[50 Shades] What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is NEVER your business.

[Michigander_Life]

I'm appalled at the sex police up in arms over this movie. It is NOT your business if two consenting adults want to engage in homosexual sex, heterosexual sex, BDSM, oral, anal, or any other consensual sex act. Keep your morals out of my bedroom.

[NaturalHigh]

1. Thank you!

A hearty recommendation!

Some people are absolutely terrified that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

[chrisa]

62. Is it jealousy?

I'm not into 50 Shades of Grey or the subject matter, but I find it humorous anyone would be so obsessed with it.

[NaturalHigh]

65. I honestly don't know. Resentment might be a better word.

No, I don't know much about the book. I haven't read it, but it must really be something to provoke such a hair-smoldering response. I've found that people who don't enjoy something that is popular are often very resentful of those who do.

[roguevalley]

226. i doubt that it will be as big as they think because so much time went by.

[seabeyond]

75. Obsessed? What a jab. Check out who started the two ops. And who told duers to shut up.

I am obsessed with my right to speak out though. Yes. And that has nothing to do with the movie. But label people who demand their right to speak out as obsessed about a movie so you can easily label and call names.

This is about an op telling people to shut up about sexually torturing and raping a woman for the masses entertainment

[NaturalHigh]

77. Um...the book is actually FICTION for entertainment.

I don't think any people were actually harmed in the writing of the book.

[seabeyond]

78. entertainment of the rape and sexual torture of a woman.

[NaturalHigh]

79. Again, it's fiction.

People are allowed to write fiction.

[seabeyond]

80. and again... did i say anywhere people were not ALLOWED to write fiction? is this really how you

argue what another says. thru fabricated, totally out there arguments?

[NaturalHigh]

81. No, just pointing it out in case you weren't aware.

Nobody was harmed by the book. The characters are fictional, much like Rhett and Scarlet.

[seabeyond]

84. irrelevant. at least in this post, you did not fabricate and accusation against me. well done.

[seabeyond]

83. let me point out again, the post you replied to, was about being accused of being OBSESSED with the

movie. nothing more. and again, you totally pull an argument out of the air, not actually addressing what i posted.

[NaturalHigh]

86. It seems to me a lot of people are obsessed with it.

The plus side is that the protests along with the movie will probably sell another 50,000 copies for the author.

[seabeyond]

94. you seem to be about the most obsessed. i do not give a flying shit about a movie that will bomb.

i do give a shit about an OP that tells me to shut the fuck up

[Laelth]

298. On this, I stand with you.

More speech is better than less speech, and I am suspicious of any anti-rhetorical argument that asks for silence on any topic.

-Laelth

[progressoid]

172. Wait, are we talking about what happens in the bedroom or the theater/library/bookstore?

[Louisiana1976]

196. That's an excellent question.

[chrisa]

90. I really don't care what other people find entertaining. That's the point.

If people enjoy the subject matter, then fine. I haven't read the book, and I doubt that you have either.

This is about obsessive social justice warriors on Tumblr, etc. demanding that nobody see the movie because it's "perverted" and stuff like that. Their rhetoric is indistinguishable from the sanctimonious right wing "morality" squad.

I have no desire to see this movie, nor do I have the desire to judge its content.

[seabeyond]

92. ok. you bring in obsessed in an OP telling people they are not allowed to say anything *mean* about

the movie.

you are on a whole different tangent with tumbler. didnt n=know

[Michigander_Life]

97. Why are you misquoting me?

That's uncalled for.

[seabeyond]

99. i am calling you out, as so many other in htis thread read the same way. [50 shades]

what happens in others bedroom. referring to the only other fuckin thread in du about the movie 50 shades.

now that people called you out on the OP you want to back pedal to something else.

what is uncalled for is you starting an op telling posters they are not allowed to speak out

[Michigander_Life]

101. You misquoted me.

I never once used the word "mean" in the OP, yet you referenced the OP and put the word "mean" in quotes. I wonder, why are you trying to misdirect?

Do you think that consenting adults should be able to engage in extreme sex and BDSM?

[seabeyond]

104. i do not give a flying fuck what people do in their bedroom. we agree. i do give a fuck about an OP

telling me that i have to shut the fuck up. about a movie i do not give a fuck about. that i gave so little a fuck about that i did not posts a reply in the original thread.

consistently my issue with your OP is telling duers to shut the fuck up..... about rape and sexual torture of a woman for the masses entertainment.

i wasnt gonna make a damn comment about it. why? cause i do nto give a fuck about this pr driven poorly written and made crap that will sink at the box office. i do care about a duer telling me that i had to shut the fuck up

[Michigander_Life]

107. That's not what the OP said.

Mayhaps you're overreacting? It simply requested people keep their morals out of consenting adults' bedrooms.

[seabeyond]

108. you did not request. you tied in a movie to peoples bedroom and told them they had no right to say

anything. bullshit. back pedaling. and too many others in this thread interpreted it exactly liek that. THAT would be a thought police. telling me, how i am suppose to think and what i am allowed to say

shame

[Michigander_Life]

109. You're projecting. I never said anything like that.

[seabeyond]

112. no. i am not projecting. and too many people on this thread say exactly what i am. YOU....

do not get to tell us to shut the fuck up

own it, learn, lock the thread, or move along.

but no. we do not have to shut the fuck up, because you do not want to hear what we have to say.

[Michigander_Life]

117. I didn't tell you or anyone else to STFU.

You need to stop claiming that I did.

[seabeyond]

118. i will expect to see you refute that accusation in a number of posts, in this thread, by a good # of

duers

[Michigander_Life]

120. No need to refute anything.

Folks can simply read the OP. It contains nothing like what you claim.

I requested that the sex police keep their morals out of the bedrooms of consenting adults. Nothing more, nothing less. If you take that as me telling you to STFU, perhaps you're trying to insert your morals into the bedrooms of consenting adults?

[seabeyond]

122. omg.... thru out the thread poster after poster says the same as i. done with you. too fuggin easy

[Michigander_Life]

126. Have a great day.

[seabeyond]

106. i took the quotes out. was a general over what was being said.

[treestar]

301. They have the right to argue people shouldn't see it

Just as you have the right to argue people should see it.

If either side succeeds with some people, that's good for them.

[moriah]

156. I thought the thread was about what two consenting adults did in their bedrooms.

That was the title, after all.

I've not read the book. I will not see the movie. But in my personal experiences with BDSM, no one was raped, and it was men who were being given pain for sexual purposes. And enjoying the hell out of it.

[seabeyond]

162. [50 shades] he was linking to another thread talking about 50 shades and a group opposed to the

movie. the rape and sexual torture is in the movie, hence my comments. the bdsm community called out the book also.

that is the point of my posts.

[moriah]

169. There were people in that thread criticizing BDSM entirely, I'm having a discussion with one now.

That's why I prefaced my comments with that I had no knowledge of the movie or book and wasn't debating it.

It's very interesting to see the same "It squicks me, so it must be eeeeeevil" arguments homophobics use to justify why they think gay sex is bad being thrown about on a liberal discussion forum.

[Squinch]

261. Take a look at where he thinks he is seeing people arguing against any acts of consensual sex.

I followed the link he provided and found ... um... no one arguing against any acts of consensual sex.

It's not jealousy. It's delusion. And if there is any obsession, it is on the part of the OP.

[Enrique]

2. fictional characters have privacy rights?

if so, the people violating the rights would be the people watching the movie.

[redqueen]

25. Pretty stupid, right?

That's how desperate people are to try to stifle any criticism of things they like.

[liberal N proud]

3. The moral ones think it is their right to force their values on everyone else.

Edit: The self appointed moral ones.

[NaturalHigh]

6. "Moral" in quotes...

There is nothing moral about judging the consenting, private acts of adults.

[seabeyond]

53. bdsm community trashed the movie... get on their ass about being the "moral" police. how DARE they

[NaturalHigh]

56. And I trashed "Hannibal Rising." Your point?

[seabeyond]

61. ha

[Inkfreak]

158. Ugh, you were right to. So disappointed in that movie. Just terrible. (nt)

[treestar]

302. Are they arguing that it be against the law?

If not, they are merely trying to convince people.

[liberal N proud]

306. They would and will when they can.

[treestar]

309. I don't think that is necessarily true

They don't have to be trying to get a law against it. Anytime anyone tries to persuade someone you'd have it they thought the law ought to back them up. That's silly. If I attempt to persuade someone to vote for a Democratic candidate, it doesn't mean I think the law should require people to vote for Democratic candidates.

[Squinch]

4. Did anyone here say differently? I haven't seen any posts or threads on 50 Shades.

[Michigander_Life]

5. There are several such posts in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025290830

[hobbit709]

7. Evidently some adults(?) believe that if they don't consent, no one should.

[NaturalHigh]

8. And that THEIR consent is necessary for others' private acts.

[hobbit709]

9. Exactly. Of course my usual response to the Morality police is "Up Yours"

[Squinch]

154. If you read through the posts in that referenced thread, none of them say anything

even remotely resembling what the OP is railing against. None of them has said anything about objecting to any form of consensual sex. Some have said it was a crappily written book which it was, but he is pretty much making up the rest.

[Squinch]

152. Read through the thread he referenced. There are no posts in that thread that say anything of the

kind. This is simple shit stirring.

[Squinch]

151. I just read through the whole thing and didn't find anything where people were objecting to

anything that consenting adults do. Which posts are you talking about?

[whistler162]

10. So one of the adults beating the other

adult to within a inch of their life is okay, as long as they are in their bedroom and both agree to the act!

[CBGLuthier]

11. My only complaint is it looks like a very bad movie

I have no issue with any of the morality displayed in it. It just looks like a crap adaptation of a crap novel.

I am sure it will make billions cause crap is king.

