about 90% of the 'romance' genre, for example. Maybe less, but not much. And that does say something about women, IMO, and I can think of many things that is indicative of....not that I wish to go into here as much of it would be very unpopluar.

The same with men...reading action novels focusing on war, etc. Probably the great majority of such fiction is read by men, and that is also indicative of many male traits and perspectives....good and bad.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Lursa (aka 9MMare) said:


> I'd say I disagree with that. I think that says something on an individual level and as a gender. Sure, individuals may read random books but most probably have favorite genres and themes.
> 
> And as a gender, women probably read about 90% of the 'romance' genre, for example. Maybe less, but not much. And that does say something about women, IMO, and I can think of many things that is indicative of....not that I wish to go into here as much of it would be very unpopluar.
> 
> The same with men...reading action novels focusing on war, etc. Probably the great majority of such fiction is read by men, and that is also indicative of many male traits and perspectives....good and bad.


To play the role of the devil here, this could be a cultural thing as opposed to a gender thing. In WW1, for example, Pride and Prejudice was a highly read book by soldiers in the trenches. Throughout the 19th century, romantic poets were men and read by men as much as woman.

So perhaps this tells us a lot about modern female culture, as opposed to telling us about women.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I was speaking just specifically of this one book though, not genre's in general. The OP insinuated that this one book says something about women and I don't think one book says anything about really anyone. 

There are most definitely some genre's that are read by one gender more than the other. I read a lot of romance and I am pretty sure the majority of readers and also authors in that genre are women. But I think one thing people sometimes forget about those of us that read romance and happen to be women, is that we are voracious readers and do not only read one genre. 
I sometimes think from reading comments that romance readers are much more open to reading other genre's than those of other genre's are of reading romance.  

The other thing is that really within the genre of romance are so many subgenre that anything is pretty much covered too. From sweet regencies to dark and brutal romantic suspense. From steamy contempo's to delicious erotic romance that pushes the envelope so to speak. 

I just don't think one little book like Fifty says anything other about women than its talked about everywhere. Its not new, its not unique and its not anything shocking or surprising to those reading a lot I guess. 

Heck, I couldn't even finish this book. 

All I am trying to say is that one book does not define a whole gender.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Lursa (aka 9MMare) said:


> I'd say I disagree with that. I think that says something on an individual level and as a gender. Sure, individuals may read random books but most probably have favorite genres and themes.
> 
> And as a gender, women probably read about 90% of the 'romance' genre, for example. Maybe less, but not much. And that does say something about women, IMO, and I can think of many things that is indicative of....not that I wish to go into here as much of it would be very unpopluar.
> 
> The same with men...reading action novels focusing on war, etc. Probably the great majority of such fiction is read by men, and that is also indicative of many male traits and perspectives....good and bad.


At most, it says that you like those sort of books. Just because a person reads about war doesn't mean that they want to go to war. Just because someone reads about chivalrous romance doesn't mean they actually want to put on some armor, get on the plow horse and go about being a knight-errant. And just because someone reads books with certian sexual fantasies doesn't mean they actually want to do them.

It reminds me of one of Aesop's fables:

_Early one morning a hungry Wolf was prowling around a cottage at the edge of a village, when he heard a child crying in the house. Then he heard the Mother's voice say:

"Hush, child, hush! Stop your crying, or I will give you to the Wolf!"

Surprised but delighted at the prospect of so delicious a meal, the Wolf settled down under an open window, expecting every moment to have the child handed out to him. But though the little one continued to fret, the Wolf waited all day in vain. Then, toward nightfall, he heard the Mother's voice again as she sat down near the window to sing and rock her baby to sleep.

"There, child, there! The Wolf shall not get you. No, no! Daddy is watching and Daddy will kill him if he should come near!"

