Ship of Fools: "Have You Seen/Read It?"

Thread: "Have You Seen/Read It?" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028892

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

I spent a fair chunk of this morning reading a Facebook thread about Fifty Shades of Grey. Felicia Day had posted

quote:
Yes I will be the creeper in the back row of 50 Shades this weekend, sitting alone, eating a smuggled-in personal pizza. ‪#‎HappyValentinesDay‬

which generated a lot of comments, many of which were either asking her not to "support" or "endorse" FSoG as it glorifies domestic abuse OR replying to such comments. A fair sub-group of which used the defence that as an adult one ought to be able to see it and make up one's own mind.

Indeed after having seen it she commented:

quote:
WELL I saw the movie, not having read the books, wanting to judge for myself. And all I could think in every scene was: RUN FROM THE ABUSIVE MESSED UP GUY PLEASE! So...yeah. lol.

So from the pov of the antis, she came out on the right side. But AFTER having seen it and paid to do so (a number of commenters suggested she either pirate the movie, or wait until it was later in its run when more of the money goes to the cinema rather than the distributors).

Now the argument for boycotting the movie is that it promotes as romance something that is abusive. That women, young women in particular, might think that it's possible to "fix"/"cure" an abuser by giving in to his demands and being perfectly submissive. But the idea I think is that the influence of movies etc can be insidious and we ought to actively resist the popularisation of harmful ideas, rather than simply allow them to circulate and hope/trust that people's own judgement will reject them.

I haven't seen the movie nor read the books, nor am I remotely tempted to do so. But this thread isn't about this specific instance of Offensive-and-Damaging-Text. It's about whether to actively resist such texts or whether, "I'll make up my own mind" is a reasonable response.

What say you?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I can't read the book or watch the film - I hate gratuitous violence, even if 'consenting'.

But then I'm the same about horror films and the 'crime' books my husband reads.

Put me down as a big softy but I can't stand seeing anyone - human or animal - hurt, even as fiction.

(I had to close my eyes for a great deal of 'War Horse')

[ 14. February 2015, 12:52: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

Having seen the trailers and read the reviews, we are planning to see "Selma" as our half term movie instead. Much more worthwhile, IMHO. Why pay to see something that I am not interested in?

That leaves me with nothing to say about 50 Shades, only the nagging suspicion that it is somewhat over rated. The books would have gone straight in the pulping bin at our charity book shop if it were not for the film release. Along with anything by Dan Brown.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

The purpose of some material's so clear you don't need to see it to know it stinks. Without going all Godwin's, I don't need to view Der ewige Jude to know it's an antisemetic POS. (I would however need to view it to know if it's technically skilled propaganda.)

Most things aren't that clear-cut. I've no interest in viewing an adaptation of a repurposed Twilight fanfic, but a movie like, say, Secretary was a surprisingly tender and mature examination of a dom/sub relationship, just as Nymphomaniac was an interesting character study (if way too long).

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The thing is, I am not going to read the books or watch the film, because I have read other peoples views and opinions on it (as I do with all sorts of books and films), and decided that it is not one that I would appreciate.

The thing is, those people who have read and commented on it are people whose opinion I value and appreciate, and - most crucially - understand abuse better and more thoroughly/personally than me. They are people who know the difference between BDSM behaviour and abuse - and yes, the difference can be quite subtle.

So, in answer to the question, yes, it is perfectly reasonable to "make up your own mind", but to do this, you need to have a good understanding of the issues. Other people are very useful for helping this. When other people, especially those who have been abused, say "this is about abuse", we need to listen. I have heard nobody argue that this is not abuse, it is a valid literary/cinemographic portrayal of an S&M relationship. So my view, without reading or seeing it, is that it is validating abuse.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I had determind not to read it but, having so answered when asked about it by one of my children, was challenged by them for having a closed mind - so got a copy (from Oxfam - 75p) and read.

Its not the greatest book ever but far from the worst. Glorifies domestic violence - definitely not: moreover when the heroine is faced with something she'd rather not she walks out.

I've now arranged to go and see the film with an old friend. I too have read some reviews which are far from positive but then today read one by a woman - and she was very positive, pointing out that unlike the vast majority of porn it is something that tells it from the female point of view.

Watch this space.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Not going to see or read it. For the same reason I do not see many romantic films or read many romance novels. Most are very poor examples of good relationship dynamics.
So by all means protest this shlock, but don't forget the rest.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I wouldn't have thought many folk on the Ship would give either book or film the time of day, except to be able to participate in popular discussions about why they're both so dreadful! [Biased]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

re: the calls for a boycott. it has long been apparent to me that the ONE thing you don't want to do as an activist/politician etc is go to war against some item in popular culture. Because you only get two kinds of responses.

From the fans...

"Aww man, why is that guy attacking my favorite TV show?" [Or song, movie, whatever]

From the non-fans...

"Come on, dude, it's just a stupid TV show. You just look ridiculous attacking something so insignificant."

I'm hard pressed to think of an example of a moral enterpreneur villifying a top-rated show, book or song, and the public response being "Yes, yes, he's right, we never should have supported that. How could we have been so blind?"

[ 14. February 2015, 14:57: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I had determind not to read it but, having so answered when asked about it by one of my children, was challenged by them for having a closed mind - so got a copy (from Oxfam - 75p) and read.

