New 50 Shades bok... *sighs*

[kyp275]

That's different, though. People know that being a soldier comes with a certain amount of risk, but the relationship in %0 Shades is portrayed as healthy. People are more liable to do something if they think it carries no risk.

No, they really don't. Having some vague notion of "risk" that are completely un-relatable and without context means jack all, which is why the vast majority of people have zero appreciation for how dangerous simple daily driving can be.

Again, those people that are stupid enough to get brainwashed by a shitty book into thinking abuse is ok are already fucked up in the head, and the shitty book would be the least of their problems. Frankly, your argument is no different than those who claims that violent games/music/movies causes real life violence. The early Fast & Furious movies glorified illegal street racing, but do you think it actually made people believe that street racing is ok/without risk?

And really, what is it that you ultimately want? A ban on the book? Or just soapboxing about your moral superiority based on your choice of fantasy material? Because if your logic is that we shouldn't allow fictional works of questionable morality because some people might think it's ok, you're going to quickly find that the list of what would be allowed would shrink very quickly.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Again, those people that are stupid enough to get brainwashed by a shitty book into thinking abuse is ok are already fucked up in the head,

Not that abuse is ok, what constitutes abuse. A lot of people are very vague about that already.

And really, what is it that you ultimately want? A ban on the book? Or just soapboxing about your moral superiority based on your choice of fantasy material? Because if your logic is that we shouldn't allow fictional works of questionable morality because some people might think it's ok, you're going to quickly find that the list of what would be allowed would shrink very quickly.

I'd guess "using free speech to talk about someone else's free speech" would be closer to the mark. I don't remember anyone calling for the book to be banned (though someone, somewhere would have). I do remember lots of people saying the book, and issues raised, should be discussed.

 

[Olas]

You know you can ignore this right? Nobody is FORCING you to pay any attention to these books/movies.

In fact if you don't like the books, ignoring them is the BEST way you can protest since it deprives them of oxygen.

 

[DementedSheep]

If some women read this thing and allow themselves to be an abusive relationship because they think it's romantic I have 0 sympathy for them. They can sleep in the bed they made. It's just a shame we can't sterilise them all.

 

[Queen Michael]

That's different, though. People know that being a soldier comes with a certain amount of risk, but the relationship in %0 Shades is portrayed as healthy. People are more liable to do something if they think it carries no risk.

No, they really don't. Having some vague notion of "risk" that are completely un-relatable and without context means jack all, which is why the vast majority of people have zero appreciation for how dangerous simple daily driving can be.

Again, those people that are stupid enough to get brainwashed by a shitty book into thinking abuse is ok are already fucked up in the head, and the shitty book would be the least of their problems. Frankly, your argument is no different than those who claims that violent games/music/movies causes real life violence. The early Fast & Furious movies glorified illegal street racing, but do you think it actually made people believe that street racing is ok/without risk?

And really, what is it that you ultimately want? A ban on the book? Or just soapboxing about your moral superiority based on your choice of fantasy material? Because if your logic is that we shouldn't allow fictional works of questionable morality because some people might think it's ok, you're going to quickly find that the list of what would be allowed would shrink very quickly.

A ban on the book? No, I want people not to read it. ANd yeah, I know that saying "Don't read this book!" informs people that the book exists, but they'll know about the book anyway so that's no risk.

And I'm not saying that a normal person will assuem that everything in a cheap novel has to be 100% true, but I am saying that we get used to things the mor ewe see then. If we watch hundreds of movies and TV shows where somebody has the right to one phone call after getting arrested, we assume that there is such a right in real life. We don't assume that every movie and TV show decided to be factually inaccurate in the exact same way. If Desert Eagles handguns sound the same in every single movie, we asssume that that's just how they sound. And if we watch and read a hundred stories where a schoolyard bully is abused at home, we'll be more used to that idea. And if people read a hundred different romance novels where a controlling man is truly sweet deep down inside, they'll get more used to the idea. That's how people work, like it or not. We're not nearly as rational as we want to believe.

No, we don't believe that every single thing in movies is true. But we don't assume that everything is untrue, either.

The idea that we're not affected by things we read and watch is bizarre.

 

[kyp275]

I don't remember anyone calling for the book to be banned (though someone, somewhere would have).

Which is why I asked the OP what his goal is.

A ban on the book? No, I want people not to read it. ANd yeah, I know that saying "Don't read this book!" informs people that the book exists, but they'll know about the book anyway so that's no risk.

Good luck with that, I suspect your efforts will work about as well as someone who preaches that people shouldn't play GTA because the violence.

And I'm not saying that a normal person will assuem that everything in a cheap novel has to be 100% true, but I am saying that we get used to things the mor ewe see then. If we watch hundreds of movies and TV shows where somebody has the right to one phone call after getting arrested, we assume that there is such a right in real life. We don't assume that every movie and TV show decided to be factually inaccurate in the exact same way. If Desert Eagles handguns sound the same in every single movie, we asssume that that's just how they sound. And if we watch and read a hundred stories where a schoolyard bully is abused at home, we'll be more used to that idea. And if people read a hundred different romance novels where a controlling man is truly sweet deep down inside, they'll get more used to the idea. That's how people work, like it or not. We're not nearly as rational as we want to believe.

No, we don't believe that every single thing in movies is true. But we don't assume that everything is untrue, either.

The idea that we're not affected by things we read and watch is bizarre.

How often do you or most people get arrested?
How often do you or most people fire a DE?

These are things that most people will have no first hand experience with, no context with which to place what they see or read or hear.

Now, how often do you or most people run into, well, other people?
How often do you or most people run into assholes?

I think it's safe to say that the answer would be something like "everyday" and "quite often". We have more than enough of experience in interpersonal interaction to know when someone's being an ass. Combine our examples, someone who plays GTA may think that gunfire sound effects in the game is what real gun sounds like because they have little experience with real firearms, but I highly doubt that the same person would think that running people over with cars or beat them to death with a bat is ok.

No, we don't believe that every single thing in movies is true. But we don't assume that everything is untrue, either.

No, because most people have what is called common sense.

The idea that we're not affected by things we read and watch is bizarre.

Which is an argument that nobody is making. My point is that the degree to which we're affected is direction related to the subject matter and how it relates to every day life.

For example, while many people may buy into the "single gunshot from a handgun will instantly kill you while knocking you back 20 feet" because that's how they're often portrayed in movies, not many people will think that cannibalism is ok after watching Silence of the Lamb.

 

[WolfThomas]

I understand the spirit of QueenMichaels's complaint it does glorify plain old domestic abuse and incorrectly portrays BDSM.

But it's not exactly a guide book, it's a fiction story that is pretty much pornography. And kinky pornography often portrays actions outside of the normal.

Kink.com is one of the most ethical porn producers and makes some damn good kinky pornography but frequently it portrays pretend scenes of non-consensual sex (with consenting and thorough enjoying it actors).

So 50 Shades of Grey uses:
Getting your rocks off (though why you'd have such low standards) Yes
Basing your relationship Vanilla or BDSM? No