...to ask MN-ers NOT to join in this glorification of domestic abuse? (contains spoilers)

[Floundering]

Fifty Shades of Shite

Can't believe the naivety and abuse deniers on here and amongst my friends.

DV campaigners such as Womens Aid & National Centre for Domestic Violence are urging people not to see this film.

It is not "just a piece of fun" it normalises abusive, controlling relationships as sexy, and it really bothers me so many women are colluding in supporting such crap that could hurt other more vulnerable women.

The BDSM community are frothing too as if done properly between 2 consenting adults with lots of planning, mutual respect and lots of affection and downtime after it can, for some, apparently be mindblowing. ( doesn't lift my skirt but respect those who do enjoy) this is not portrayed safely in this film.

For the fiftyseven billionth time...

Patrick Bateman is not promoted as an ideal love interest. There is no "oo, i'd love him to hammer me into tiny pieces" #ilovepatrickbateman trend on twitter.

John Kramer is not promoted as an ideal love interest. There are not "i'll play a game with jigsaw" t shirts on sale in tesco.

Christian Grey is an abusive cunt who is promoted as the ideal man. People (though all the deniers claim not to know any ) are posting on facebook about how they are "waiting for their own mr grey".

It is NOT about real bdsm. It is not about the 'kink'. It is not about controling what people watch or read.

It is about getting people to recognise it for what it is.
To recognise that "if she was being abused she would just leave" is fucking stupid.
To recognise that sex after someone says no is rape, regardless of if their body enjoys it.
To recognise that a man controlling everything about his partner is not romantic, nor is it normal in bdsm, it is a sign that he is an arse.

/rant

There are damaged people in all areas of life flora they are not all magically drawn to bdsm

Brandysnapper - it's because you can't explain it.

Oh dear flora no I just can see the actual difference between fantasy and reality and the application of the law. I know you have trouble with this distinction so can't really debate with you.

Ted oh dear she has consented. She consented to be suprised by sex and for another consenting adult to do this to her.

So on any planet dear that's not rape is it.

Please read that posters posts and stop the patronising pearl clutching.

In law you cant pre-consent to sex. Doesnt matter what you do in your private life, but that is just true for the actual law.

I doubt sliced is going to report her husband for rape, so does it really matter enough to take up half of a thread that is actually about something else?

Well I object to people telling women that they have been abused when they clearly say they Haven't been. It's infantilising and patronising.

And I disagree with you over the rape issue. Adult people act out per arranged fantasies and to keep on asking 'is that ok is this ok' does kill the mood somewhat.

The book isn't worth the pages of debate though.

It's twilight for the menopausal. It's not to be considered a huge influence on the human race.

It's a novel.

Tiz people commit suecide for hundreds of different reasons.

Gay, straight, whatever sexual orientation or any situation. Those ill, in debt, lonely or mentally ill.

That's life. You can't single out one issue or scene as more dangerous than another.

Betty you clearly cannot see the distinctions in the law as it exists on this planet as you have made clear throughout this thread. You have your own view about what comparisons are acceptable and what are not and no problem with the inconsistency there. I acknowledge I don't apply one rule to all practices and I've explained throughout this thread why that is. You don't seem to be able to explain where you draw the line other than wandering between claims we're all free to do or think anything so long as there is consent then admitting you don't believe that but you've chosen to draw a line based on what you like to do.

Yet again pineapple the fact that there are damaged people in other scenes doesn't change that damaged people are particularly vulnerable to pretend BDSM turning into real sadomasochism and abuse.

Damage people are also vulnerable to acting out video games or hunting down those in suits because they watched the matrix doesn't make these areas wrong. Psychopaths are predisposed to murder but they also make excellent bankers and surgeons just because I minority may do horrible things doesn't make that group bad or wrong.

pineapple no more so than the average person, unlike in pseudo-BDSM.

To the extent people on this thread have shared their histories, they have been consistent with the people I know IRL who are or have been involved with the BDSM scene in that they were either abused previously or were raised in a repressive conservative environment, or they were just sadistic bastards.

It's a common trauma response to take a scary situation and re-enact it within an environment that seems safe. Whether or not that's psychologically healthy, I don't know. The situations you and sliced described are not actually safe according to the safe practices of BDSM because you don't have a way to communicate consent or withdrawal of consent.

I do find acting out other people's real torture and pain for an orgasm distasteful, whether it's playing at rape, slavery or Nazi scenarios among others. I'm not trying to stop you doing it but you seem to be insisting throughout this thread that other people validate your behaviour.

As far as the book / film is concerned, I don't like that it normalises abusive relationships and unsafe pretend BDSM practices. I'm not calling on it to be banned, and neither was the OP. But you seem to want people not to talk about their concerns about the book and the types of relationships and sexual practices that are described in the book or which people might be inspired to try out from the book.

Actually according to psychological research they are more likely than the average person. Just like a psychopath is more likely to kill than the average person doesn't mean all psychopaths are evil

I personally h a very never been abused and did not spend my teen years in a sexually repressive environment I also am no more sadistic than your average person so there goes your theory that everyone who does bdsm is fucked up in the head

pineapple you described your upbringing upthread when you were trying to claim your sexuality developed in a vacuum. What you described was repressive and conservative.

I'm almost tempted to go to B&Q and see if they have little "50 shades" displays set up, so that you can buy all your bondage equipment in one place....
In the little back room?

I lived with my grandparents until I was 12 and sex was never discussed I had full contact with my mother who I then lived with and we openly discussed sex. I meant that I have never seen or read about people being abused or bdsm before I knew that I was into it.

Flora honestly can't be bothered so let's just agree to disagree here.

Tiz people stay in and collude with abuse and violence for a myriad of reasons none of which you seriously can't suggest are influenced by this book.

I never red flag my teens of who I have had 4. We talk about everything.

If my dds were influenced by a book as daft as this I would hang my head in shame as a parent. In reality my teen dds hooted over the sex bits as cringe worthy old people having sex.

The vast majority of women and young girls do not need sheltering from this book/film. It's ludicrous and patronising.

Anyone anywhere couid copy things from books or films. Should we ban all then apart from Rom coms just in case.

Of course it's fine for people to discuss their concerns about this book as it's just as fine for others to say they have no concerns about it in the slightest.

I have no concerns. Others have and that's fine.

What's not fine is telling other posters their own sex lives are wierd and sadistic or their husbands are rapists.

That's very concerning.

Again, no-one is talking about banning this book, FFS.

Lurcio linked to this article upthread:

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/women-being-coerced-into-having-anal-sex-researchers-say-with-persuasion-normalised-9671395.html

talking about young girls being increasingly coerced into anal sex although they did not enjoy it and, more worryingly, the boys did not expect the girls to enjoy it but pressed them for it anyway.

Anyone who thinks people are not influenced by society is simply sticking their heads in the sand.

It's not fine to say BDSM is sadistic? The clue is in the name.

If slice's husband does what she says he does (ie have sex with her when she is not consenting), that's rape. It's pretty straightfoward. If she is actually consenting at the time it's not rape. Also straightfoward. The pre-consent thing is dangerous but you're not concerned with that.

The vast majority of women and young girls do not need sheltering from this book/film. It's ludicrous and patronising.

They don't need sheltering, but society at large should view and discuss it as a representation of abuse and not a portrayal of an ideal relationship.

That is the key.

I agree that it is not okay to role play without safew words and send that I would always recommend using safe words I only said that I did not need to and this is not what I would recommend under any circumstances