[redqueen]

28. BDSM practitioners tore the book up because it glorifies NON consensual abuse.

That people here so ignorantly champion it says all you need to know about them.

[seabeyond]

31. it was the same type of ignorant fool who bought the book from media and pr hype only to find it was

garbage and unreadable. i do not know one that finished it. has a 2 out of 5 stars on review. with all the hype, consumers at least expected a good story and were totally disappointed. find one person that actually gave it a rave review. i have not seen one. a huge ass pr stunt that too many got sucked up in. cause it was so titillating to point the finger at the middle age women getting off on the written porn of sexual abuse

a world of pathetic. that was about the same time of the media pr hype of the tattoo girl that was only a middle age mans wet dream.

[redqueen]

38. "it was so titillating to point the finger at the middle age women getting off on...sexual abuse"

Yep.

Fucking sick culture we live in. Most liberals completely lose the plot on these issues. Can't see the forest for their kneejerking reactionary defensiveness.

[Louisiana1976]

200. I agree 100%.

[CBGLuthier]

32. I only read a little excerpt

Enough to see the writing was bad. I did not know that it went outside the bounds of safe consensual behavior. If so then it is worse than just crap. It is dangerous crap.

[redqueen]

34. Exactly. It is fucking sick. But here we have DU's usual FREEDUMB BECAUSE SEXXXY TIMES brigade

lining up to ignorantly defend it.

It'd be funny if it wasn't fucking glorifying violence against women. But that's ... well ... yeah

[seabeyond]

40. glorifying violence against women. But that's ... well ... "FUN" per those in this thread and

do not even dare criticize, cause then you are ruining the fun getting off watching a woman being sexually abused.

[redqueen]

42. I know. I can't even.

This place has well and truly jumped the shark.

[seabeyond]

44. the movie will be a fail, i did not post in the other thread. an OP telling me i am not allowed to

call it garbage though? bull fuckin shit.

[whathehell]

82. 100 n/t

[LadyHawkAZ]

87. The problem with the story wasn't the sex itself

The sex scenes sucked just as badly as the rest of the book, but iirc nothing was done there that was out of bounds and her safeword was respected. The problem was that outside the badly written and very unsexy sex scenes, the guy was a controlling, obsessive and somewhat abusive dickweed. Example; having an employee hack her cellphone so he could monitor where she was at all times, picking out her clothes, alienating her friends (for her own good of course)- all the stuff that would red-flag any abuse counselor, he did. Further into the books the author threw in another violent lunatic so she could try to justify Mr. Dickweed's stalkerish behavior, but it fell just as flat as the rest of the books.

That was the dangerous bit. The sex was just concentrated boredom with restraints. The kink factor and the Twilight connection made it a hit, but it was a bad story and she's a shitty writer.

[alarimer]

124. I don't really understand why so many people were into that book.

I found it utterly repellent for those reasons.

And badly written and not sexy at all.

I hope the movie fails utterly.

I mean sex in movies is fine; I don't have an issue even when it's explicit. I just don't think torture and abuse should be in anyone's dictionary of what is sexy.

[seabeyond]

130. media and pr hyped it as a huge ass giglle about middle aged women getting off on sexual abuse

it was no more than that. i was doing a lot of kindle reading and independent writers.... and i watched this bloom. so many women got it cause media was all talking about it and reader after reader called it out as poorly written garbage. there was a media blitz about the same time of tattoe girl, a middle age mans wet dream, getting this garbage out as a norm.

the rating of the book had like a two out of five star. that is incredibly low.

i did not see one person, that enjoyed the read and few that even finished the book.

it was all pr

[LadyHawkAZ]

188. I detested those books

This was what I had to say about it at the time. I read it to see what the hype was about. It stunk.

Having known more than a few BDSM practitioners, the actual sex didn't fit my definition of abuse and torture- some people get off, consensually, on weirder things, but the majority prefer the fantasy to the reality. If I were to venture a guess, I'd bet that a couple million women who read the books have by now persuaded their partner to tie them to the bedpost with a robe tie and came out of the experience feeling like a complete dork, never to repeat it. That didn't worry me nearly as much as the fact that Grey, outside of the bedroom, was an abusive stalker asshole. Everyone complained about the bondage, and that wasn't the problem. I'm a lot more worried about people placing stalking and obsession in their dictionary of sexy, because it ain't.

[RiffRandell]

233. Exactly.

I read it and was amused at the fact that so many women were "shocked" by it yet interested. It was given to me by a neighbor that told me "it's so good; you'll love it!", and another friend was so enthralled by the entire series, yet I loaned her The Reader out of my book collection and she returned it to me without finishing it as she said it was boring and she couldn't get into it. Hey, whatever...knowing her I wasn't surprised; we don't talk anymore and not because of a falling out, just different interests and our sons went their separate ways in middle school which is pretty much why we became friends in the first place. Two of my neighbors and I were discussing it and one was like "I can't believe I'm reading this" (because of the sex haha) and when she told the other some details she said "oh no; I wouldn't like it", which just made me laugh. I'll admit I found the movie 9 1/2 Weeks very sexy when it came out, and I was in my teens.

I feel badly judging people on what they like to read, but it's really hard when it comes to 50 Shades as you described it perfectly. My next door neighbor and good friend lives with her 84 year old mother who buys The Enquirer and I go over and hang out with my friend quite a bit and for a laugh I skim through it. Hey, they were right about Rush and John Edwards! Do I buy it? No, but I also subscribe to US Weekly along with Vanity Fair, Bon Appetite, Rolling Stone...I like variety.

I live in a red state, and 50 Shades was removed from our county libraries...probably most counties except Atlanta's (Fulton) as it's the most progressive.

Remember this exchange? You had some funny comments in there; your post and this thread brought back memories of it so I searched and found it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=7188


ETA: Wrong link; it this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022702285#post52

[LadyHawkAZ]

278. Haha, I went and looked that up today too

My brain was still congealed oatmeal when I wrote it.

[RiffRandell]

283. Wait...I linked the wrong thread!

Sorry...it was this one. I was laughing so hard re-reading it today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022702285#post52

[whathehell]

43. Thank you!

[joshcryer]

280. BDSM practitioners bash it for lack of "safe play."

I would not find it credible that it was "non-consensual abuse." It's abuse, though, but she consents to it because she has a very twisted self-dehumanizing view of women and the male-female power relationship.

[mainer]

293. In the book, it is consensual abuse

If you're going to attack something, you need to at least be accurate.

Even this columnist who hated the book describes the acts in the book as consensual:

"It’s true that the physical pain Anastasia endures in the books is by her own consent, so much so that before he spanks her for the first time Grey hands her a contract. Will she agree to being tied up, to being whipped, to being caned? And those other possibilities, including the use of clamps in places we won’t discuss. You get the picture. This is presented as a negotiation, and Ana exercises her prerogatives, crossing out some activities she deems as nonnegotiable. One of the questions on the contract: “How much pain is the Submissive (Ana) willing to experience?” This is to be judged on a scale from one to five."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/crime/2012/06/23/is-fifty-shades-of-grey-dangerous/

[seabeyond]

12. the movie is for public consumption. if it stayed behind closed doors in the bedroom, and not

served up to the public to feed on, then you would not hear a peep.

and you saying, people are not allowed to voice an opinion to public garbage being sold us? that because it is about torture and rape, we MUST stay quiet cause the movie labels the torture and rape bdsm?

what is not being done is you being told you are not allowed to go get off on a movie that is about abusing another for entertainment.

why do you have the right to tell me, i do not have a right to call it garbage?

[el_bryanto]

13. This is pretty much correct.

Once someone says something publically, and making a movie is about as public as you can get, other people have a right to challenge the ideas expressed. And the ideas expressed in 50 shades of grade are pretty nasty towards women (on top of being juvenile and stupid).

Bryant

[NaturalHigh]

14. I think this particular thread is a response to...

the thread about "Anti-Porn Group Warns Against ‘Women Lining Up’ To See Fifty Shades of Grey."

Yes, you certainly have the right to call it crap, awful, boring, nasty, or whatever, but nobody has the right to "warn" people not to see this movie (or any other movie) because they think it is immoral or for any other reason.

No, you don't have to stay quiet, but nobody is obligated to listen to you either.

[seabeyond]

15. of course people have the right to call the shit out for what it is, whether it is because they

think it is "immoral" or whether they are damn tired of rape and torture of women being used for entertainment.

you and others seem to be stepping pretty close to the ones telling others to shut the fuck up. yes. i read the other thread. i saw your participation in giggles not even knowing what the issue is. the "fun police" interfering. no. they expressed their opinion, just like you express yours.

a movie about torturing and raping a woman to entertain the masses.

wtf.... ever.

[NaturalHigh]

17. As I posted in the other thread...

"Nobody is forcing anyone to read the book or see the movie. All this hair-flaming moralizing about others deciding what they might like, though, is just one more way some people want to stick their noses in other people's business."

Also, even though I didn't mention the "fun police", I think that's an apt description of many on these threads. They would be thrilled if nobody besides ever had any fun.

[seabeyond]

19. it is rape and torture of a woman for others entertainment. people certainly have the right to

state, that is wrong. not entertainment. the bdsm community called the book out. go after them for stopping the "fun"

[NaturalHigh]

21. Don't like it, don't read it.

As much as it galls you, seabeyond, you don't have the right to tell others what they can or can't read, write, watch, or enjoy. Your version of morality is not binding on anyone else.

[NaturalHigh]

29. I'll just let your previous posts speak for themselves.

[seabeyond]

33. ah, now you are trying to demonize me with vague innuendo of guilt from fathom posts?

one post where i told anyone they were not allowed.... anything, ever at anytime.

nothing.

but, you would like to try to "win" this discussion with this kind of deceitful posting? actually find words of mine that incriminate me, or that is totally dishonest of you.

another fail cause you cannot address what i posted to you, right here, right now, in this thread.