Its not the greatest book ever but far from the worst. Glorifies domestic violence - definitely not: moreover when the heroine is faced with something she'd rather not she walks out.

I've now arranged to go and see the film with an old friend. I too have read some reviews which are far from positive but then today read one by a woman - and she was very positive, pointing out that unlike the vast majority of porn it is something that tells it from the female point of view.

Watch this space.

The thing is, I will often read popular material to see what it is about. That is why I read Dan Brown - that is several hours I will never get back. Most popular writing is mediocre at the best.

I have heard the comment that it is porn from a female perspective, and that is significantly different. That is undoubtedly why so many women are interested in going to see it. But that doesn't mean it isn't still abusive. Because it isn't really aimed at me, I would rather rely on those it is more aimed at, and trust their perspective.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

SC wrote:

quote:
I have heard the comment that it is porn from a female perspective, and that is significantly different. That is undoubtedly why so many women are interested in going to see it. But that doesn't mean it isn't still abusive. Because it isn't really aimed at me, I would rather rely on those it is more aimed at, and trust their perspective.

If by "those it is more aimed at", you mean women, you are likely to hear a variety of opinions, some of which will be diametrically opposed to each other. So which ones do you choose to trust?

[ 14. February 2015, 15:58: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Many years ago, a shippie observed that in our culture, "we're all a bit broken sexually." I suspect that is quite true. From a female pov, I think some of the things that go on in our fantasy life may in fact be a sign of some brokenness. I think there are things that we fantasize about ("being 'taken'") that would not be at all thrilling in Real Life. And while movies/books may be a safe place to indulge these fantasies that we wouldn't actually enjoy in Real Life, we have to be careful to remember/ articulate (both for ourselves and for our partners/ society at large) exactly that divide-- that some things are fun in fantasy and are NOT fun in reality. At what point does that fun internal fantasy become a narrative that starts impacting our Real Life relationships in ways that are unhealthy and abusive? A very hard line to draw imho.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I had determind not to read it but, having so answered when asked about it by one of my children, was challenged by them for having a closed mind - so got a copy (from Oxfam - 75p) and read.

Quite so. I am sure that you are aware that there is an admirable precedent for your doing so (see third para). [Smile]

[Broken URL removed at request of poster, but apparently it should have gone to "The story of King George V confiscating a copy of Lady Chatterley's Lover which had found its way to Sandringham, and when later being caught reading it claiming that it was his duty to know what temptations his subjects faced." - Gwai]

[ 15. February 2015, 01:13: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I had determind not to read it but, having so answered when asked about it by one of my children, was challenged by them for having a closed mind - so got a copy (from Oxfam - 75p) and read.

Quite so. I am sure that you are aware that there is an admirable precedent for your doing so (see third para).

Be careful of that link. It takes you to a password protected site, which asked for a password, and unless one was already a member, froze one's browser.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I read enough of it to make me want to throw it against the wall, although I didn't own the copy and I was in a bookstore, so I didn't.

Also, people whose opinions about books I trust, and who don't mind a little bit of femporn once in a while, have dissed it thoroughly, although more for the writing than for the sex bits, which they found unrealistic (as did I) and contrived.

So no, I'm not going to go see it. And I do think it can be harmful, if it leads men to think that women really want to be treated that way. Pity the women who may be treated as objects because of stupid ideas such movies can inculcate. Abuse is a dangerous genie to unbottle.

Do I want to see it banned? I'm conflicted. I'd like to see a massive information campaign saying, "Whether you go see it or not -- that's up to you -- please remember that this is fantasy, and do not assume that any particular person really wants to be treated like this. All actions, sexual or otherwise, in a relationship must have mutual consent."

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
I haven't seen the movie nor read the books, nor am I remotely tempted to do so. But this thread isn't about this specific instance of Offensive-and-Damaging-Text. It's about whether to actively resist such texts or whether, "I'll make up my own mind" is a reasonable response.

What say you?

I think it is. But I would think that, seeing as how I read the books because I wanted to see if I could figure out why they were so popular and what cultural nerve they were touching.*

*Women's unhappiness with their dating lives/ marriages crossed with a conservative's idea of what a BDSM relationship looks like colliding with the cultural liberalism that says that everyone should accept everything as long as it's not hurting anyone.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not going to go see it. And I do think it can be harmful, if it leads men to think that women really want to be treated that way. Pity the women who may be treated as objects because of stupid ideas such movies can inculcate. Abuse is a dangerous genie to unbottle.

Do I want to see it banned? I'm conflicted.

Banned? Can't men - and women - see far worse sexual S+M stuff on the internet anytime they want?

I've read that some young men are already expecting their girlfriends to perform degrading or even dangerous sexual acts of the kind they've seen in extreme pornography. I doubt that '50 Shades' is especially problematic in that company.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not going to go see it. And I do think it can be harmful, if it leads men to think that women really want to be treated that way. Pity the women who may be treated as objects because of stupid ideas such movies can inculcate. Abuse is a dangerous genie to unbottle.

Do I want to see it banned? I'm conflicted.
Banned? Can't men - and women - see far worse sexual S+M stuff on the internet anytime they want?

I've read that some young men are already expecting their girlfriends to perform degrading or even dangerous sexual acts of the kind they've seen in extreme pornography. I doubt that '50 Shades' is especially problematic in that company.