Just then the Father came within sight of the home, and the Wolf was barely able to save himself from the Dogs by a clever bit of running._


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> To play the role of the devil here, this could be a cultural thing as opposed to a gender thing. In WW1, for example, Pride and Prejudice was a highly read book by soldiers in the trenches. Throughout the 19th century, romantic poets were men and read by men as much as woman.
> 
> So perhaps this tells us a lot about modern female culture, as opposed to telling us about women.


Yes, that is a good point too. So when did it suddenly become "unmanly" to be romantic. And why.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

There are various studies about this, but many point to the aftermath of WW2. The western world had just faced two major conflicts back-to-back. The concept of "family" was still distorted by the Victorian image of it (since the Roaring 20s image was quickly replaced by the Great Depression), and then we developed a distorted and warped image of family and gender roles.

With that said, I have written papers arguing for and against the above, so you know...


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I think TV did a lot to divide things into male and female roles.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

QuantumIguana said:


> I think TV did a lot to divide things into male and female roles.


Did TV divide the roles or did it reinforce what was already developing?

(there are pro and con arguments to your statement. It's one that I've personally never been able to form an opinion on when addressing the previous era. However, I will definitely say it reinforces the roles today).


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

QuantumIguana said:


> I think TV did a lot to divide things into male and female roles.


right....that never existed before....


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Chad Winters said:


> right....that never existed before....


I never said or implied that it hadn't _existed_ before. But when everyone is seeing the same messages, conformity increases. Before TV messages weren't as unified. The founding fathers wore lace and wigs and read poetry. No one thought them to be unmanly. Before "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche" was published, quiche was just another food. You either ate it or you didn't, depending on whether or not you liked it. I'm not very fond of it myself. But when this book came out, a great many men became anti-quiche out of a desire to avoid being seen as unmanly.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Chad Winters said:


> right....that never existed before....


Extend the comment to "media" and there is a significant amount of evidence to show that media has been key in maintaining, promoting, and changing gender roles.

Therefore, QI's statement is not invalid, especially since there was a fair bit of regression during the 40s and 50s, similar to the regression that happened after the Glorious Revolution (in terms of Charles's reign before), the Victorian era (in reference to the lax Regency), and indeed the current age compared to the 80s.

Ok, I promise to stop now. Sorry, folks.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

QuantumIguana said:


> I never said or implied that it hadn't _existed_ before. But when everyone is seeing the same messages, conformity increases. Before TV messages weren't as unified. The founding fathers wore lace and wigs and read poetry. No one thought them to be unmanly. Before "*Real Men Don't Eat Quiche*" was published, quiche was just another food. You either ate it or you didn't, depending on whether or not you liked it. I'm not very fond of it myself. But when this book came out, a great many men became anti-quiche out of a desire to avoid being seen as unmanly.


Excellent modern reference.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

QuantumIguana said:


> I never said or implied that it hadn't _existed_ before. But when everyone is seeing the same messages, conformity increases. Before TV messages weren't as unified. The founding fathers wore lace and wigs and read poetry. No one thought them to be unmanly. Before "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche" was published, quiche was just another food. You either ate it or you didn't, depending on whether or not you liked it. I'm not very fond of it myself. But when this book came out, a great many men became anti-quiche out of a desire to avoid being seen as unmanly.


Maybe I'm wrong..(it happens) but I see the exact opposite.

Before the widespread availability of media, especially many different types of media with many different depictions of gender roles, people tended to be confined in experience to thier small local area and conformity increased. If you live in a small town or village then everyone is that way and you may never be exposed to how somone across the country lives.

I don't see this repressive univocal media that has been implied....its wide open and you can find just about anything. Certainly women are depicted now in roles that would never have been thought of in those small isolated towns. Plenty of women action heroes....independent single women, etc.

I would argue that media has decreased conformity.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

In a way. Before mass media, people tended to conform to their local community, but with mass media, you have mass conformity. I'm mostly considering the era when most people had only three channels of TV available. Instead of each community having different messages you had everyone getting the same messages. I'm not demonizing TV, I'm simply saying that it had a significant impact on culture.