[seabeyond]

47. again, a fail. this is an OP telling people they are not allowed to say anything about a woman raped

and tortured for the masses entertainment.

that is the issue.

the movie will be a fail, i did not post in that thread. but.... this OP is telling people we are not allowed to say a damn thing about rape and torture for entertainment, cause it is sexual and happening to a woman.

bullshit.

i will speak out.

as i will speak out about other issues.

if the mere fact of seeing the actual words, to what you are applauding causes you guilt, that is hardly my issue, right?

that is why people do not want others to dare say anything. a conscious might surface,a dn god forbid we have that when it comes to the "fun" in getting off on the torture and rape of a woman.

that is you and others issue. not my

you do not get to silence me..... cause you do not want to actually see the words in print of the actual reality of what the "fun" is.

[NaturalHigh]

52. Okay...so your meme of the day is fail.

Got it.

Oh, and trust me, nothing you could ever think of me could cause me any guilt, and I'm thankfully not interested in your version of "reality" or fun.

[seabeyond]

55. whatever natural. you did not actually address anything i posted and spent your time fabricating

accusations and argument.

[pnwmom]

164. Do you approve of snuff films as well?

[whathehell]

48. Don't like Seabeyond's comments, don't read them..

She has the right to say whatever she damned well pleases.

[seabeyond]

49. thank you. all these thought police telling us we are not even allowed to speak. i tell you.

thank you whatthehell

[whathehell]

68. You are welcome,

as usual Seabeyond.

[NaturalHigh]

58. And I have the right to disagree...ad infitum.

[whathehell]

63. Yeah, and I have the right to disagree with your disagreement...ad infinitum.

[NaturalHigh]

66. That was kind of the point of the ad infinitum.

Sorry if you missed that.

[whathehell]

265. No shit, Sherlock

Didn't miss a thing, maybe you did..

[BainsBane]

20. Shit, they go on about Teletubbies

and Sponge Bob Square Pants. It's what these people do. Who the fuck cares? It only drives up ticket sales. For all we know it could be orchestrated by the studio to draw attention to the movie.

[treestar]

69. I'm afraid the First Amendment does allow other people to "warn" you if they can

get your attention. Anyone who doesn't like the movie can say anything they want against it, and try to persuade people not to see it.

[NaturalHigh]

76. You're right. As I said below:

"Of course they have the right to "warn" people if they are not threatening anyone. The people being "warned", though, have the right to tell the "warners" to mind their own business and get a life that doesn't involve trying to shame others just trying to have a little fun."

[DanTex]

70. Wait, why don't people have the right to "warn" others not to see the movie

for whatever reason they want? It's just a warning. It's not physically preventing anyone from seeing the move. I don't see the problem.

[NaturalHigh]

74. Okay, poor choice of words.

Of course they have the right to "warn" people if they are not threatening anyone. The people being "warned", though, have the right to tell the "warners" to mind their own business and get a life that doesn't involve trying to shame others just trying to have a little fun.

Please forgive my poor phrasing.

[el_bryanto]

149. who determines who has the right to warn people not to see a movie?

How do you get that right?

Jesus.

Bryant

[pnwmom]

165. Are you suggesting censorship? Don't people who dislike the message of a movie

have the same right to speak out against it as the advertisers and fans have to speak for it?

[Squinch]

264. I think el bryanto is agreeing with that point.

[Squinch]

263. Your issue is with the word "warn" in a headline of a story about a book? For that you decided

to make some kind of statement about people not minding their own business about other people's sex lives?

That is the most fucked up idiotic nonsense I have seen in a long, long time.

[BainsBane]

18. I find it bizarre

Last edited Sat Jul 26, 2014, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)

that people are unable to distinguish between a movie, sold for public consumption, and their own private lives. There is no rationality to the argument. If it was meant to be private, there wouldn't be a book and movie about it.

[seabeyond]

22. if it has to do with the sexual abuse and denigration of our girls and woman, we certainly have the

posters on DU DEMAND that no one say a damn word, or they will be labeled with all kinds of names to shame them to silence.

it is not even a matter of getting rid of the shit or not. we hear them DEMAND that no one is allowed to call the garbage out. now.... who is the thought police here.

i had the same thing when another introduced the fact that in japan grown men buy soiled school girls panties from vending machines on the street corners,t o fantasize about screwin little girls. we were all told, merely a fetish and as a democrat, we were not allowed to feel an "ick" factor, to shame or have any moral judgment on these men purchasing soiled school girls undies from vending machines to get off on.

i mean, this poster even told us what we were and were not allowed to feel about men purchasing soiled school girls undies from vending machines to get off on.

and they have the audacity to point the fingers at others?

[NaturalHigh]

30. Actually, the title of the OP is...

"[50 Shades] What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is NEVER your business."

Is that really such a difficult concept?

[seabeyond]

36. YOU gave me the link to the other thread about the movie being SPECIFICALLY what this OP is about.

YOU did. moments ago.

another fail.

[NaturalHigh]

45. Uh no, I gave you the Title.

The LINK was posted upthread.

And again...don't like the movie, don't go see it, but whether anyone else does is none of your business.

[seabeyond]

51. and again, link to where i told anyone what to do.... you and others in this thread were the ones

telling others what to do. you try to change MY argument. you cant. that is a fail. i do not allow it. link, showing where i told anyone what to do, or not to do.

you are the one doing that.

[NaturalHigh]

54. failfailfailfailfail...

did you wake up this morning with that word on your mind?

[ismnotwasm]

142. Did you?

[kcr]

57. Yes, but it's a movie

I wouldn't think it would be difficult to tell the difference between a movie and ones own bedroom.

[BainsBane]

16. It's a movie

It's not someone's private life. People are allowed to have opinions about movies.
What is it that people assume everything haven't to do with sex is about their life? If it was no one's business, they wouldn't have written a book or made a movie. Clearly the author and directors wanted people to see it.

It's not your bedroom. Can't you tell the difference between a movie and your own life?

[redqueen]

23. Making a book/movie glamorizing abusive relationships and domestic violence,

you MAKE it everyone else's business.

It's so fucking pathetic how often kinksters chant their "privacy of our bedrooms!" bullshit, as they're busily publicly advertising their fondness for eroticizing violence, abuse, and racism.

[whathehell]

95. Yes, we've adopted such a kneejerk fear of censorship, which doesn't apply here, anyway,

that we seem to be "censoring" in reverse regarding ANY objection to anything sexual,

regardless of it's completely anti-woman social content and the fact that it's in the PUBLIC sphere,

and therefore open to legitimate criticism.

To paraphrase writer Susan Brownmiller slightly:

"If Times Square was currently depicting the joys of lynching Blacks or gassing Jews, that material

would be OFF the shelves and the theater screens IMMEDIATELY...but when it comes to the treatment

of women, the Liberal Mind is fiercely obdurate..".

As Nation writer Katha Pollitt more recently said:

"Misogyny is the last acceptable bigotry of the Left".

[seabeyond]

100. "Misogyny is the last acceptable bigotry of the Left".

excellent post.

"If Times Square was currently depicting the joys of lynching Blacks or gassing Jews, that material

would be OFF the shelves and the theater screens IMMEDIATELY...but when it comes to the treatment

of women, the Liberal Mind is fiercely obdurate..".

[smirkymonkey]

269. +1000

Interesting point and great quote!

[whathehell]

270. Thank you, Smirky.

I think it's a perspective that's too often missed.

That first quote is from the 1970's award winning book on rape by Susan

Brownmiller "Against Our Will". It's a classic...She takes on porn as well as

rape.

[Hoppy]

26. Your absolutely wrong. It is our business.

You may not give a rat's ass but the Big Guy in the Sky does. And he knows ALL about it. And if he thinks the U.S. is going the way of Sadom and Gonorea, he will release his just punishment on the U.S.

Therefore, it is my responsibility to monitor who you are having sex with and disapprove of that choice (unless you're having sex with me.)

[ClarkeVII]

222. Hilarious

[shedevil69taz]

27. The number of consenting adults shouldn't even be considered either

From one to any number...want to have an orgy with 100 people? As long as they are able to consent (IMO over 18 and not under the influence) knock yourself out!

[Seeking Serenity]

35. STOP DOING THINGS I DON'T LIKE!!!

That pretty much sums up the "fun police," those on the left side of the political spectrum just as much as those on the right.

[redqueen]

39. Just so you know, you're characterizing ABUSE as "fun".

BDSM practitioners tore the book up because it is about ABUSE.

Well done! Good job!

Jesus fucking christ. This fucking place.

[Seeking Serenity]

46. No, I'm not characterizing abuse as fun

I'm equating the morality brigades on the left with those on the right, particularly when it comes to sex.

[redqueen]

50. That book was torn up by BDSM practitioners because it glorifies ABUSE.

NON-CONSENSUAL abuse - aka DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Fucking hell it is pathetic that just because a group on the right points out something people here kneejerkingly defend it.

I guess it's too much to ask that people actually THINK about what they're actually defending. Nope, if those people hate it then reactionary people here LOVE it and must declare it as just "fun" and those who are pointing out the facts as "the fun police".



Sad. Sick and sad.

[Seeking Serenity]

67. I don't know from BDSM practitioners

That's not my thing. And I'm not defending anything. I freely admit to not having read the books nor will I see the movie.

I'm merely contemplating how similar the sex police on the left and right are in their messaging about why people shouldn't read or see certain things. And these allies on both sides of the political spectrum are absolutely convinced of the righteousness of their perspective and stop just short of insisting (and some do even that) that everyone else should adopt that perspective, and if they don't, then they must be guilted because they obviously support and encourage ____(x)____ (insert issue here).