Svitlana:

I basically agree with you, but, just to play Devil's Advocate...

I think a difference with FSOG might be that it presents itself, and is being promoted and discussed as, S & M for a female audience.

As such, it might be easier for a guy(admittedly, one of probably limited world experience) to get the idea that the tastes and practices discussed in the book are shared by many women, than it would be for him to get that idea from internet porn.

But that's a bit of a longshot. And you can't really expect writers to worry about the impact their work will have on the most stupendously clueless members of society.

[ 14. February 2015, 19:44: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Do I want to see it banned? I'm conflicted.
Banned? Can't men - and women - see far worse sexual S+M stuff on the internet anytime they want?

Hence what I said after the bit you quote here. What I'd rather see, instead of banning.

I do think there is a qualitative difference between something being available online somewhere, and something being in the movie theatre at the shopping mall. That normalizes it and gives it a sheen of respectability that porn sites online do not have.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

But I don't see any point in offering rather patronising (as some would see it) warnings/advice to adult viewers if they can easily see far worse material elsewhere. Or do you think all porn should come with a warning like this? Is that likely to happen?

I'm rather prudish myself, but I don't see the point in picking on weak and easy targets and leaving the most problematic material alone.

[ 14. February 2015, 19:55: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I had determind not to read it but, having so answered when asked about it by one of my children, was challenged by them for having a closed mind - so got a copy (from Oxfam - 75p) and read.

Quite so. I am sure that you are aware that there is an admirable precedent for your doing so (see third para).
Be careful of that link. It takes you to a password protected site, which asked for a password, and unless one was already a member, froze one's browser.

My apologies- I got it OK. Pehrpas a kind host will delete the link for me to avoid others having problems.
The link was to the story of King George V confiscating a copy of Lady Chatterley's Lover which had found its way to Sandringham, and when later being caught reading it claiming that it was his duty to know what temptations his subjects faced.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

So are people saying it should be banned because it's well known, a sort of symbolic banning, a scapegoat for the worse pornography that is only available under the counter or from dodgy websites but which nobody has done anything about?

Sounds much like the furore about Lord Green in a different context.

[ 14. February 2015, 20:00: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But I don't see any point in offering rather patronising (as some would see it) warnings/advice to adult viewers if they can easily see far worse material elsewhere. Or do you think all porn should come with a warning like this? Is that likely to happen?

Not everybody who reacts to this will be an adult. And yes, I see a point in offering warnings/advice. Is it patronizing? It might be, if it weren't necessary. I can't see that it isn't necessary, given what we know about reported -- and that's an important point as much or most of it may go unreported -- domestic violence.

The reason I think now is a good time is because this movie and its release bring the whole issue into the public eye in a way that the steady background of online porn does not. This is a capital moment to bring up the point; people are thinking and talking about it. You need to strike when the iron is hot and all that. In two months' time it will die down and the moment will have passed. (until the sequel or a similar movie comes out)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

mousethief

One problem with what you're suggesting is that the film is likely to be seen by far more women than men (I doubt that many men will choose to see it unless they have girlfriends or wives who are interested). As it's an 18 cert. in the UK it won't be seen by the younger teenaged boys who frequently access porn.

IOW, the people who really need to be warned about mutual consent and respecting other people's right to say no won't be watching.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
mousethief

One problem with what you're suggesting is that the film is likely to be seen by far more women than men (I doubt that many men will choose to see it unless they have girlfriends or wives who are interested). As it's an 18 cert. in the UK it won't be seen by the younger teenaged boys who frequently access porn.

IOW, the people who really need to be warned about mutual consent and respecting other people's right to say no won't be watching.

This would be relevant if the only place you were going to make warnings was in the theatres that are showing the film. I didn't suggest that however. This is the time when the whole issue of consent and violence and BDSM are in the public eye. Not just in the eye of the people in the theatre.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Oh, I thought you meant that these warnings should be given at screenings of the film (and perhaps in the books).

If you mean, rather, that concerned individuals should make their opinions known in a variety of media, then I suppose that's happening already, to a certain extent. In countries that enjoy freedom of speech there's nothing to stop people from using social media, blogs, newspapers, or even good old fashioned bill posters, etc., to remind people of what's acceptable behaviour and what isn't.

I certainly think it's time for secondary schools to be talking to their pupils about the problems and dangers of using porn. Maybe more and more schools are starting to do this.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've read that some young men are already expecting their girlfriends to perform degrading or even dangerous sexual acts of the kind they've seen in extreme pornography. I doubt that '50 Shades' is especially problematic in that company.

People being people I'm guessing that's true. What I run into more often are girls who are watching porn because they think it's normal and then acting like porn stars because that's what they think guys want and then being unhappy because they don't particularly enjoy acting like a porn star.

I worry, with 50 of Grey coming after the Twilight phenomenon, that there may be too many women & girls who see the film, are unhappy with the way their partner is currently acting, are unable to give them specific ways they should act differently, who then consciously or unconsciously mimic some of the unsafe behavior in the film.

But maybe it'll just be another part of the international conversation on consent.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I have heard the comment that it is porn from a female perspective, and that is significantly different. That is undoubtedly why so many women are interested in going to see it. But that doesn't mean it isn't still abusive. Because it isn't really aimed at me, I would rather rely on those it is more aimed at, and trust their perspective.

