Lionsfan said:Merkavar said:For example at work in the office i over hear a group of women discussing the book and suggesting that others read it, describing it a mummy porn.![]()
Sorry... just had to do that...
Carry on as if nothing happened...
Lionsfan said:Merkavar said:For example at work in the office i over hear a group of women discussing the book and suggesting that others read it, describing it a mummy porn.![]()
Yeah, I think I randomly opened it at one point and read a bit from the 'contract' he emails her in the book.Vault101 said:so far as I ve read it seems to portry S&M as a result of you being....well there being somthing wrong (at least with the case of the guy)Geo Da Sponge said:Now, I don't have a problem with the subject matter, as I'm into it myself. I kind of have a problem with someone making a fortune off of what sounds like dime-a-dozen fanfiction, and I also have a problem with a caricature of BDSM being the first one to hit mass popularity (as if we didn't have enough of those already). Now I can't really condemn it for the second point because I haven't read it all, I've just heard extracts. But if they don't even bother with safe words, then I'd be kinda pissed. Then again romance novels always contain unhealthy relationships because otherwise they'd be veeeery short...
theres this thing where basically her agreeing to be his sub also entails him having a certain amount of control of her outside the bedroom.....
Hey, I've got absolutely no problem with anyone reading whatever super-kinky porn/smut/erotica they like. I just wish they'd realise that they don't have to pay for it when there's better, more specific stuff floating around the internet.Sleekit said:*Snip*
I know the answer to this one.RobfromtheGulag said:The question is how it became popular above the plethora of other bodice rippers in bargain bins at every used bookstore.
Really?Geo Da Sponge said:B) Everyone knows those sub/dom contracts don't really mean anything.
Oooh that's tricky. Appealing to the [false] literature lovers and then titillating them with an unexpected smut tale. Which they can still attempt to justify with the presentation of the book.KafkaOffTheBeach said:I know the answer to this one.
It's all in the cover.
No-one would buy it if it was resigned to the horrific pink of the slowly revolving Mills and Boone stand, so the publishers have very smartly taken this e-book filth, slapped the dubious, yet undoubtedly true title of 'Bestseller' onto it, and chose to market it towards that very particular sect of literary crowd who read teenage fiction, but like to pretend that it isn't teenage fiction.
It has the same kind of 'Adult Fiction For Serious People' cover as, well, Adult Fiction for Serious People, more specifically the 'modern classics' template of 'Pretty Photograph with Inanimate Objects Plus Colour Filter'. It's success lies in the very clever marketing of the contents as an erotic thriller/mystery/SERIOUS BOOK NOVEL LITERATURE and the way that it presents itself as an actual...well...novel to the casual observer.
Sadly, the cover of 50 Shades also really compliments the 2007 Penguin cover of One Hundred Years of Solitude, which feels kinda like a kick in the teeth.
Well I'l admit my real life experience is exactly vast, but from what I've gathered no one really bothers with liability waivers when they're just starting out. Not because the idea of legal protection is madness, but because you probably wouldn't want it to be doing it with someone who feels the need to protect themselves from legal retribution. You should really just trust someone before you experiment with something like this, and writing up a legal document of what someone can do to you doesn't exactly scream trust. I know I wouldn't want to be tied to a bed while thinking "I'm glad I signed away some of my rights for this!". That's where the mutual trust comes in; the sub trusts the dom to not go too far, the dom trusts the sub to not sue them.KafkaOffTheBeach said:Really?Geo Da Sponge said:B) Everyone knows those sub/dom contracts don't really mean anything.
I always thought they were mainly for legal purposes, considering the often risky nature of sub/dom/BDSM physical relationships?
Or am I clueless to the romance inherent in a liability waiver?
EDIT
Punctuation is not my friend tonight.
Emily Browning, doing something doing something ridiculously sexual and probably terrible? How surprising! She never did Sucker Punch! But seriously Sucker Punch is unforgivable.Trivun said:Other names that MSN suggested as possible contenders for the lead role included some of my other favourite young actresses - Jennifer Lawrence, Emily Browning, Dakota Fanning, and Mila Kunis. Just more names that I don't want to ever see associated with a film like that. Seriously, ladies, there are much better movies to be attached to, you all have bright futures ahead of you, do you really want to be associated with this instead?