----------



## bltackett (Jun 13, 2012)

QuantumIguana said:


> At most, it says that you like those sort of books. Just because a person reads about war doesn't mean that they want to go to war. Just because someone reads about chivalrous romance doesn't mean they actually want to put on some armor, get on the plow horse and go about being a knight-errant. And just because someone reads books with certian sexual fantasies doesn't mean they actually want to do them.


This is one of the more valid points I ran across in this whole post. People tend to forget that reading and writing are an escape from our realities. It allows us to slip into the lives and minds of other characters with different vocations and interests. To me reading and writing are just another form of fantasizing, but an assisted form.



Chad Winters said:


> Maybe I'm wrong..(it happens) but I see the exact opposite.
> 
> Before the widespread availability of media, especially many different types of media with many different depictions of gender roles, people tended to be confined in experience to thier small local area and conformity increased. If you live in a small town or village then everyone is that way and you may never be exposed to how somone across the country lives.
> 
> ...


This is socially relevant today. Trust me on this one. In the area I live in there is a small sect of socially undeveloped people who either can't afford or aren't interested in TV. They rarely leave their small constricted area and if you happen to meet them because you got lost real quick you learn just as quick how different the uninformed can be from those of us who embrace the world at large whole heartedly.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

There is a mistake in your assumptions, however, based on the modern method of media. If we don't watch TV or read the internet, we generally rely on the community and that's it.

In previous eras, newspapers, plays, puppet shows, sermons, and pamphlets were used as forms of media.


----------



## Alpha72 (May 9, 2012)

I actually found the structure of 50 Shades to be rather fascinating. It reminded me a great deal of Jane Eyre (not for the sex, but rather the power dynamic). The structure is very much traditional with a powerful, goregous, nearly perfect man whose one flaw is his inability to get close to another person. The woman then works to change him.

Also, my pet theory on this that women are becoming more comfortable with aberant sexual behaviors. Guys got into this stuff with the advent of the internet and the ability to anonymously download pornography. Now women are getting in on the act in a more verbal/literary way.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Yes, there are people who deliberately isolate themselves from the world. Giving up TV is a symptom of that, not a cause. We had other forms of media before, but we didn't have anything as widespread as TV. Again, I'm mostly talking about the era where most people had access to only three channels of TV. People have complained that by having so many channels has "balkanized" people, and they look back longingly at the days when we all used to watch the same TV programs.

I don't think anyone can dispute that TV - especially in the era were most people only had access to three channels - is an effective method of distributing a message to a vast number of people. If anyone is making assumptions, it's not me. I'm not saying "TV is the root of all evil!" I am merely saying it is reasonable that a widespread change in cultural attitudes may be caused by a widespread change in cultural messages.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

bltackett said:


> This is one of the more valid points I ran across in this whole post. People tend to forget that reading and writing are an escape from our realities. It allows us to slip into the lives and minds of other characters with different vocations and interests. To me reading and writing are just another form of fantasizing, but an assisted form.
> 
> This is socially relevant today. Trust me on this one. In the area I live in there is a small sect of socially undeveloped people who either can't afford or aren't interested in TV. They rarely leave their small constricted area and if you happen to meet them because you got lost real quick you learn just as quick how different the uninformed can be from those of us who embrace the world at large whole heartedly.


Too broad a generalization. I don't watch TV except for sports occasionally. I'm not sure I'd call myself uninformed either. I also know of a community where EVERYONE watches TV, but they tend to watch lots of "shows" and not much news. So they still get their "news" from the community. Ask them what Bertha is up to and they can give you a complete rundown. Ask them about politics and they know who is President and don't care about much else besides the weather. But it's more a culture that simply evolves because the community is small--not because they don't watch TV or have opportunity to watch TV.