[chervilant]

274. I find it disingenuous

and not a little offensive to accuse DUers who object to media depictions of rape and relationship violence (and myriad other behaviors that objectify and belittle women) of being "sex police." Like others who've posted responses herein, I could give a rat's ass what two consenting adults opt to do sexually. However, I've had enough of the sexism, misogyny and "boys will be boys "attitudes that are becoming prevalent in this forum and across this nation. I thought we'd come a lot further in my lifetime. Sad to see we've not.

[Marrah_G]

125. I have no desire what so ever to read it or see it

and I have been in the BDSM lifestyle for decades.

[ismnotwasm]

140. Yup

I DO know people into it, and they say it's misrepresenting as hell. I know a Dom in love with her submissive, they've been together for quite a while. The movie has to be as bad as the books, which I understand are not just bad, but stupid.

Consenting adults? Not minding their business--That should be obvious.

That there can be a fine line between consent and coercion, through intimidation, violence, drug addiction, age, that, too should be obvious. The indignant defenders of "bedroom" antics, seem to have an appalling naïveté.

[Flatulo]

310. Wait - I just read upthread the the BDSM in the book was consensual. Was it or wasnt it?

Seems like a very important difference.

[alp227]

247. So WHEN is it OK to take a moral stance, regarding "morality brigades"?

Easy to dismiss critics of things one enjoys as "morality brigades". Harder to actually be a critical thinker.

[whathehell]

297. Thank you...It's about time someone asked this question, and, yes,

it IS easier to respond with clichés about "morality brigades" than it is

to think critically. Good point.

[treestar]

72. I don't know, when it comes to BDSM it's more complex than that

There's a reasonable issue that there might not be consent and there might be abuse. Those of us not into it don't get it, so that's natural. Who wants to get hurt? It sounds to me like the person has a problem. Selling this as just a variation is harder to do and people can hardly be surprised that it's not just accepted.

[el_bryanto]

171. Hey I'd like to argue that we should invade Iran, Syria and Iraq. That'd be fun to me.

I sure hope nobody ruins my fun by disagreeing with me.

((seriously I"m not going to argue that we should invade Iran Syria and Iraq)).

Bryant

[mythology]

203. Except in the case of one country invading another is the lack of consent

There's a reason that one of the governing philosophies of BDSM is safe sane and consensual.

[el_bryanto]

219. And there's a reason why people consider 50 shades of grey not really a true depiction of BSDM.

Even practitioners of that lifestyle.

Bryant

[alp227]

246. Is that a real argument?

Or is anyone who merely criticizes "fun" qualified to be "fun police"?

[freedom fighter jh]

37. But what actors do on screen is anyone's and everyone's business,

at least if they want to talk about it.

From what I can see from the trailer, I think 50 Shades is pretty disgusting. I have a right to express that opinion. If you want it out of your bedroom, then don't go to DU in your bedroom.

[whathehell]

59. It's a movie, bro..Ever heard of something called a cultural critique?

Don't like it?...That's just too bad.

[merrily]

60. Yep. That's why I'm not seeing this movie. None of my business.

A reaction to a movie is not anything like a law forbidding miscegenation or sodomy, though. People who don't like this movie are not putting their morals in your bedroom.

[packman]

64. As I used to roam around the neighborhood at night

I saw quite a few things that were disturbing to me. Unfortunately, most of my neighbors now have invested in curtains, so I can't be sure of what is going on now. But the one three doors down sets off some Roman rockets and rings a bell quite often.

Remember what the famous actor (can't recall his/her name) said - any publicity good or bad is good. The movie is going to make a fortune because of the hype.

[Tribalceltic]

71. This movie will help begin a long discourse on the subject

Telling consenting adults what the can and cannot do behind closed doors is a very short slippery slope.

If the book or movie includes non consensual acts then I oppose it.

OTOH simply vilifying the story without seeing is is akin to burning books without reading them.

[DesertDiamond]

73. I love love LOVE that this movie coming out at this moment in history!!

[JTFrog]

85. It's a goddamn movie genius.

It's not about two consenting adults. The book does not follow the idea of safe, sane, and consensual. It is very poorly written. I can't imagine the movie would be any better.

[Trillo]

88. Your post was alerted on. I was surprised the results were so close.

I was juror #3.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Sat Jul 26, 2014, 09:26 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is NEVER your business.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025293602

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

TROLL

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jul 26, 2014, 09:39 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: My vote - troll. Unfortunately too many of them get through MIRT.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: An alert on this post? Denied.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: if anyone is trolling it is the alerter
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh, I've suspected this one for a long time, I'll admit, but I don't think this post is hide-worthy.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[hobbit709]

91. Well, I wonder which self-righteous clown was the alerter.

[wyldwolf]

105. Looks like some have an issue with the poster, not the post content. Absurd. And prime example...

... of how the jury system has issues. Standards aren't applied equally to every DUer.

[Trillo]

110. At least one juror states that outright.

Maybe poster names should be hidden from jurors. Not sure, just a thought.

[wyldwolf]

111. I'm sure it's possible, but would be difficult

... since the thread is used so people can get context of the post. But take DU's ongoing 'Progressive' vs. 'Centirst' battles that get overheated during election years. Anyone who doesn't believe people will be biased against each other and not post content based on that battle are lying to themselves.

[nomorenomore08]

285. I disagree with the alert. But the OP does completely miss the point of the other threads. n/t

[TDale313]

89. It's a friggin' movie.

Not two consenting adults doing anything- a movie. A movie based on a book that, IMO, glorifies and eroticizes sexual violence and abuse. I have every right to say I find that problematic. I'm not calling for banning anything or censorship. People will read and watch what they want to. But I can certainly give my opinion, which is that I personally find it kind of disturbing. This is a controversial topic meant to get people talking. I'm talking about it.

[Trillo]

96. I haven't read the book or seen the movie, and I'm unlikely to

watch the movie unless it ends up in the $3 DVD bin somewhere. That will take awhile.

Just what is abusive and violent about the movie? Is it more violent than, say, Lord of the Rings?

[wyldwolf]

119. It's consensual BDSM from my understanding

I may be wrong, but that's what I've come to understand

[TDale313]

134. It's my understanding that the consensual part

Last edited Sat Jul 26, 2014, 09:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Is very, very much at issue in these books. The relationship is shown as pretty coercive and some say abusive. I actually was under the impression that many in the bdsm community disliked the books for that reason.

[Trillo]

135. It seems like BDSM is a nearly perfect allegory for our police state.

'For shame' some folks consider BDSM a desirable activity? Mix sex into some story, and it sure gets folks attention!

[Luminous Animal]

268. I thought that the books were about that, too. Turns out, they are not...

I just spent four hours researching, there are a few BDSM scenes but it the nonconsensual BDSM scenes (i.e, rape), the repeated threat of rapes and beatings if she doesn't shut up, the isolation from her friends and family, controlling what she wears, what she eats, what she drives and where she works, and the stalking that makes this book about domestic violence.

The sex scenes are really boring. The rest is horrifying and a big trigger for anyone who has been in that kind of relationship.

[smirkymonkey]

272. I know, this OP has puzzled me.

I don't get how opinions about a movie translate to telling one what they can and can not do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. I just don't see any connection.

[TreasonousBastard]

93. Back around 1975 there was a big stink over the movie...

"Salo' or the 120 Days of Sodom"

When I saw it, by the time the title "Circle of Blood" came up half of the half of the theater that hadn't already left got up making retching noises. After the intensity of "Circle of Sex" and "Circle of Shit" they couldn't couldn't deal with what blood might mean.

And this was in an art house in NYC.

Rape, torture, murder, even a Nazi or two. If you are going to celebrate the violation of children, do it right. One of the characters said something along the line of "The ultimate nihilism is the rape of little boys." And proved it.

Why do I bring this up?

Because IT'S ONLY A GODDAMNED MOVIE. And movies, as all art, often exist to test boundaries so we don't have to in real life. "Salo", as even many of its critics admitted, was brilliantly done and went places where most of us would never normally imagine. The phrase "banality of evil" took on a slightly new meaning after seeing it.

I don't know if 50 Shades is a good or bad movie. Unlike some others around here, I don't possess the ability to review or pass judgment on a movie I haven't seen. Or a book I haven't read, for that matter.

What I do know is that while everyone has the right to yack on about it, nobody has the right to be taken seriously.

[wyldwolf]

116. theaters near me were bullied into not showing 'Last Temptation of Christ' in the 80s

[TreasonousBastard]

127. But you just can't help wondering if...

it wasn't a studio PR flack drumming up a lot of that hysteria.

[CBGLuthier]

157. An OKlahoma Cable Company blocked it when Cinemax showed it the first time

It was Multimedia Cablevision. Cox in OKC and all the other cable companies refused to show it. in fact since the pressure came from TBN Cox dropped TBN for a while.

I remember the protests against The Life of Brian. Also had a lot of fun on line for Rocky Horror with the faithful telling us we were going to hell.

[Lex]

98. People bored with their sex lives

love this drivel. Nothing wrong with that I suppose.

[Louisiana1976]

207. There must be a lot of people bored with their sex lives because the books were so popular.

[Lex]

209. Yes, there must be.

But that's not surprising.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

102. Haven't read the book, don't intend to see the movie.

But a movie is not 'two consenting adults' in a bedroom. It's a movie, and an influence on pop culture. Movies are open for criticism, especially if they promote some agenda or message.

Keep your bedroom curtains closed and don't videotape what you do there and put it up on hundreds of public movie screens, and everyone else's morals will stay out of your bedroom.

[Bonobo]

103. I support people's rights to criticize movies! nt

[wyldwolf]

113. Me, too, as long as it doesn't cross the lines of harassment

If we see protests of the movie where people try to block access, then I have a problem. I've heard that happened back in the 80s with the movie 'Last Temptation of Christ.' I've also seen how people get harassed enter sex toy stores. Not cool. It's some of the language being used by these 'critics' that make me think this criticism could cross that line.