It's aimed at me, among many others, and I am giving both the book and the movie a pass. There is plenty of porn written from women's perspective that is actually well-written, and life is too short to read bad porn.

The wedding episode from Outlander was a great example of soft-core porn written from the woman's point of view, so I will just wait for the second season of that show.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

OK. I'll admit.

Yes, I have read the book. In fact I read all three books. Why? Mrs Grouch and I thought we should at least know about something that had become such a "fad".

The books are pretty awful. They are poorly written, deeply unimaginative and very repetitive.

We have no desire to go and see the film. (Although if Donald Sutherland was in it, Mrs Grouch would quickly change her mind....)

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I heard and saw the actor who played the annoying toucan bird in the Disney movie Alladin read some of it in shreiking character on youtube. I think I was supposed to laugh, is this enough to claim sufficient knowledge to reject?

Oscar, I admire your dedication to have managed all three. You and yours are brave and admirable for stamina!

[ 15. February 2015, 01:31: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
L'organist: I had determind not to read it but, having so answered when asked about it by one of my children, was challenged by them for having a closed mind - so got a copy (from Oxfam - 75p) and read.

This isn't directed at your children specifically, but in general I find "If you don't read / see / like / believe this, you have a closed mind" a stupid argument.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
life is too short to read bad porn.

This could become someone's new sig line...

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Albertus wrote:

quote:
The link was to the story of King George V confiscating a copy of Lady Chatterley's Lover which had found its way to Sandringham, and when later being caught reading it claiming that it was his duty to know what temptations his subjects faced.

What sort of confirmation was given for that story?

Not that I'm neccessarily skeptical, but it just sounds like a re-working of the standby anecdote about prudes getting caught doing something they condemn(in modern terms, the sociology prof who goes to strip clubs to "as a field experiment".)

Though I do know that some people have used that as an excuse. If you're a priest, minister, Sensitive New Age Guy etc who gets caught downloading smut at work, ya gotta say something.

[ 15. February 2015, 08:04: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I know what you mean. There was a recent flurry of academic publications about poledancing clubs and I had a vision of 'goodness, professor, fancy seeing you here!'- 'ah, yes, I was.....'
But the George V story is in Sir John Colville's memoirs. As a young man he brought back a copy from Paris, and passed it on to his mother (a lady of liberal and indeed Liberal views who was a lady in waiting to Queen Mary); she passed it on to the Queen, from whom the King confiscated it. Then one of the King's sons told Lady Colville that he had come across his father absorbed in it and when he made some jocular comment the King muttered something about having to know what temptations his subjects faced, and threw it onto the fire. So I think a reliable story, although possibly slightly polished.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

An amusing review, I thought, from the New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/pain-gain

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

If you dislike something that attracts this kind of attention, people try to suggest that it must be because you dislike the motivations behind the particular 'work of art'. Which is rubbish. It's perfectly possible to dislike just because it's poorly executed.

I don't need to agonise over the morals of supporting 50 Shades of Grey because I'm a person who is choosy and pays attention to reviews, and the reviews are largely that it's pretty crap. That's what reviewers are paid for: to help shape our opinion of things we haven't seen or read.

Most of the time we have no difficulty with the concept that we can either have interest or disinterest in something we haven't seen/read on the basis of reviews, but every now and then something becomes a kind of cultural battleground and it's supporters want to imply that there's some other ulterior motive at play. So it becomes necessary to explain further why you're not interested in what appears to be basically a badly written Mills & Boon with extra spice, or a parody of a foreign dictator that by all accounts isn't very funny but is suddenly controversial because the dictator in question doesn't like being parodied.

There's no real need to organise boycotts or bans or anything like that. If it is all as bad as almost everybody says - both in book form and film form - it might make lots of money at the moment but in a few years everybody will be basically saying "God, what were we thinking" and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who'll admit to having been on the bandwagon.

See: The Da Vinci Code.

When I encountered the film The Last Temptation of Christ some years after its original release, I came to the conclusion that Martin Scorsese welcomed the whiff of controversy because it helped hide the fact he'd made one of the most turgid and joyless films of his career. Well, at least the part we made it through before turning it off because everyone in the room was BORED.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

I think being able to make your own mind up on something is perfectly reasonable in the general case. But as SC has said, part of making your mind up involves (for me) garnering opinion from other trusted sources, so you don't necessarily have to consume first-hand. And there are some things I know I don't need to see in order to make my mind up e.g. snuff porn, beheading videos, a whole host of mainstream entertainment that hinges on someone being cruelly mocked and ostracised as part of the core premise etc.

All that said, with FSOG I did end up reading the whole trilogy. Partly because I'll read anything, but mainly so I could argue (or not) with the friend who lent them to me, who was espousing them as "not that bad" (in relation to the graphic sex) and "a good story of the redemptive power of love".

Having slogged through them I tend to agree with the first part, and cry Bullshit! to the second. There is some over-arching positive stuff about the love of a good woman, and sticking with someone who's fucked up in order to bring a measure of healing and 'salvation', but fundamentally CG is a total cock end, the relationship is predominantly abusive and the BDSM cover story can't disguise that, and there is a concern that purely by virtue of becoming so mainstream it could normalise the abusive (rather than experimental or redemptive) elements.