I doubt TV has influenced me much these past few years simply because I don't watch much of it. I can see how it influences my mom and her opinions and the neighbor from talking to them. But it's also pretty easy to walk away from and I'm sure there are lot of people who choose to do so.


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

There is nothing new about any of this. I remember this _exact same conversation occurring_ when Ann Rice did her _Beauty_ series. (Under her pen name). And Anais Nin did an even better job of swirling the pot decades before that. Probably happened before that, I just can't think of any examples. The same conversations happened about women and how they mesh their view of themselves with their fantasy, or their erotic fiction. My answer, they same way men do. But I have never been one to think Freud had it all figured out, so maybe I don't read into my choice of fiction as a reflection of my inner self, or a proclamation I have to make to the world. As to an answer to a stranger on the street, how about "I'm sorry I don't remember you, have we met?"


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

QuantumIguana said:


> I never said or implied that it hadn't _existed_ before. But when everyone is seeing the same messages, conformity increases. Before TV messages weren't as unified. The founding fathers wore lace and wigs and read poetry. No one thought them to be unmanly. Before "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche" was published, quiche was just another food. You either ate it or you didn't, depending on whether or not you liked it. I'm not very fond of it myself. But when this book came out, a great many men became anti-quiche out of a desire to avoid being seen as unmanly.


I can think of few things I consider more "unmanly" (really I would refer to it as being "ungrownup", because I think it would be just as silly if a woman did this) than to stop eating a food you really like because someone wrote a book about the food and your manliness/womanliness.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Katharina said:


> If you added the word "some" before women, it would make sense to me. I have
> no idea why some women - or men - would pay money to read about a sadist
> torturing a girl. But then I am claustrophobic. The whole idea of being held against
> your will, and receive pleasure from it, is a mystery to me.


Figuring out people's sexual fantasies is staring into the abyss. Few, if indeed any, people would _actually_ enjoy being held against their will. But fantasizing or pretending, that's often different. There are many head scratchers in people's sexual fantasies. Sometimes I think it is best not to figure it out. There are people who have balloon fetishes. I don't get it, but I don't need to.


----------



## fancynancy (Aug 9, 2009)

All of the authors mentioned in this thread, even in passing, from Ann Rice to Charlotte Bronte to J.K. Rowling were/are FAR better writers than the author of 50 Shades.  Of course, I'm basing that on having read only the first few pages of 50 Shades, but I'm pretty sure the writing didn't get any better further on in the book.  So what the popularity of the book says about the people who read it all the way through, she said most pompously, is that they don't mind abysmal writing.    Seriously, though, maybe I am a snob, but it is a wonder to me that so many people can read such a poorly written book.  Plenty of mediocre writers have made it on to the bestseller lists, but, at least to me, "mediocre" would be a great compliment to this particular author.  I am truly dumbfounded by the popularity of the books.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

People are reading it and enjoying it, so the author must be doing something right.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

philstern said:


> Oh, I'm not even saying women shouldn't like it. People like what they like, and its popularity speaks for itself.
> 
> But if you stopped fifty women on the street and described the plot, all fifty would say they wouldn't read it. Yet they do. That's the really fascinating thing about the whole Fifty Shades Of Grey experience.


No. You are making a very, very large generalization.

If you stopped fifty women on the street and described the plot, probably many would say they wouldn't read it. Some of them would in fact read it. Most others of them wouldn't (since nowhere near a majority of women have read the book).

WOMEN ARE NOT ALL ALIKE. Saying we are is something known as prejudice.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Atunah said:


> ...A book says nothing about women. What women read says nothing about them, just like what men read says nothing about them. Its fiction. Nothing more, nothing less....


I don't know...I suspect what people enjoy reading says _something_ about them; but I, for one, would not even pretend to know _what_ it says. I have enough trouble trying to understand my own psyche let alone anyone else -- and especially that of the opposite gender.