[Bonobo]

115. Yup. Criticize all you want, but don't you DARE get in my way or in if I choose to go see it. nt

[Skidmore]

114. One night I watched a movie entitled "Secretary" with Maggie Gyllenhaal and James Spader

in it. I didn't set out to watch that movie but it started and I got sucked into the film. It was not the sort of film I'd normally watch. I watched the trailer from "50 Shades" yesterday on the web and it looks a lot like the same plot. Even the boss' name is Grey. Perhaps there is only so many ways you can write something of this nature.

I'm not watching this new movie because having seen one is enough for me. Not my thing, never will be. I don't like this whole idea that exercising control in that manner in a sexual context is truly consent. There is something not free about it; something manipulative and with an abusive edge to the "consent." I don't understand what brings a person to that sort of "consent" that could be considered part of healthy development. Just my opinion.

[arcane1]

262. It's my belief that the author basically ripped off "Secretary" and made it into a book

I had the same impression you did after seeing the preview.

[Laelth]

303. It's dangerous to deny people the personal authority to consent.

That's a pretty slippery slope. I hear your objections, and I too am suspicious, but we get into very dangerous territory and begin to reek of authoritarianism when we deny rational actors the ability to consent.

-Laelth

[SmittynMo]

121. Did someone say BDSM?

Someone had to cheer this group up. Damn, all the bitching and fighting. It's time for some humor.

[Louisiana1976]

211. Thanks for the comic relief.

[davidn3600]

123. A movie that annoys the Christian teabaggers AND the sex-negative feminists?

Sounds like fun!

[aikoaiko]

132. And the jury results are in....

On Sat Jul 26, 2014, 10:54 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

A movie that annoys the Christian teabaggers AND the sex-negative feminists?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5294160

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling out du members, calling them sex negative as a shaming insult to their sexuality. Sexist.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jul 26, 2014, 11:07 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Geez, lighten up
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree. This guy is a one note shit stirrer.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: davidn3600 isn't calling DU members sex-negative anymore than he is calling DU members Christian teabaggers. Its actually the alerter who is saying our feminists are sex-negative. LOL. Well done alerter! You ARE what you claim is against our community standards.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This entire thread is a travesty. This line is the least offensive.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[pintobean]

178. Juror #4 nailed it.

Another failed attempt to redefine a post by the alerter.

[seabeyond]

136. in the future when we state your OPs are about "annoying" the feminists, kindly remember this

proclamation of yours. this is what we will be addressing. right here. your admitting readily, your goal is to annoy feminists.

[davidn3600]

139. No...I just find sex-negative feminists to be as socially oppressive as tea baggers

I DON'T CARE what two consenting adults do in their own bedrooms! It's not my business and it's not your business either. What makes you think you have the right to dictate that?

Some of the most progressive people I have ever met were in the BDSM community. To suggest that they hate women or support rape of women is stupid and clueless. Anyone who thinks BDSM is about violence against women is clueless. If it isn't your thing, that's fine. But stop attacking consenting adults who are engaging in this stuff at their own free-will and in their own private lives.

[seabeyond]

144. yes, i understand your repeated use of sex negative is to annoy feminist, using their sexuality

to try to shame them, making my very point and well... your point about annoying feminists being .... fun.

one link, post or word where i dictate what people do in their bedroom. now, you too are fabricating an argument that was not made.

one post where i have addressed what is going on in the bsdm community. another fabricated argument that was not made.

personally, i do not give a shit what happens in others bedroom. hence. me not saying anything about what is happening in others bedroom. do you get the stupid of your argument?

[davidn3600]

150. I don't keep a journal of everyone's posts on here

But it just seems a certain group of DUers flood threads like this that discuss the topic of BDSM or sexuality. And that group of DUers always has a very negative tone about this topic and starts alerting every other post in that thread.

I'll tell you when it started...a year ago when a certain DUer from HOF started a war with me and others because she thought it would be acceptable for the United States to ban pornography. That's the stuff Rick Santorum talks about.

I just couldn't believe I came on to a liberal forum and we got progressives here talking about banning pornography. That blew my mind.

And no, Im not searching for the posts. It was a year ago, and I dont have the time to search for it.

[seabeyond]

153. you made specific false accusations about me, and when refuted you now make false accusations that

are not worth the time to confront, on a group.

i have no interest in your whine david. you made it clear you intent. an intent that we have been calling out.

back pedal or whatever. i am not interested.

[davidn3600]

160. You are the one that replied to me!

You made accusations against me. I have a right to defend myself.

If you dont want to talk to me, stop replying to my posts.

[seabeyond]

161. yes. i called to attention your continued efforts to annoy feminists cause it is ..... fun

[davidn3600]

166. And I never said all feminsits...I said sex-negative feminists

And yes, there is a clear difference.

There is a clear division in the feminist movement when it comes to the topic of female sexuality and how it should be presented. You are trying to suggest the whole movement is unified on this. It hasn't been unified on this since the 70s.

[BainsBane]

241. You insulted the feminist you were speaking to

based on your judgment of her sexuality that you deem deficient because she disagreed with you.

[whathehell]

292. Rick Santorum & the Religious Right are against porn for completely

different reasons than anti-porn feminists.

If you didn't already know that, you should learn about their reasons.

P.S. No, it's not because they're "sex negative".

[whathehell]

304. Finding sado-masochism distasteful must be "sex negative", LOL

Nice try.

[BainsBane]

174. "sex negative feminists"

That is an effort to shame women for their sexuality, something you claimed only women do.

If this were about two private people in a private bedroom, it wouldn't be a movie. A movie is not yours or anyone else's private life.

Claiming feminists are sex negative is meant to be insulting and it is sexually shaming. That someone holds an opinion that differs from your own does not entitle you to claim they are sexually deficient. The subject of this OP is a movie, not anyone's private life. You apparently feel that no one has a right to comment on a movie, pretending it is about a couple's private life, while you insult Seabeyond as "sex negative" and as "socially oppressive as tea baggers." The irony in insisting she has no right to an opinion about a film because it deals with sex while you condemning her sexuality is rich. If you truly believe that a person's sex life is their own, why do you insult women as sex negative, which is to shame them for their sexuality? Or is what you mean that men's sexuality--even in fiction or cinema--should never be question, whereas women deserve ridicule of their sexuality for daring to disagree with you?

[Doctor_J]

180. He didn't claim that"feminists are sex negative". He wrote that the

subset of feminists who ARE sex negative have a similar view of sex as do Rick Santorum and his ilk.

[BainsBane]

181. He insulted Seabeyond as a "sex negative feminist"

who is as bad as a Tea Bagger. My point stands. He used terms to shame her because she doesn't revere some crap film he can't distinguish from someone's private sex life. It's shaming a woman for her sexuality based on her audacity of speaking in public. Her sexuality must be attacked whereas a movie is sacrosanct. That reveals that he does not in fact what consenting adults do is their business, not if one of those adults is a woman who dares to disagree with people that think movies should not be commented on.

Calling a woman sex negative or a prude is part of the same process as "slut shaming." Daring to disagree, speaking in public in anyway, renders a woman sexually deficient. I have been called both by the same people because there is no point at which a woman is not defective if she dares to articulate an opinion that does not affirm a man's exclusive rights to control public discourse and now even popular culture.

From what I have heard, people in the BDSM community think the novel is complete crap. People who are literate think the novel is complete crap. Yet for some reason a film based on that crap novel has rights that trump those of women on this site to give an opinion. Naturally commerce and profit trump women's rights. What else is new? Hobby Lobby, Hollywood, corporate media--all are more important that women's right to free speech or their rights to their own sexuality without shame.

[whathehell]

267. "Sex negative"?...Maybe you mean "brutalized and demeaned" negative.

Can't imagine why anyone have a problem with that.

[davidn3600]

271. BDSM isn't about brutality and demeaning women

The core of BDSM is consensuality.

You are arguing about a type of porn that is already illegal. Actual film of a real, actual rape is already illegal. That's a crime. And no one suggested otherwise. But that's not what's being discussed here. This is a movie. No one is being forced to do anything.

This here below is the point I am trying to make above...There are two very different feminist views on this. One does not make me a misogynist because I don't share your same view on porn.

Feminist opponents of pornography—such as Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, Robin Morgan, Diana Russell, Alice Schwarzer, Gail Dines, and Robert Jensen—argue that pornography is harmful to women, and constitutes strong causality or facilitation of violence against women.

Catharine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin had separately staked out a position that pornography was inherently exploitative toward women, and they called for its censorship.[1] When Dworkin testified before the Meese Commission in 1986, she said that 65 to 70 percent of all women involved in the sex industries—such as prostitutes, film stars and models and presumably writers of certain kinds—had been victims of incest or child abuse, though she supplied no evidence to support this assertion.[1]

Andrea Dworkin's crusade against pornography during the 1980s brought her to national attention.[2]

Vs.

Sex-positive feminism (also known as sexually liberal feminism[citation needed] or pro-sex feminism) describes the belief that sexual liberation and sexual freedom are key components of women's liberation. The terms sex-positive feminism and pro-sex feminism are disputed within feminism.

