...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.

That sounds seriously messed up, Gator!

BTW, I happen to disagree with Flora on this one - I think consensual BDSM is entirely up to individual couples to negotiate, and the fact that it can be (and sometimes is) misused to cover for DV isn't in and of itself a reason to ban it. But I can see where Flora's coming from: in a society which so heavily eroticises women's submission, it is worth raising the question of the extent to which, in a given relationship, it is freely chosen. But that could be asked of just about any sexual practise, from penis-in-vagina sex in the missionary position through to anal sex (I read a very disturbing summary of a BMJ report recently which said that among teenagers, the majority of girls engaging in anal sex were doing so under pressure from their boyfriends and despite the fact that they didn't actually enjoy it - which is not to deny that some women do enjoy it, simply to draw attention to the fact that both social realities can coexist).

But, to reiterate, 50 shades of shite is not about BDSM, it's about an abusive relationship being passed off as an aspirational lifestyle (and yes, I have skim read the first book).

I work with victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse.

What concerns me is that this will be another thing that abusers will be able to use to degrade their partners "all the other women like being whipped and beaten, why wont you do it you frigid bitch". I can easily envisage women being forced into doing things from the film that they don't want to simply out of fear. And the abusers being able to rationalise it by suggesting that everyone does it - look, there's a film about it. They will have no interest in consenting BDSM relations and no understanding of it. They will just see a normalising of seemingly abusive sex. Many of the victims i work with have a totally skewed concept of consent, because they have been subjected to years of abuse - i worry for these women who already are being cooerced into anal sex, group sex, prostitution.
It puts even more pressure on young women, already heavily pressured to behave like porn stars. What about the women trafficked into the sex industry wo will undoubtably be forced ti offer 50 shades type sex now as "normal" along with double penetration, threesomes and anal
I completely understand why WA are against this film.

FloraFox and Lurcio
Yes I understand that's an issue in rape, and I am very very happy that we are making moves toward better convictions. The recent change in the law that has made the 'but she didn't say no' defence not good enough is a positive sign that things are going in the right direction. Still not there yet, but encouraging!

What I was saying (badly?) is that making BDSM illegal in order to protect DV victims seems a similar argument to making sex illegal to protect rape victims. Or am I missing something? (Possible, always very possible).

The law and our society need to make huge leaps to make sure cases of rape and ABH are dealt with properly in the courts. HOWEVER, criminalising consensual sexual acts does not feel like a good way to achieve that.

*consensual sexual acts between adult humans. Incase anyone thought otherwise.

Never read it, but seen exerts and it looks like an awful piece of writing. I'd rather read one of Katie Price's books, and that's saying something.

I say let people read what they want to read. There are plenty of books that portray uncomfortable yet real-life like situations that would be wrong if replicated.

You just have to hope the sensible adult reading it knows it is fantasy, and not a healthy way to start a relationship.

Like any other fictional situation in books, films and games, adults can usually differentiate between real life and fantasy. And those that can't will have this issue no matter what the content. Leave them to it.

The fact that BDSM is illegal and we can't legally consent to ABH has made me wonder where the law lies regarding branding and scarification (for cosmetic purposes).

Wiki says
Scarification such as cutting and branding which has an established history is legal when performed in a consensual context in most jurisdictions

Is that not ABH? Why is BDSM illegal on grounds of ABH and not branding?

So very confused.

I'm not into censorship at all; i don't think the book or film should be banned...and let's face it, if it did get banned, it would only add to the hype.

However, I do think Christian Grey is abusive, and the 'if she didn't like it, she could leave' argument is a slap in the face to the thousands of women who have been controlled, abused and manipulated into staying in terrible, damaging relationships. It is not about two people who are fully informed and comfortable with their choice and each other exploring their sexual boundaries and shouldn't be treated as such.

My dn (19) read it, and we had a conversation about boundaries and why it made her feel 'uncomfortable'. I actually think it is a good book to point out that control dressed up as 'love' is still control.

And I'm another one who fancies the idea of a fish supper with light spanking!

I want to read it just to see what all the fuss is about, but I just can't get past the atrocious writing.
How in the hell does it have so many fans? It must be enjoyed by people who don't give a shit about good writing, and are all about the content matter.

Making assault not criminal based on consent would be very dangerous for women. If a man could say she consented as a defence, it would be incredibly difficult to get convictions in DV situations

That already is the case. Consent is a defence to ABH and battery, this is how injuries on the sports field/boxing ring are not assault. There does not need to be a change in the law to make this a defence, it is already the case.

To the poster that said assault has to involve an injury, this is not the case. ABH requires an injury. However common assault requires only the fear of immediate unlawful personal violence (therefore smacking a hand at your face but not actually hitting is a common assault). Whacking someone with a feather duster witout their consent is technically a battery.

I really wish people would not try to Proclaim themselves as founts of legal knowledge when they are not

To make it quite clear

consent is a defence to common asaault, battery, ABH and GBH in some circumstances

I have attempted to read the books and my biggest worry about the film/books is the effect it will have on teenagers.

With more and more teenagers watching easily available and free hardcore porn like kink.com etc the films will reinforce the idea that this is normal sex.

I remember been a teenager and having lads saying things like everyone does it your frigid if you don't if you liked me you would do it etc and the film/books compound this.

I've personally sexually experimented but I think teenagers experimenting for the first time and discovering their sexuality should have the opportunity to find what turns them on not that they are only participatant for male sexual gratification. I hate the thought that in 15 years time that my dd will feel the need to truss herself up like a chicken because that's what's expected of her.

I know she's probably not very popular on these boards but Jackie Collins in her Lucky series has created a bonk buster where the lead character is a strong woman in an equal relationship

And consensual BDSM is not illegal

I've not read any of them and have no interest in the film. How come people are frothing at the mouth if they haven't read it?

sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod3a/3_50_non_fatal/05_assaults_defence_consent.htm

Nope, it isn't according to this...

Sorry, to clarify, I'm agreeing with truffle.

Also worth pointing out that WA and most of the posters on here are not advocating censorship - what they are advocating is voting with your wallet and not giving the film makers money (and possibly donating the price of the film ticket to WA).

trufflehunterthebadger "And consensual BDSM is not illegal"

But but but... Wikipedia said!

Thanks for shedding a bit of light on what was becoming a very muddy issue for me.

Thanks ClashCityRocker. I'm relieved that I can partake in as much surgery, horseplay, and piercing as I choose.

A friend of mine has also done some excellent recaps, which having skimmed a bit of the terrible, terrible first book are a LOT more entertaining than the original.

redlemonade.blogspot.ie/p/fifty-shades-of-tedious-fuckery.html

There is some fairly selective reading going on here. Your link to sixthformlaw.com ( so much more authoritative than wiki ) says exactly what I said above and links to the same case: R v Brown. Consent is not a defence to actual bodily harm.

If you believe all sexual relations between consenting adults should be decriminalised, what about incest?