----------



## bltackett (Jun 13, 2012)

MariaESchneider said:


> Too broad a generalization. I don't watch TV except for sports occasionally. I'm not sure I'd call myself uninformed either. I also know of a community where EVERYONE watches TV, but they tend to watch lots of "shows" and not much news. So they still get their "news" from the community. Ask them what Bertha is up to and they can give you a complete rundown. Ask them about politics and they know who is President and don't care about much else besides the weather. But it's more a culture that simply evolves because the community is small--not because they don't watch TV or have opportunity to watch TV.
> 
> I doubt TV has influenced me much these past few years simply because I don't watch much of it. I can see how it influences my mom and her opinions and the neighbor from talking to them. But it's also pretty easy to walk away from and I'm sure there are lot of people who choose to do so.


You don't have to watch the news when you're watching TV to get the news. Every television show excluding shows on the big channels like HBO and Showtime have commercials. Commercials are filled with way more than just mac and cheese and cars, especially during a political season. So while it is a broad generalization, most of our assumptions and opinions are drawn from broad generalizations, or else we wouldn't have stereotypes. Now don't get me wrong, stereotyping is bad and not very accurate but we do it anyway. So even though the broad generalizations made about women and such in this post are unfair the majority of the population are going to make them, accept them, and present them as fact.



Katharina said:


> If you added the word "some" before women, it would make sense to me. I have
> no idea why some women - or men - would pay money to read about a sadist
> torturing a girl. But then I am claustrophobic. The whole idea of being held against
> your will, and receive pleasure from it, is a mystery to me.
> ...


It is entirely possible to have a master/slave relationship AND a love relationship. In fact that entire lifestyle runs on love and trust. Only a fool would allow themselves to be restrained by someone they don't love and trust, but don't mistake this for an all out defense. There are plenty of fools in the world. Now I've not read 50 Shades, even though every female friend I have has tried to cram it down my throat because they believe it's right up my alley, so I have no idea what kind of relationship the main characters share, but it seems unfair to isolate a group of people as perverse because they enjoy something you may not.

Anyway, back to the point: I'm not reading it because in most every review I've read from the sources and people I trust the same phrase keeps coming up "poor writing" I'm not in the mood to read poor writing right now. =)


----------



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

I'm one of those women who haven't read Fifty Shades and is never going to. (And I hardly ever watch tv although I still have a small portable in the house and consider myself pretty well informed. Yoo hoo! Major newspapers are available online and even in paper still if you're so inclined.)

However, from discussions I've seen isn't the guy in 50 very rich? My guess is that plays into it because the scramble for a luxurious lifestyle is right up there on the goal list for many people. My guess is if you write the same book with the same things happening, but the guy is poor and without prospects, many of the women who think this book is the greatest would react very differently. Think about the beautiful young women who marry icky old rich guys. The attraction isn't the icky old part.


----------



## Candee15 (Jan 31, 2010)

ellenoc said:


> I'm one of those women who haven't read Fifty Shades and is never going to. (And I hardly ever watch tv although I still have a small portable in the house and consider myself pretty well informed. Yoo hoo! Major newspapers are available online and even in paper still if you're so inclined.)
> 
> However, from discussions I've seen isn't the guy in 50 very rich? My guess is that plays into it because the scramble for a luxurious lifestyle is right up there on the goal list for many people. My guess is if you write the same book with the same things happening, but the guy is poor and without prospects, many of the women who think this book is the greatest would react very differently. Think about the beautiful young women who marry icky old rich guys. The attraction isn't the icky old part.


THAT is exactly what I've been saying!


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> To play the role of the devil here, this could be a cultural thing as opposed to a gender thing. In WW1, for example, Pride and Prejudice was a highly read book by soldiers in the trenches. Throughout the 19th century, romantic poets were men and read by men as much as woman.
> 
> So perhaps this tells us a lot about modern female culture, as opposed to telling us about women.