Pornography is seen as being a medium for women's sexual expression in this view. Sex-positive feminists view many radical feminist views on sexuality, including views on pornography, as being as oppressive as those of patriarchal religions and ideologies, and argue that anti-pornography feminist discourse ignores and trivializes women's sexual agency. Ellen Willis (who coined the term "pro-sex feminism&quot states "As we saw it, the claim that 'pornography is violence against women' was code for the neo-Victorian idea that men want sex and women endure it."[21]

Sex-positive feminists take a variety of views towards existing pornography. Many sex-positive feminists see pornography as subverting many traditional ideas about women that they oppose, such as ideas that women do not like sex generally, only enjoy sex in a relational context, or that women only enjoy vanilla sex. They also argue that pornography sometimes shows women in sexually dominant roles and presents women with a greater variety of body types than are typical of mainstream entertainment and fashion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pornography_feminism


And that there above is the reason I made my post suggesting sex-neg feminists are as oppressive as the far-right Christians. Maybe you disagree with that. That's fine. But that's my position on the matter.

[whathehell]

288. Of course it is, although I know men can be "brutalized & demeaned" as well.

Sorry, but it's "consensuality" doesn't change the nature of the

actions themselves -- People "consent" to a lot of things..That doesn't

doesn't mean their choices are healthy, non-injurious or indicative

of psychological health.

Wikipedia?...Please..I imagine it's difficult finding a lot of positive

endorsement for the BDSM lifestyle, but you really should be able

to do better than that.

This Wikipedia "author" immediately gives away his or her bias in his

categorization of the two major schools of feminist thought on

pornography as "anti-porn" and "sex positive", whereas its true

opposite, obviously, would be "anti-porn" and "pro-porn", the

former description implying that feminists against porn are

"sex-negative". Riiiight. . Try again.

[JVS]

245. That's the big mystery of this book.

For a book that is considered notoriously bad in so many corners of society, it sure seems to sell. Maybe it's some kind of money laundering operation for the CIA

[PowerToThePeople]

128. When they make and publish a movie about it, it can be. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

141. bingo.

[randys1]

129. Do Women feel the book or movie is misogynistic? if so, then it is and I wont watch...

[davidn3600]

131. Dude, women are buying this book like hotcakes

[seabeyond]

138. then trashing and saying wtf..... as media hyped the pr sales. it gets a 2 rating out of 5 stars.

kinda like what you are doing in this post right here.

a game. but then, we certainly get the game, dont we david. cause you are sure you are just annoying those mean ole feminists, and that is your goal. per your post a couple up. better get a link, so an alerter does not falsely accuse.

davidn3600 (3,077 posts)
123. A movie that annoys the Christian teabaggers AND the sex-negative feminists?

Sounds like fun!

[pnwmom]

163. And lots of women vote for tea baggers, too.

Or buy all kinds of stupid stuff pushed by Madison avenue.

[davidn3600]

170. I understand that, but...

But I mean...100 million copies of this book has been sold.

There are tons of movies out there with violence and killing and no one cares. But a movie about some twisted BDSM relationship is getting people angry and prompting calls of misogyny?

It's like people going crazy over Janet Jackson's breast showing for a split-second during the Super Bowl halftime show...yet no one cares about the violent game going on before and after it.

[pnwmom]

243. Sex sells. And people were curious. But I know women who wished they hadn't wasted their money.

They got sucked in by the hype. How many of the 45 million sold in the US fell into that category? Who knows.

[Michigander_Life]

137. Some probably do, others probably don't -- women are not a hive mind.

[randys1]

143. Really, I thought they did have a hive mind...learn something new everyday

[JoeyT]

145. A great many do.

The BDSM is largely non-consensual. Either I'm going to fuck you, or I'm going to hit you, you can decide which to a woman that just said "Please don't hit me." kind of shit.

Other than that, it's basically a long string of every abuse tactic known to man. Stalking, gaslighting, isolation, etc.

I don't know who's buying it, but I don't know any women that liked it. I don't even know anyone into BDSM that liked it. MRAs, Red Pillers, and other assorted awful people are huge fans of it, though.

[Doctor_J]

133. or what FICTIONAL MOVIES THEY WATCH

[maced666]

146. Not 100% true; otherwise Hobby Lobby has an argument

Stay out of my bedroom but wait - pay for my activities there or you will pay hell - take your pic.

The stay out of my bedroom line is way to broad and invites others to say fine then, YOU pay for your own contraceptives. The phrase is too exploitative.
A simple mind your own business - or, don't be judgmental is more appropriate.

[JoeyT]

147. I thought I'd accidentally stumbled into The Red Pill again.

I think we can pretty much bury the idea that this is a liberal message board once and for all.

[seabeyond]

155. +1. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

177. ...because everyone doesn't agree with you on this particular issue.

[JoeyT]

210. Well by all means,

tell me how support for a book that can best be described as "Koch brother stalks and harasses woman, fucks her when she says no, and mentally abuses her until she breaks. But it's totally cool! He's rich, and eventually she learns her place." is liberal.

Edit: Especially since it's basically being defended in two places that aren't here. People that are in favor of legalized rape, but don't want to say it out loud (MRA sites), and people that are in favor of rape being legal and are perfectly willing to say it out loud (Red pill).

[ClarkeVII]

224. It's not that

I think there is a lot of shaming going on. Who cares if middle age women like this? Not me to judge and it's not open minded to judge peoples fetishes.

[Warren DeMontague]

232. because no true "liberal" would disagree with Morality in Media, Phylis Shlafly, and Rick Santorum?

You know, I've seen a lot of bullshit zeppelins try to fly around here over the years, but that one is the graf fucking Hindenburg.

[JoeyT]

244. Well then perhaps you can explain

how a book that can be summed up as "Koch brother stalks and harasses woman, fucks her when she says no, and mentally abuses her until she breaks. But it's totally cool! He's rich, and eventually she learns her place." is liberal.

I'm sort of curious, because it doesn't sound liberal to me.

[Warren DeMontague]

248. I dont think the book is liberal. I suspect it is, at best, exceptionally shitty writing.

However, telling people what they ought to choose for themselves what to read and watch, is NOT liberal. Finger-wagging at consenting adults for their private sexual choices? Definitely not liberal.

Do you honestly believe that going ZOMG O NO YOU BETTER NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE O NO is going to do anything BUT encourage people who wouldn't watch it, to check it out?

I dont think you understand human nature very well.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

148. agreed.

[pnwmom]

159. The MESSAGE of this movie is as debatable as anything on DU.

No one here cares about what real people do in their real bedrooms. But these are actors in a movie, not people in the privacy of their bedroom.

And many people care about the message conveyed by this stupid book and movie.

[Zorra]

167. (Text NSFW or anyone upset by sex). I personally believe that deriving sexual pleasure

by inflicting pain and/or humiliation on another person, or receiving pain and being humiliated by another person, are pretty unnatural sexual responses that are the direct result of institutionalized guilt trips about sex laid on cultures and individuals by widespread patriarchal "sky god" type religions. Sex is certainly not the only thing that these religions have totally fucked up for most everyone on the planet. But what is done is done; and now it is what it is.

So I won't be burning any books, or advocating for banning any films, because of it, or telling consenting adults what they can or can't do in the bedroom, as long as it doesn't harm any other living things besides themselves. As someone born an LGBT woman, I've had enough of that authoritarian conservative type of bullshit in my life to last me until all the stars burn out.

Spoiler Alert

I've read "50 Shades of Grey". "Hot", shallow, dysfunctional (twisted by an awful childhood), super rich sadist (damaged "prince charming&quot who appears kind enough to maybe have potential to be "saved by good hearted woman" (Cinderella/Frog Prince heroine) lures fairly healthy, intelligent but unbelievably naive and inexperienced young upper middle class woman into a "tantalizing" scintillating, mysterious S & M relationship. Dude eventually goes off the rails and abuses and harms the young woman beyond pre-agreed boundaries. After much bizarre drama, woman leaves twisted rich guy, and goes on her way, wounded, but much wiser, and then hot, rich damaged Prince saves her life and they live wealthily ever after in patriarchal splendor.

I was entertained by the book, it's not really all that big of of a deal, in comparison to all the sick, bloody, deranged, ultra-violent books, films, and wars on the market these days. Women have sexual fantasies. This book is, clearly, largely the product of the author's sexual fantasies, and probably her understanding of many other sexually bored, sexually unsatisfied women's sexual fantasies. "My Secret Garden" was the main required text of one of my Women's studies 101 courses in 1973. It is what it is; the priests of the authoritarian patriarchal sky god religions have ordained it so for you and me.

I've had partners who wanted me to inflict pain on them, and partners who wanted to inflict pain on me. That's just not my idea of a good time, but, while I love pleasing, and receiving pleasure from a partner, I won't ever go there. Purposely hurt me, and it's game over. And purposely hurting someone is pretty much against my spiritual beliefs. When I asked these partners why they felt this deep need to incorporate pain into sex, they gave me the cliched "there is a fine line between pleasure and pain" line. But when I tried to probe deeper, they really either didn't know where the desire to inflict or receive pain, respectively, came from, or maybe had some idea, but did not want to reveal it.

OK, whatever, but, well, that's just not me, and I only know what's right for me. Giving or receiving pain and humiliation is not my idea of a good time, in any way, shape, or form.

But to each their own, if that is someone's "thing", well...I hope they don't receive, or cause, anyone any unwanted permanent damage, and have a joyful, wonderful life.

[moriah]

202. Where do you draw the line? (Following NSFW pattern here in text)

Personally, I'm not into pain. I have too delicate of skin for one to give it much of a try -- I'd end up bruised. Second, it just doesn't sound hot to me, and I'm already more of a "pain... well, hurts" kinda person.

But when you say humiliation... okay, this gets personal, but my guy likes to tie me up, please me, and enjoys me begging for more and maybe teasing some before going straight to the point if you know what I mean. Some might say that's humiliating -- begging and all, though it's more about getting me to the point where I would. He's enjoying the little bit of a power trip, I know -- that he can make me feel that way. I'm enjoying the fact that extended foreplay makes sex much better, and that I can trust a person to look out for what makes me feel good even when that vulnerable.

For many couples who may acknowledge a bit of kink in their relationship, that's as far as it goes.