But ultimately people, they is people, and we're all screwed up. So I also find myself with mousethief - if FSOG can be used as a jumping off point for positive discussions around sexual relationships, love, BDSM to whatever extent (which personally isn't my bag), consent, and the difference between fantasy and reality, then hurrah, carpe diem.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Orfeo wrote:

quote:
When I encountered the film The Last Temptation of Christ some years after its original release, I came to the conclusion that Martin Scorsese welcomed the whiff of controversy because it helped hide the fact he'd made one of the most turgid and joyless films of his career. Well, at least the part we made it through before turning it off because everyone in the room was BORED.

As I recall, it was rumoured at the time of release that Universal Studios was, at the very least, not actively discouraging the pickets, because they figured it would be the only way to get any appreciable numbers of people interested the film.

FWIW, I quite like that movie. I also think(and have probably said so before) that it it is probably the most conservative of the "controversial" speculative-fictions about the Gospels. The miracles are portrayed as real, Jesus stays a virgin, and he dies on the cross to redeem the sins mankind. The only "sinning" commited by Jesus is in an hallucination that he has, and ultimately rejects.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I see "FSOG" and think "Father Son and 'Oly Ghost"

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Have no wish to read the book or see the film, but the comedy spin-offs (Fifty Sheds of Grey and Fifty Shades of Gran) are very funny [Big Grin]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

FSOG started out as Twilight fan fiction and, whilst I have no intention of reading FSOG or seeing the film, I have read the Twilight books.

They are crap. Deeply crap. Aimed at teenagers, the heroine, Bella, is prepared to give up everything - friends, education, family, a career, even her life - because she is in lurve with Edward. How can she tell this is True Lurve? Because she's willing to give up everything for him. Nothing matters except Edward.

If anything else mattered - chatting to her parents, hanging out with friends, hobbies, interests, having fun, planning a future, well, it wouldn't be True Lurve, would it?

[brick wall]

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

quote:
I certainly think it's time for secondary schools to be talking to their pupils about the problems and dangers of using porn. Maybe more and more schools are starting to do this.

What exactly would be the substance of this talk and what would be the expected result of its delivery?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

I had a similar dilemma when the Millennium novels and movies were such a hit. I read lots of reviews and commentary, pro and con. Eventually, I gave the first film - Swedish version - a try, and I absolutely loved it. Watched the rest, then read the books and loved them too. Watched the David Fincher version and thought it was absolute garbage.

My big worry was that the violence against the protagonist, as well as many other women in the books, was gratuitous or exploitative or whatever. I discovered that while the books have lots of horrible violence, they also have lots of depictions of milder, everyday misogyny. I decided that the really horrific parts of the book had to be there to show that violence against women in our society exists as a continuum, from the mundane to the horrific, from catcalls to dismemberment. To me, it's that truth that is really the most disturbing take-away from the Millennium trilogy, not the details of the stories themselves.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:

quote:
I certainly think it's time for secondary schools to be talking to their pupils about the problems and dangers of using porn. Maybe more and more schools are starting to do this.
What exactly would be the substance of this talk and what would be the expected result of its delivery?

I think it totally makes sense to for sex education classes to make children aware of the impact of internet porn when this is how many children these days get some of their earliest ideas about sex. Mousethief's posts above indicate some of the reasons why engaging with young people is important.

Ideally, parents should be advising and protecting their children - but you could say the same for all sex education, and many parents don't do it.

I'm not a specialist in this type of education, so I'm not really the person to be setting down the 'substance' of what would be discussed or taught.

(I thought of posting some links about the issues, but perhaps it would be better if people just looked some of the articles up for themselves.)

[ 15. February 2015, 20:55: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

Thanks for all the replies everyone. I didn't mean to post and run, but it sort of turned out that way.

Hence a few more thoughts on this, some inspired by responses here, some by more thinking.

FSoG fails as BDSM by the standards of most BDSM-ers. "Safe, sane and consensual" it ain't. This seems to reflect its origins and author, and the fact that it's a vanilla person's fantasy rather than coming from experience. Nothing wrong with that per se, but listening to those who've worked out the kinks (pun intended) in the safety aspect is no bad thing.

More importantly perhaps, FSoG shows a relationship that would be abusive without the sex - stalking, manipulation, controlling behaviour, jealousy.

Those that I know that are speaking out against it are the same kinds of people who voice concerns over e.g. photoshopping in fashion magazines, and for similar reasons. Not so much, "this is so naughty it needs to be banned", as "this contributes to a culture that hates women". At least one Christian Feminist Activist is both attacking the film and criticising the church for being against it because it's porn and not because it's misogynist.

Personally, having heard rumours of it being "a troubled production" for some time, I was convinced the quality of the FSoG movie would be poor and that too active a protest could suffer from the Streisand Effect. That said, FSoG was such a cultural event as a book, that even as a failed movie it would garner lots of attention and so speaking up would still be a good thing.

On the more general issue - the real reason I started the thread - I guess the FB thread, with multiple exchanges challenging each other whether they'd seen it or not, reminded me of an old thread on the Ship re: Jerry Springer the Opera. IIRC there were calls to ban that too, that we should all protest the BBC for using our license fee (us Brits anyway), and there were many who then used the argument of "How can you seek to censor something you've not seen?" I've been on different sides of those two arguments so for consistency's sake it brought me up short.