Well sure. I didnt mean 'genetic' when I wrote 'gender.' I agree that culture has a huge influence on gender behavior.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Atunah said:


> All I am trying to say is that one book does not define a whole gender.


Totally gonna agree with that!


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

QuantumIguana said:


> At most, it says that you like those sort of books. Just *because a person reads about war doesn't mean that they want to go to war. * Just because someone reads about chivalrous romance doesn't mean they actually want to put on some armor, get on the plow horse and go about being a knight-errant. And just because someone reads books with certian sexual fantasies doesn't mean they actually want to do them.


I dont think I would ever make that assumption (bold)...possibly I'd even lean towards the opposite. My comments were just more about what each gender seemed to be more attracted to...that there were definite differences.


----------



## bltackett (Jun 13, 2012)

Katharina said:


> I don't think so. Not in what _I_ define as a love relationship.
> That would be be the same as presenting your best friend as a person who sometimes bullies you.


Some people enjoy being bullied. It's a strange world we live in and it takes all types to make it that way. All I'm saying.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Sigh. It is not about bullying. If that's what you think, perhaps some reading on the subject matter is in order.


----------



## bltackett (Jun 13, 2012)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Sigh. It is not about bullying. If that's what you think, perhaps some reading on the subject matter is in order.


I don't consider it bullying I was just referring to Katharina's post. I personally take part in that particular lifestyle, which is why all my female friends keep telling me to read this particular book series, but it just doesn't pique my interest.


----------



## sheiler1963 (Nov 23, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Extend the comment to "media" and there is a significant amount of evidence to show that media has been key in maintaining, promoting, and changing gender roles.


Is this the time where I get to stand up and shout out: I blame the 'media blamers' ? HA! I'm just goofing of course, that was a line I think I heard on a sit-com once upon a time and it made me spoot. 
I think many women have an attraction to the idea of the 'Me Tarzan/You Jane' when it comes to sex. Not necessarily in a manner that is degrading but more as a show of male strength. Then again I have not read the book and probably won't. The premise bores me. I have watched porn a cpl times and found it equally boring. I like my books with plot and dialog and I prefer actual sex to have neither of these components.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

bltackett said:


> I don't consider it bullying I was just referring to Katharina's post. I personally take part in that particular lifestyle, which is why all my female friends keep telling me to read this particular book series, but it just doesn't pique my interest.


Shoosh, I wasn't talking to you


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

This topic makes me think of Nabokov's Lolita: a runaway hit in the 1950s in which a pedophile marries the mother of his 12 year-old victim merely to be close to the child. (Of course Nabokov's prose was scintillating as opposed to mediocre.) 

I'll have to disagree somewhat with the comments that what fiction one reads says nothing about a person. I think everything a person reads says something if you look closely enough. But what reading the same book says about Person A may be entirely different than what it says about Person B, and so on.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Re: quoting

Katherina, our forum software doesn't have "multi-quote" the way some forums have.  However, you can insert multiple quotes into your post as long as they are on the most current page.

Start your post, either by quoting one of the posts that you want to quote, or by hitting "reply."  Then, scroll down on the page to see the posts listed below your text entry box.  "Insert Quote" will be in the upper right hand corner of each post shown.  Hit that to insert that post at the current insertion point in your post.

If one of the quotes you want to use is on a prior page, the best way to do that is to quote that post to start your reply, and then, once you're in the text entry box, quote later posts using the above method.

Hope this helps!

Betsy


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Katharina said:


> I have read a great deal on this subject.


Stop.

I recommend talking to people who engage in these choices. One of my former coworkers did (as well as a current one, though not too much) and they were not bullied, abused, mistreated. They have more respect, trust, and knowledge of the other than most relationships, including perhaps even my own.

Your problems with the book are fine; some people who are into BDSM have problems with the book, too. However, you have been confusing your own bias against BDSM with this book in this thread and using it to case judgement on people. (i.e. people can do what they want, but they will eventually have troubles).