Is that acting out institutionalized guilt trips about sex as well, or is it just masochism that you feel is that way?

[Zorra]

282. Good question.

My longest relationship, (13 years), was with a woman who was raised in a very strict religion. She liked to be tied up and blindfolded during sex. When I asked her why, (and we had many deep discussions about many things) she told me that she was taught that unmarried women who had sex were evil, that sex was evil, that society itself holds a double standard, one we all well know ~ women who have sex outside marriage, have frequent sex with one or more partners, or who simply enjoy sex, are negatively labeled as sluts, while men who enjoy sex, have sex outside of marriage, and have frequent sex with one or more partners, are positively labeled as studs.

She said she believed that she enjoyed sex more when she was tied up, blindfolded, and under complete control of another person primarily because it relieved her of the responsibility and any subsequent guilt of having sex, because she could feel powerless to stop it, and therefore having sex under these conditions did not make her feel guilty.

I totally understand this, inherently, and believe many or most other women who can think freely do as well, and know that the desire to be bound, gagged, and controlled during sex is a common fantasy and/or frequent activity for quite a large number of women.

I tried being held in bondage by my partner a few times, and found the anticipation, lack of control, and randomly timed surprise touches and teases and other various stimulation done to me by my partner to be pleasant and novel, but not something I needed, or wanted to engage in with any frequency.

There's a big difference between healthy play/variety/experimentation, and unhealthy needs. In the "50 Shades of Grey" series, the male antagonist, Mr. Grey, appears to have developed an unhealthy need to administer pain and have control due to the circumstances of his very warped childhood.

So to answer your question, yes, in some cases, the desire to be bound, gagged, and completely out of control during sex is completely understandable as stemming from an institutionalized guilt trip, but the fun trust teasing during bondage that you described is not intended or received as "humiliation" in my worldview. Not at all.

[Shankapotomus]

296. So your GF's attraction to that kind of sex

stemmed from a neurosis introduced by poor parenting? So you're basically tying such behavior to a psychologically unhealthy foundation and then not concluding there were maybe unaddressed issues to be worked out on her part?

Not singling you out, I just find it interesting that while the cause of a behavior is seen as unhealthy, the resulting effect goes unquestioned.

[Zorra]

299. A) I don't feel qualified to determine if a reasonably healthy, well rounded individual is

"neurotic".

B) She tied the behavior to religious people and Judeo-Christian ethics based American culture altering the development of her sex behavior needs; I believed and trusted what she told me, and moved on with that information to do the best I could to love and support her.

C) To the best of my knowledge, I'm not capable of "curing" anyone's fixed sex behavior preferences, I don't assume I can, or should, and don't feel it's my place to try to do so unless someone maybe asks for my help in some way. She simply liked vanilla bondage sometimes; I don't have a problem with that; if she needed me to cause her pain, that would have been a game changer for me. It's not like she had some fatal relationship killing flaw, like being a Republican, or something else as seriously debilitating as that. People are individuals, we are who we are, and if we find someone with certain qualities that we are attracted to and we commit to a relationship with them, we pretty much have to accept some things about the other person that may not fit our perfect ideal of a partner or the relationship was over before it began.

D) Relationships require agreement and compromise. We determine what we can, and cannot live with. It's not my place to try to change the person I choose to be with. I can't make anyone happy. My place in a committed relationship, in my worldview, is to love, cherish, and support the person I choose to be with, to the very best of my ability. When I agree to be in a committed relationship with someone, I accept the whole person, and take it from there, doing the best I can to help me, my partner, and the relationship itself, continually evolve into something more beautiful.

[Iggo]

168. What?

It's a fucking movie!

[Scootaloo]

173. Sex police? I'm here with the quality police

Who the fuck would pay $20 to go watch a poor adaptation of a poorly-written novel, just so they can get a tingle from R-rated semi-porn?

As Samuel L. Jackson reminds us, redtube exists! Shit if you're dedicated on overspending, there are professional dungeons in most cities.

Just spare yourself the ignomy of watching a terrible movie!

[bravenak]

175. It's fanfiction for christsakes. Those aren't consenting adults, they're actors.

When you read a bit of it, you'll understand why it's a stupid ass book. The movie cannot possibly be better.

Providing a warning to people that this movie may include abuse, coercion, and dubious consent is actually what we should do for every movie that comes out of the theater that has abuse. It's like that thing where people type 'Trigger Warning!'.

It doesn't matter how many copies were sold of the shitty book. It was published and released to the public and we get to criticize and bash the film as much as we want. You could stop playing 'criticism police' bound and determined to not allow for any criticism of this nasty publication.

"keep your morals out of my bedroom" wtf

I don't think a movie theater counts as YOUR bedroom, so that part made no sense.

[Michigander_Life]

176. The common theme in many of the sex police posts

Is that sex they don't approve of is bad. All sex between consenting adults is OK and isn't anyone else's business. Period.

[bravenak]

179. IT'S NOT THE SEX!!!!

It's the dumb ass storyline, the controlling leading man, him ripping her tampon out was gross as hell and not really how things go down IRL. I have personally seen it all. I've watched actual porn be produced. Gross. Smelly. Painful for the women. Bossy controlling sexist pigs in the background degrading the female.


This book felt degrading as i was reading a bit of it. Twilight fanfiction with a much weaker female lead, a controlling dude that gets off on questionable acts with this virginal ingenue. As i was reading it i keep saying,"Girl, he's a creepy stalker type! Run!!" Been there done that. He also likes spying on her. Creeptown. And guess what? If somebody puts their creepfactory sex acts up on the silver screen, it becomes my business instantly. All sex between consenting adults is NOT okay. Incest is not cool. Even consensual. I'm also not into cheating, not okay even if consensual, if the spouse is in the dark.

If the author hadn't put her fan-fiction up for sale, we wouldn't care. But here we are. It's out in the media. I do not want my daughters seeing this one day and thinking that this is what sex is supposed to be like.

[Tetris_Iguana]

182. I'm afraid it's far, far, too late.

I do not want my daughters seeing this one day and thinking that this is what sex is supposed to be like.

Porn is how the youngest generations learn about sex.

The sad part about 50 shades is that is much tamer than what they are used to looking at.

[bravenak]

184. As my eight year old would say, " So Gwoss!"nt

[geek tragedy]

183. So says the guy who alerted on a nipple. nt

[bravenak]

185. Boom goes the dynamite!nt

[Michigander_Life]

186. That wasn't the alert

Nipples are wonderful. The poster's refusal to put NSFW tags, despite numerous requests from DUers, was what got his post hidden.

[bravenak]

192. And us giving our opinion is like our own special type of NSFW tag.

[BainsBane]

187. Indeed

I'm having trouble taking this seriously. I can't help but think the outcome and intent of this original post are one in the same.

[eggplant]

197. ...and the jury is in.

On Sat Jul 26, 2014, 03:14 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

So says the guy who alerted on a nipple. nt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5294839

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The poster knows very well that this statement is not true. This is a personal slur against another member of DU who asked that OPs put NSFW tags on posts that are questionable.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jul 26, 2014, 03:29 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Compared to the rest of this troll-bait thread, this does not rise to the standard of being "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate."

Personally, I believe these threads serve no purpose other than to sell popcorn.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seems to be a statement of fact. Take your tiffs to private email.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh. If it's untrue, point it out in a reply.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[geek tragedy]

215. Thx. Must have struck a nerve . nt

[BainsBane]

216. Juror 1 got to the heart of the issue

[eggplant]

260. Thanks.

I'm starting to think that DU needs to institute a rule requiring people to wait two minutes to reply to any post.

Intelligent discourse can happen at a calm pace. Shit like this thread, not so much.

[Bobbie Jo]

205. ROFL

[BainsBane]

189. but not breastfeeding

That has to be censored. Breasts shouldn't be seen for the purpose they were actually intended.

[Michigander_Life]

190. Breast feeding is wonderful and should be encouraged.

So is, and so should be, standard forum etiquette. How much straw can you fit in that strawman?

[BainsBane]

194. You write this OP equating criticism of a film

with people's private lives and you are accusing me of creating a strawman? You've erected the biggest pile of straw in GD in months.



?


I love the smell of irony in the morning.

[BainsBane]

191. 45 people believe Americans have no right to comment on movies

What happened to all the cries about free speech? Does free speech only extended to profane insults against women, people of color, and LGBT Americans? Critiques of movies are somehow exempt?

[Michigander_Life]

193. 45 people believe two consenting adults shouldn't be berated and belittled for their sexual choices

[BainsBane]

195. Which two adults are those?

[Michigander_Life]

198. Those two.

[BainsBane]

199. the movie characters?

Or the Hollywood production company that profits from the film?

[Michigander_Life]

201. Any two adults who engage in consensual sex.

*pointing around the room* Those two, them, and them, too. How do you feel about BDSM, extreme sex, and those who choose to engage in it?

[BainsBane]

212. So that they come from a fictional novel adapted into a movie makes no difference?

Does that mean all the college students who have written essays about Lady Chatterley's Lover or Tropic of Cancer are guilty of passing judgment on someone else's sexuality? What about classisists who comment on Oedipus or Electra?

[muriel_volestrangler]

204. What the fuck does that mean? There's no *actual sex* involved here; it's fiction

So there are no 2 adults with 'sexual choices'. 50 Shades of Grey was not based on real life - you do realise that, don't you?

What some DUers were objecting to was that, in their opinion, the book, and presumably film, portrays physical abuse in a relationship as acceptable. Whether it does, I don't know- I haven't read it, and am not going to. But you've posted so many times about this, you might at least engage the arguments of DUers, rather than strawmen.