One final thought: a consequence of Sturgeon's Law is that most transgressive art is crap. So it's easy to dismiss something like FSoG (or JStO) as "rubbish" because subjective qualitative arguments are harder to oppose. But I think where there's a principle - whether you're for or against - it's better to argue that. I speak to myself as much as anyone on that.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Well, I'm not going to read it, but not because of any problems with porn. More I'm past my quota of reading about heterosexual couples for a while.
[Smile]

I did see an article in the Economist which noted that the film was doing unusually well in the Bible Belt states compared to its overall sales. The article speculated why, I won't.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Thanks for all the replies everyone. I didn't mean to post and run, but it sort of turned out that way.

Hence a few more thoughts on this, some inspired by responses here, some by more thinking.

FSoG fails as BDSM by the standards of most BDSM-ers. "Safe, sane and consensual" it ain't. This seems to reflect its origins and author, and the fact that it's a vanilla person's fantasy rather than coming from experience. Nothing wrong with that per se, but listening to those who've worked out the kinks (pun intended) in the safety aspect is no bad thing.

I have not read any of the books or seen the film but I have read several reviews (reading reviews of bad films can be great fun [Big Grin]

). A couple of them commented on the scene where the couple agree in advance what actions will and will not be tolerated in the relationship - I think one review said that was the sexiest scene in the film - so I had assumed that it was consensual. Can anyone explain what goes wrong?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

The world is a hellish place, and bad writing is destroying the quality of our suffering (attributed to Tom Waits, who seems to know what he's talking about).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The world is a hellish place, and bad writing is destroying the quality of our suffering (attributed to Tom Waits, who seems to know what he's talking about).

Or, in his case, bad singing.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I did see an article in the Economist which noted that the film was doing unusually well in the Bible Belt states compared to its overall sales. The article speculated why, I won't.

Probably a variation on the dynamic encapsulated by Will Rogers' observation that the South would likely vote for prohibition, if anyone there was sober enough to get to the polls.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
I did see an article in the Economist which noted that the film was doing unusually well in the Bible Belt states compared to its overall sales. The article speculated why, I won't.
Probably a variation on the dynamic encapsulated by Will Rogers' observation that the South would likely vote for prohibition, if anyone there was sober enough to get to the polls.

I recall reading something about the South as a region being the largest consumers of online porn as well. Repressed libido, presumably.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

I don't know what this fuss over a film is all about. Standing at the back of the church on Sunday with the offering plate and looking out over two hundred or so scalps, there had to be at least fifty shades of grey. Dead boring, and darned if I take the time to watch a film about it too.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think it totally makes sense for sex education classes to make children aware of the impact of internet porn when this is how many children these days get some of their earliest ideas about sex. Mousethief's posts above indicate some of the reasons why engaging with young people is important.

I just wanted to post a link to this article from today about the need for this very type of education for relatively young children.

Some parents will disagree, and Christian organisations probably will too. But I don't see the point in harping on about the 'innocence of childhood' and the importance of parental advice when many children are either accessing this material or have friends who are, and many parents are apparently refusing to prepare their children for what's happening in the real world.

[ 17. February 2015, 11:37: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I think people would back that idea much more eagerly if they would call it something else. For instance, I certainly wouldn't back discussing pornography with five year olds, but I am pretty sure that isn't what's proposed. With five year olds, one would probably discuss valuing one's body and one's rights over it. No one gets to touch your body if you say no, etc. If you called it self-awareness or something, surely such ideas are really pretty uncontroversial?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I don't know how sex education is tackled now, but when I was teaching young children the earliest lessons were very much about reproduction in animals.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

And that is appropriate too, but do you think that would help the issues of porn use and related subsequent confusion that seem to be occurring? (Real question not just asking to argue.)

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I would expect young children's sex education to include:

learning about friendships: what makes a good friend? And leading into understandings of consent in that context.
secrets - what is a secret? are there good and bad secrets?
appropriate and inappropriate touch - where is polite to touch people (arms, shoulders), where is not (anywhere covered by swimming costumes)?
personal space - you can go closer to your family than you can to strangers, and etc.,
a bit about babies and where they come from, but as much from animals as humans, particularly in the earlier years. (The Science National Curriculum for 7-8 year old pupils talks of looking at eggs, tadpoles, caterpillars and young animals, at age 9-10 beginning to understand differences between the way different animals (birds, mammals, amphibians, fish) reproduce and the changes of puberty in humans).

The current position is that only children from age 11 are required to have sex education. Unfortunately, the subject it is usually taught as part of, PSHE, is a Cinderella subject. Although sex education is compulsorily taught the curriculum is not part of the National Curriculum, and the qualification can be poorly regarded even though the work is a good GCSE equivalent.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think people would back that idea much more eagerly if they would call it something else. For instance, I certainly wouldn't back discussing pornography with five year olds, but I am pretty sure that isn't what's proposed. With five year olds, one would probably discuss valuing one's body and one's rights over it. No one gets to touch your body if you say no, etc. If you called it self-awareness or something, surely such ideas are really pretty uncontroversial?

It's fraught with difficulties - the emphasis should be on healthy relationships. If this contradicts what is happening in the home (dodgy boudaries doe not have to be expressed in ways that are visibly abusive to an unrtained adult), then where does that leave the child? There has been so much good work done on this kind of education in countries like Holland, and I am just a bit nervous that we will end up teaching 8-year olds a bit of adult doublethink and the mechanics of condom usage.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

One of my nieces, when quite small, younger than 5, addressed the assembled family on the subject of why people keep tickling when the tickled person says they don't want it. An effective intervention.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Two comments:

(note: I haven't read the books or seen to movie so this is based on reviews of the books and reviews of the movie.)

