...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.

FloraFox I see nothing wrong with people role playing daddy daughter incest (SO not for me, but who am I to judge?)
Nor do I see it wrong to role play other illegal scenarios. It's just role play.

To understand why I think it's OK to have a BDSM relationship but not an incest one, I must understand why incest is illegal. Is it to prevent children being born with difficulties? Or is it tied into religious law?

Crocodile I don't agree that fetishising the relationship either makes it visible nor takes any step towards transforming it. It takes a structural force and makes it an individual choice, internalised in psyche and sexuality. Not only that but it's sexy and fun, so what's the problem?

I don't believe it's shaming to discuss the harm caused by fetishising power relationships but it's essential to discuss it. For a lot of women I know, 50SOG was their first exposure to any form of BDSM. It has played a huge part in adding BDSM to the sexual tastes of lots of women so it has affected the fantasies of this generation of women. How is that going to help the next generation to pretend it's all okay?

There is no op thing wrong with it those who don't enjoy it won't do it so why make those who do enjoy it like myself feel ashamed. There is nothing wrong with it if it's consensual and everyone enjoys it. It doesnt harm anyone and it is no-ones business what people do in the privacy of their bedroom

PlantCurtain

Thanks, that's interesting. I can see it's an area of the law where there is a great deal of difficulty between protection for those at risk of DV and freedom for those with genuine consent in BDSM relationship.

If you think there's nothing wrong with it, you shouldn't have a problem with me saying why I don't like it. This thread is about a mainstream film, not the privacy of someone's bedroom. You took it out of the privacy of your bedroom when you came onto the thread to tell us what you do in your bedroom and say it's all just harmless fun. I'm not trying to make you feel ashamed but I'm also not going to pretend I agree with you.

FloraFox
You've talked a lot about women being sub and that you don't like that.
Do have the same feelings about heterosexual relationships where the male is the sub?

Hubert I mentioned that above: When women are dominant, that still recognises that the power imbalance is there and the thrill might be transgressing the power imbalance. But this still accepts that power imbalances are legitimate. They're not.

In general, I think the thrill there derives from a subversion of the "natural" power structure i.e. male dominant / female sub.

I don't really see how you can think that our sexualities are a product of complex social forces and that they are so pliable that they can be transformed by contact with one book. 50sog may have introduced some people to the particular subculture of bdsm but it didn't introduce anyone to the concept of fantasising about domination (a common theme of romance books as has been pointed out). It did give people an opportunity and for some maybe even a language in which to discuss those fantasies. I just think that in terms of achieving sexual equality there are many, many more things which have a greater and more pernicious influence than bdsm. And also even things which are harmful can still be very important to people: make up, high heels, and white weddings are symptoms of an unequal society but they are also very dear to women and experienced as important symbols of femininity. I feel like you attitude is hate the sin love the sinner but when the 'sin' is a sexual fantasy it's hard to maintain this- people's sexual fantasies are so personal that an attack on them feels like an attack on them personally. And even if your aim is to help women, making women feel attacked is not a good way of getting them on side.

Sorry that was aimed at flora

The Wicked Words short story books are good too (and all written by women I believe)

BDSM is often quite clear with safe words etc, and not sure why it deserves so much scrutiny when compared to the numbers of women raped under 'vanilla' conditions.

Just because you become submissive or dominant it does not mean that is who you are. People are not as easily influenced as you think. There is nothing wrong these kinds of behaviours. I know I made my activities public and I chose to do that because I am not ashamed and I don't want others to feel like they are alone nd feel ashamed of these thoughts and practices as I once did. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that but some people struggle for a long time to come to terms with their sexual practices and it is not nice of you to tell them they are wrong

I remember in the eighties there was a similar fuss about the film 'Nine and a Half Weeks'. Some councils banned it, which only made it more popular.

I think it was a very erotic film but it had similar themes to this one. Powerplay, sadomasocism, will always exist in sexual relationships.

However the books were so badly written and full of appalling cliches and stereotypes that I can't imagine the films will be much better ( unless they are 'so bad they're good' kind of thing)

Anyhow, for those of you who are going, The Barbican is v kindly having a Mums and babies screening so you won't have to miss out on the fun..!

I have thought of a comparison that illustrates my thoughts on 50 SOG perfectly.

The Daily Mail.

It objectifies and degrades women daily. It disgusts me in its coverage of sex crimes and has womens' rights about as high up the agenda as the hurling championships.