[Michigander_Life]

208. So many times?

Aside from linking the title referencing the current 50 shades controversy, it was mentioned no where else in the OP. If you hadn't noticed,the sex police have capitalized on the 50 shades controversy to paint everyone who doesn't adhere to their strict sexual guidelines with the same broad, terrible, oppressive brush.

[muriel_volestrangler]

218. No, I haven't noticed that; that appears to be the problem with your OP

You link to the 50 Shades thread, but people are not talking about strict sexual guidelines there; the objections to the film in that thread are about what they think is domestic abuse.

[BainsBane]

220. Actually it's the opposite

The people being shamed for their sexuality in this thread are women who dare to comment on a film.

[R B Garr]

221. It looks like the jury hide is all they were after here...

I guess they have the winning formula of obfuscation + dismissiveness = eventual jury hides.

[BainsBane]

225. Probably so

because I really find it difficult to believe that people can't tell real human beings from a novel or a movie. That idea that fictional characters rights to go uncommented upon trumps real human beings rights' to speech is ludicrous.

[R B Garr]

227. Exactly. I found that difficult to believe, as well.

What's even more telling is that the so-called Nipple Alerter decried the lack of a NSFW tag on a simple thread on the internet, so they obvioiusly know that there are limits to some media content in certain venues. If they understood NSFW, then certainly they would have understood you asking them to differentiate between real-life and fiction.

[Warren DeMontague]

230. 52, now.

And if I wasn't going to rec it for any other reason, I'll rec it just as a statement against "rec policing", which I find particularly goofy.

[BainsBane]

231. This makes the spreadsheet thread

look like a Pulitzer prize winner. At least there was an air of plausibility to that one. I have trouble believing one person actually believes something so absurd, let alone have it endorsed by 52 others.

[Warren DeMontague]

235. People like dumb book, people complain about those liking book, people complain about complainers

and so on and so forth.

Not the recipe for high discourse, to be sure.

And whatever masochistic tendencies I might have, they're not so deep that I would ever consider subjecting myself to something called "Twilight Fan Fiction".

The movie itself looks like, with any luck, it might be the Showgirls of 2014. As such, it will probably bomb only to be revived as camp in 5 or 10 years, a thing for stoned 20somethings to watch ironically on blu-ray or streaming new-ray or steaming poo-ray or whatever they have in 2024.

But I will say this- the BEST way to drum up interest in this thing, to get people to go see it, is to tell them NOT to.

A simple concept which nevertheless, never seems to sink in.

[BainsBane]

238. Which is why I would bet any amount of money

that "anti-porn" stunt was staged by the movie studio/distributers.

The violence I object to is against the English language perpetrated by the author. That is unforgivable.

[Warren DeMontague]

240. On your first part you might very well be right.

I know enough about Hollywood... I've witnessed that process in action.

If they didn't originate it (unless they have plants in "Morality in Media"- a distinct possibility) they're no doubt going to give it as wide an airing as possible. No such thing as bad publicity, and the like.

The second part of your post I agree with 100%.

[philip.chinery]

206. Why just the bedroom?

I don't understand why so many people are willing to give-up all of their rights everywhere else.

[Quantess]

213. Oh, I know! Glenn Beck talks about this a lot.

Also Alex Jones. We have our God Given Rights, but does anyone follow The Constitution anymore? Well, it's a fair question, anyway.

[Louisiana1976]

214. Right. And welcome to DU. It can be in the living room, the kitchen, the dining room,

the den--anywhere they want.

[Warren DeMontague]

250. Not at my age, sonny

Sex on the kitchen countertop is a young man's game.

[Louisiana1976]

273. I'm not a man--I'm a woman.

[Warren DeMontague]

287. Sorry. My toothless old wheezy geezer voice works better with words like "sonny", that's all

not like these things always come across well through the intertubes, anyway.

[Brigid]

217. I am not going to see this movie.

I did not read the book.
I have that right.

[Quantess]

223. How about everyone keeps their clothes on?

As in, most of the time except for in the shower?

[Shrike47]

228. When I was in Junior High, we perfected showering with our clothes on.

[Quantess]

234. Like in Arrested Development?

http://arresteddevelopment.wikia.com/wiki/Never_Nude

[hrmjustin]

229. Yes I agree that what people do in their bedroom do is their own business.

Now what is the contraversy?

[BainsBane]

236. I guess you're not supposed to comment on movies or novels

that have sex in them.

[hrmjustin]

237. What is this movie about?

[BainsBane]

239. It's based on some crap novel

that is popular. Here is the trailer. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5290830

The OP apparently got riled up about something he read in that thread. For some reason I cannot begin to understand, He hasn't figured out the characters in the movie aren't real people. That is, if we are to take this argument seriously, which I have trouble doing.

[hrmjustin]

242. Not my type of movie. Not surprised it caused debate.

[Warren DeMontague]

249. Once the giant robots start battling the extra dimensional sea monsters, it gets better.

Seriously, movies suck these days.

If there is any justice in Hollywood, the winner of the best picture Oscar for 2015 will be "The Lego Movie"

[hrmjustin]

251. The last movie I saw was Milk.

It is better to wait till they come on cable.

[Warren DeMontague]

252. Oh yeah, absolutely. Sean Penn was great in that.

Have you read David Talbot's "season of the witch"? It's his pean to San Francisco from the 50s to the 80s, basically. It covers a lot of ground, as you can imagine, but the Milk-Moscone era stuff is a big chunk of it.

[hrmjustin]

253. No, I shall look it up. iam interested in that time period.

[Warren DeMontague]

254. It's a good read.

[hrmjustin]

256. Thanks.

[samsingh]

255. agreed

[samsingh]

257. even if there are more than 2 consenting adults its not anyone else's business

[Squinch]

259. There are no posts in which anyone says they have a problem with what consenting adults do. This is

something the poster pulled out of his ass. When I asked him to show me where anyone said it was anyone else's business besides the consenting adults, he indignantly linked me to a thread where NO ONE said it was anyone else's business.

This is some kind of weird argument he's having with the mommy in his head.

[whathehell]

266. "This is some kind of weird argument he's having with the mommy in his head"

Love it.

[smirkymonkey]

275. Yeah, I thought that was pretty funny too.

[BainsBane]

307. Seems like he's not the only one.

[abelenkpe]

258. This thread kills me

So much fuss over a very poorly written crap book. It was a horrible book. H O R R I B L E. It's greatest entertainment value was in laughing at how awful it was. Honestly, a paramecium could write a better story.

[Blaukraut]

276. If the book hadn't appealed to a large group's sexual fantasies, it wouldn't have been a best seller

And that group is not limited to "middle aged house wives". What turns people on in their minds, and what they act out with other consenting adults, ought to be free of judgment.

[In_The_Wind]

277. The book reviews were suggested 50 shades of boredom. I don't need that in my bedroom.

[brooklynite]

279. Let me opine that Tymber Dalton does a -far- better job...

Her books will never be turned into movies, but her BDSM erotica is far better in terms of plot, character and, er, arousal.

[whathehell]

295. I feel sorry for people who can't get off without hurting or being hurt..

Psychologists say Sado-Masochists are unable to experience

intimacy without pain because that is the only kind they've ever had.

[DonCoquixote]

281. theb problem with your statement

This book does NOT describe safe,sane consentual sex between adults, it is the glorificiation of a RICH BASTARD turning people into playthings. It does not deserve the same protection that, let's say Exit to eden did, or any movie where two CONSENTING ADULTS play around with the leather.

Sorry to turn a sex issue into a class issue, but in this case, they do blur.

[LittleBlue]

284. Well said. I think 50 Shades will bomb

Somehow I just can't see the same women who read the book wanting to get together, buy popcorn and watch a bondage movie together. Some of them were probably embarrassed just to buy the book, waiting in line for tickets and enjoying BDSM with 300 other people is too much.

[Tetris_Iguana]

289. I agree

For those reasons if may find more success at redbox.

[99Forever]

286. Self-righteous, self-appointed morality police suck.

And not in the good way.

[mainer]

290. And what a reader reads in the privacy of her bedroom isn't our business, either

The fact this book was such a huge bestseller among women tells us the theme must have some appeal. 'cause it sure wasn't the writing that attracted them.

[whathehell]

291. We're allowed our opinions, "our business" or not

as for it being "such a huge bestseller among women"...Yeah, a sad

fact is that oppressed people are often masochistic. It makes

a kind of sense "If I'm going to be routinely hurt, demeaned,

belittled, I may as well find a way to enjoy it".

[Laelth]

294. Gerogia law disagrees with you.

According to the law of the state of Georgia, a BJ (even between married couples) is illegal.

http://www.sodomy.org/laws/georgia/

It's clear that many states think that what you do in your bedroom is absolutely the business of the state and the body politic.

-Laelth

[treestar]

300. We might argue about consent

and whether or not it was given.

[historylovr]

305. Couple things:

First of all, this is not two or more random people fucking in their bedrooms. This is something put out for mass consumption and "entertainment," and therefore, is open to critique.

It's a poorly written Twilight fanfic that takes the awful messages in that series-that a stalking, manipulative, controlling guy is someone you want to be with-and adds that a way to that guy's heart is to let him torture and rape you. One writer I know has rightfully called Christian Grey a rich and good-looking Ariel Castro, and if you didn't defend him, why defend this schlock.

Secondly, and this is not directed at you, op, but at those who keep bringing it up in relation to this subject, I'm sick of the phrase, "mommy porn," which is a term all the writers of erotic romance that I know hate, as there is no back and forth, push-pull, will they, won't they suspense in porn. And please, if you want to read erotic romance, or erotica, there are much better writers out there: Emma Holly, Jane Leopold Quinn, Tara Mills, Linda Howard...

Okay, one more thing: Labeling critics as sex police? Honestly? Or insulting our sex lives? Really?

[fishwax]

308. i don't see the connection b/w discussing the movie and your bedroom