1. Apparently some effort has been made to make the movie different from the book in terms of giving Anastasia more of a sense of agency and making Christian seem less abusive. There is much less sex and nudity, but that was necessary for the US R rating. I don't know if the whole "BDSM relationship contract" was part of the books or not but every review of the movie, good or bad, points out that the negotiations over this were a very big part of the movie and that Anastasia really makes her voice heard here. I'm also not sure if the movie even mentions Anastasia being a super-virgin (ie, not even having masturbated), or even being a virgin at all, which also seems to give her more confidence going into whatever relationship they have. The woman who directed the movie and the woman who adapted the screenplay all seem to have tried to make the film more palatable to people who would be offended by the rape and emotional abuse from the books. It still seems like the relationship in the movie is abusive (stalking, etc.), and the relationship is well within Hollywood's norm of stereotypical gender roles, but Hollywood seems to have gone out of its way to make it seem that the relatively little sex in the movie is consensual. Someone who has seen the movie and/or read the books can correct me if I'm wrong.

2. I think it is worth noting that the books started out as online fan fiction before they were ever intended to be something to be published and sold. Fan fiction, especially in fantasy, science fiction, and video game subcultures, is often all about shock value, gratuitous violence (including rape), and gratuitous sex - especially when it is written by the stereotypical socially isolated teenage girl or boy. Now, you can protest and talk about all the emotional nuance and selfless sacrifice in Kirk/Spock slash fiction (ie, they get it on) going back decades, and how slash fiction about straight male characters from a famous book/movie/TV show having an affair with each other are much more about their dialogue and emotions than they are about the sex (sex scenes tend to be brief), but anyone who was read most of what your average amateur over-excited fanfic writer puts down would say its all about one super experienced and assertive character "claiming" an innocent and virginal other character -

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Sorry, here is the end of what I was writing above...

So, in short, although both the book is terribly written, the utter wrongness of its relationship (I am not talking about BDSM, but about abuse, stalking, and rape) is actually common in fan fiction, which is usually all about wish fulfillment and about writing oneself into a story so that one can have sex with the character one loves. It's about shock humor to one's readers in the fan community and about being disposable and not meant to be taken seriously. And I think fan fiction of this sort can be expanded into a book if it remembers that it is fiction about fiction and does not take itself seriously. Unfortunately, it does not appear that Fifty Shades has done that, or at least that is not the way that most readers and the media have approached it.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Considering how lacklustre the reviews have been the film seems to have done very well at the box office so far:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/11415047/Fifty-Shades-of-Grey-breaks-box-office-records.html

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I was quite surprised (they're normally into Disney) that two very mild female members of my family went to see the film - if it has such a wide appeal, then the box office returns will be good. Their verdict: 'Not that violent'. Perhaps they were comparing it with Bambi??

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Two comments:

(note: I haven't read the books or seen to movie so this is based on reviews of the books and reviews of the movie.)

1. Apparently some effort has been made to make the movie different from the book in terms of giving Anastasia more of a sense of agency and making Christian seem less abusive. There is much less sex and nudity, but that was necessary for the US R rating. I don't know if the whole "BDSM relationship contract" was part of the books or not but every review of the movie, good or bad, points out that the negotiations over this were a very big part of the movie and that Anastasia really makes her voice heard here. I'm also not sure if the movie even mentions Anastasia being a super-virgin (ie, not even having masturbated), or even being a virgin at all, which also seems to give her more confidence going into whatever relationship they have. The woman who directed the movie and the woman who adapted the screenplay all seem to have tried to make the film more palatable to people who would be offended by the rape and emotional abuse from the books. It still seems like the relationship in the movie is abusive (stalking, etc.), and the relationship is well within Hollywood's norm of stereotypical gender roles, but Hollywood seems to have gone out of its way to make it seem that the relatively little sex in the movie is consensual. Someone who has seen the movie and/or read the books can correct me if I'm wrong.

I haven't seen the movie, but I've read the books. My take is largely the same as
Douthat's.

I've read reviews of the movie that Anastasia is unrealistically naive; that she must have been raised in the country without electricity to not have heard of some of the things she pretends are a shock to her. But who knows if that's an accurate interpretation.

They did make a very big deal out of the negotiation in the book. My issue with it is that Anastasia is so naive. She has no experience with sex at all before she has sex with Christian. She has no idea about BDSM before she agrees to this contract that he keeps trying to hold her to.

How many of us, when we started our fumbling sexual lives, knew what we liked and what we didn't? How many of us knew what we would be willing to do and what we wouldn't, or what we might be willing to do as our trust in our partner grew? A situation in which an older experienced man gets a younger completely inexperienced woman to agree to a specific contract that he tries to hold her to just seems like another case of an arrogant rich guy deciding he is going to use any means necessary to get his uppity princess of a girlfriend to submit.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Just read the review by Jamie the Very Worst Missionary which actually matches quite a bit of what has been said here.