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Oh lord. 

You did not express opinions. You blatantly said:



> Still, hardcore sado masochism incorporated into daily life will eventually produce emotional problems between two people. It is human nature.


----------



## padowd (Jan 14, 2010)

I think the reason so many women like these books is because it is a fantasy to them and maybe it helps their sex life. You can control a fantasy and go as far as you want but it is probably something they would not do in real life. It is the same reason they read romance books. Romance books have always been great sellers with the great looking guy on the cover. Alot of women might not admit it to anyone but I think many have sex fantasies and if so what is wrong with it if it makes them feel good as well as their partner.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK, ladies....donning my moderator's hat here...

Krista & Katharina, you have both been voicing opinions on the nature of BDSM. I think you two will have to agree to disagree at this point and move on, please. Your posts are related to the overall topic of the thread, but your points have been made. Continuing this back-and-forth threatens to derail the thread.

Betsy








<dusted off an old moderator's hat.


----------



## philstern (Mar 14, 2011)

I think we can all agree that for a 21 year old virgin to fall into a bondage relationship with a nutcase is absurd. In that sense the book definitely veers off into a virtual fantasy world.

And while bondage is a choice, it's a rather extreme one. Does the book do women a favor by almost "mainstreaming" extreme sexual activities? Probably not.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

The book is fiction. Saying that it veers off into a fantasy world is peculiar, that's what fiction is for. I'm not into BDSM, but other people's sexual fantasies and practices are none of my business. People are able to make their own decisions.


----------



## philstern (Mar 14, 2011)

All right, then let me ask you this:

If Anastasia was your daughter, and you became aware of her "lifestyle" or "choices" or whatever you want to call it, what would your advice to her be? To continue down a bizarre, destructive, unhealthy path, or perhaps become involved in a more normal relationship?


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I wouldn't have any need to know what my adult daughter's fantasies or practices was. It would be rather creepy if I wanted to know. It's not my business, and it isn't yours either. People do all sorts of things in their bedrooms, and it isn't anyone else's business. Although I have no interest in BDSM, I have seen no evidence that it is harmful. The book doesn't say much, if anything, but this kind of obsession does say a lot.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Seriously?

I read about serial killers all the time, but it's fiction. It doesn't mean it's a choice I'd make for myself or my family members. I think you're going a little far afield here, Phil....

EDIT: Not to say that I'm comparing BDSM to serial killing; just that reading about something doesn't say anything about one's real life choices, good or bad.

Betsy


----------



## philstern (Mar 14, 2011)

That's a good point. People watch and read fiction all the time, but they wouldn't actually do those things.


----------



## sixnsolid (Mar 13, 2009)

Pish, posh. This series isn't much more of a phenomena than many other best sellers that preceded it. Its claim to fame is simply exacerbated by the fact that there is some BDSM going on. I'd be hard pressed to consider these books "erotica" myself, but to each his own. Frankly, based on the hype I found them much more vanilla than I expected them to be. I think a certain amount of people read the books, spoke about them and the snowball effect went rolling along, adding both male and female champions and critics along the way. The fact that the hype was so big just made the criticism that much more harsh, but that is nothing new, either.

My daughters read the books and mentioned them to me. I really didn't consider reading them until I saw the cover. Crazily I'm married to a man who has over fifty gray ties (though I know that's not the reference in the title. He's color blind and gray is his safe zone),


Spoiler



a very complicated childhood he's actually described as fifty shades of ****** up, is something of a safety nut where his family is concerned, hates when I don't eat, and can come across as pretty controlling in public and in his business and is a Sancerre aficionado. A few restaurants we frequent know that he only orders Sancerre and stock it for him. Just recently the server brought the wine and actually started to ask me if I'd ever read the books. She blushed a bit and I laughed.


 I tease him mercilessly now that the writer must know him. He'll never read the books


----------