As with Fifty Shades I think the people who read it, and take it seriously, are thick. I would hate a young person to be informed by it. I feel that people who use it as a way to justify or normalise their views are abhorrent and ignorant.

But... I click on it and am drawn in by the celebrity news. I know its wrong, I know I am betraying my feminist principles by doing so... it's just so entertaining.

I don't think it should be banned, I would never tell other people not to read it, or take a stand against it if they don't see the wrong in it. I would rather people didn't read it if they can't read it with a highly critical eye but that is hypocrisy in the extreme. Its far scarier than 50 Shades portraying an abusive relationship as the norm - even in a faux (flawed?) BDSM context. It is the NEWS. I guess I am more worked up about that than about this shite film.

I don't really see how you can think that our sexualities are a product of complex social forces and that they are so pliable that they can be transformed by contact with one book.

Everything affects us but some things more than others. A single incidence of rape or sexual assault can change a woman's sexuality so that she fantasises about rape or becomes promiscuous. She might say "yes" to everything to deal with the trauma of when her lack of consent was ignored. Our sexuality is very complex but can also be highly impacted by certain significant events. I think 50SOG is a significant event because of the way it spread peer-to-peer and became mainstream. It was like a secret (at first) that spread from woman to woman. I've had lots of women trying to lend me their copy with a nudge and a wink that DH will be happy if I read it.

If you want to speak out against make up, high heels or white weddings, I'm not going to stop you and tell you FGM, equal pay or abortion rights are more important or pernicious.

It is because sexual fantasies are so personal that it is insidious that structural domination / subordination are internalised. It takes something harmful and external and makes it internal and part of sexuality. All that does is make it harder to change the external problems.

Personally I think hardcore porn is WAY more damaging to young women than this book.

So, Flora you are saying when a man dominates a woman it is because she is a poor oppressed little thing and he a mysogenist brute.But when a woman dominates a man, it is still because she is a poor oppressed little thing and giving the man a thrill by swapping power positions? Well that might make sense in your head, but it makes sense nowhere else.

Why are you trying to police what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom.Who do you think you are? The only person doing any oppressing is YOU!
You clearly have issues around this subject.
you said If you think there's nothing wrong with it, you shouldn't have a problem with me saying why I don't like it
But you are not just saying you don't like it , you are telling us all not to do it!

I feel that people who use it as a way to justify or normalise their views are abhorrent and ignorant

Their views on misogyny and abuse - NOT BDSM, just to be clear!

In Flora's defence I think there is something to be said for social norms affecting our sexuality. However, it's so so wrong to decree that therefore consenting adults should not be free to explore their sexuality in any way they please (as long as it doesn't bring harm to others, obviously).
I just don't understand that mentality. Fine if you find it distasteful, but why the desire to make it a criminal act? I just don't get it.

AwholeLotta I think you're probably right.

And NancyRaygun I agree, in particular with your second paragraph.

No Judge that's not what I said.

We live in a society which places men in a dominant position and women in a submissive position, not just socially but sexually as well. Women as submissive simply plays out that dominance between two people. So far, so conservative. Women as dominant is often both parties seeking to subvert the cultural dominance but not by doing away with it, the roles are switched but the power structure is recognised and the thrill comes from the switch.

I don't know you, maybe your approach to this developed in a completely different way, outside of cultural influences.

I'm not oppressing you, don't be ridiculous. And the old "you have issues" put down? No, I don't.

Thank you judgerinder I agree flora is trying to push her views on others and oppress them exactly the opposite of what she preaches

A part of my soul would die if if I ever read/saw anything to do with this, and I'd never be able to get it back.

Not coz it's un-PC, but coz is resoundingly shite.

Hubert what is it you think I want to make a criminal act? Causing actual bodily harm is already a criminal act.

I didn't say I want to outlaw pretending to be tortured, blacking up as a slave and being fucked by your owner, pretending to fuck your daddy or a dead body or a child, pretending you are a holocaust victim being fucked by a Nazi illegal, or pretending to be a dog or a horse, did I? "Real" BDSM as described here is pretend because there are safe words, boundaries and consent. The real part of it is the assault and that is already illegal and should continue to be, mainly to protect DV victims.

There's a difference between wanting to make things illegal and examining the context in which things happen and the impact on everyone else of bringing those things into the mainstream and pretending it's all A-OK.

There is nothing wrong with the assault if the one receiving it wants it. People enjoy it and there is no shame or wrong with it.