Sample quote from beginning:

quote:
First? The story in 50 Shades of Grey only “works” because Christian Grey is a hard-bodied Adonis with an insanely awesome penthouse, sleek cars, loads of cash, and, oh, a helicopter. If he was an ugly dude who worked at a gas station, rode a dirt bike, and invited a cute girl into a “play room” full of torture devices in the back of his doublewide trailer, we would all be disgusted.

and summing up:

quote:
That might be the only redeeming piece of this stupid, fucked up story - that what it all boils to in the end is that all of us, women and men, alike -- all the Anastasia Steeles and Christian Greys of the world -- we all share in one great fear and one great need; to be known.

We are all longing for someone we perceive as valuable to look at us and say, “I see something amazing in you and I find it irresistible.”

It's almost as if we were Created to be loved and cherished, and we're all dying to find our worth... but if the 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon is any indication, we're looking for it in all the wrong places.

with various digressions about things like "lady-boners".

Posted by crunt (# 1321) on :

No I haven't seen it or read it.

Some time back, I was in my favourite bookshop in Kuala Lumpur, and I saw a very attractive display of new books. I'm a sucker for clever packaging and I was drawn in. I was intrigued.
Normally, when I buy a new book I look at the author, the title and the cover in that order. If I like any one of those three things, I'll read the first page, and then I'll decide if I want to buy it or not.

Fifty Shades of Grey got me on two out of the three criteria (I had never heard of the author, but the title and cover were intriguing), so I picked up the book and started to read. Snort! It was a load of crap (in my humble opinion), so I put the book down and moved on to browse elsewhere.

I'm glad I made my own decision about not liking the book - after reading some of it - rather than having been swayed by other people's reviews of how awful it is.

I'm not going to see the film, either.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Honestly, there are some things you don't need to sample to know they're not worth your time. I don't have to taste cowflop to know that it's something I don't want to eat.

Living, as I do, close to one of the kink capitals of the world, it's difficult to see FSoG as anything but BDSM tourism-by-proxy for timid Midwesterners.

(I apologize in advance for the invidious stereotyping.)

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Thanks for all the replies everyone. I didn't mean to post and run, but it sort of turned out that way.

Hence a few more thoughts on this, some inspired by responses here, some by more thinking.

FSoG fails as BDSM by the standards of most BDSM-ers. "Safe, sane and consensual" it ain't. This seems to reflect its origins and author, and the fact that it's a vanilla person's fantasy rather than coming from experience. Nothing wrong with that per se, but listening to those who've worked out the kinks (pun intended) in the safety aspect is no bad thing.
I have not read any of the books or seen the film but I have read several reviews (reading reviews of bad films can be great fun ). A couple of them commented on the scene where the couple agree in advance what actions will and will not be tolerated in the relationship - I think one review said that was the sexiest scene in the film - so I had assumed that it was consensual. Can anyone explain what goes wrong?

Apologies for not replying to this sooner.

What I had read listed some of the problems with the sex in the movie from a good BDSM pov as:

- the heroine loses her virginity by rape. She gives a clear "no" which he does not heed.
- a safe word is set up then ignored
- boundaries are constantly pushed. It's not considered cool to push someone past what they're comfortable with, what's been agreed, in the heat of the moment. There's more to consent than simply saying yes.

Now that said, I've since learnt that at least some of this criticism is based on the book not the film. And I think in the film they've taken out the rape. TBH from other reviews I've heard since starting this thread I think the sex in the film is much tamer than the book.

But I still think the overall tone of the film doesn't reflect BDSM as real people practice it. Which I think is because it's a vanilla person's fantasy of what BDSM is like. It also - minor thematic spoiler - treats it as not a kink to be enjoyed but a pathology that twu wuv will overcome/heal.

Finally, several people have said they found the contract negotiations hot - possibly because actually talking about what you want in the bedroom is not as common as it could be?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Well, old friend and I went to the picture house to see Fifty Shades.

We weren't shocked, appalled or titillated - but we were embarrassed because it is so bad.

Beautiful to look at for a lot of the time (if you're planning a major makeover for the house you could do worse, there are some wonderful bits of modern interior design) but otherwise a waste of time - and every minute felt like 5.

The biggest problem is that the whole thing is unbelievable on every level. Quite apart from the fact that Dakota Johnson (daughter of Miami Vice's Don and granddaughter of Tippi Hedren, no less) can't act, the chemistry between her and Jamie Dornan is dreadful; some critics say there is no chemistry, but I'd say there is - it comes across loud and clear that she doesn't fancy him at all.

I've discovered that the book came about through a writing group among fans of the Twilight trilogy: that explains a lot.

I'd only recommend the film to someone anxious to cure insomnia and without a home of their own in which to sleep.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Several commentators have noted that, even during publicity events, there is no chemistry between the two people, barely a level of professional interaction.

If they didn't have some degree of "like" for each other, does this make them better or worse for the roles?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Horseman Bree: If they didn't have some degree of "like" for each other, does this make them better or worse for the roles?

I think that good actors can summon this kind of on-screen chemistry, even if they don't like eachother?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Exactly, Le Roc - good actors can (probably do) but unfortunately that puts the ability to act desirous beyond Ms Johnson.

Trouble is, in the book its the man who's meant to be cold, calculating and really not very nice, and the female protagonist who is the empathetic sweetie - but because of the casting (and lack of acting talent) in the film its the other way round, which means the whole premise just doesn't work.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

A review which may amuse: Dave Barry Does 60 Shades

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0