Have an issue with rape?

[BainsBane]

and fictional depictions of rape in particular? It's all a "projection" on your part over "rape and forced sex."

Your real problem is "unresolved rage over sex." You're just too damn uptight, no different from a fundie.

[Scootaloo]

1. I think there's a cutoff point...

Where perceived malice is actually just terminal stupidity. Where you argue and point and present and the other person is still sniffing their own toes and refusing to "get it" - maybe it's really, truly not that they're refusing to "get it," it's just that they're legitimately too fucking dumb

This thought depresses the hell out of me.

[BainsBane]

2. Ultimately it doesn't matter

Whether it's terminal stupidity or willful dismissal of concerns about sexual assault. The result is the same.

[Squinch]

3. The interesting thing to me is that if you look at most of those threads,

there are very few HoF names in them, and the HoF people are not saying any of the things that "those who refuse to get it" attribute to feminists.

There was a single thread from you, which put forth the position that needed to be put forth: this depiction was not consensual, and was a depiction of rape, and should not be glorified.

The rest of them were all threads of jackasses running around with their hair on fire saying that people were trying to control consensual sex acts.

I have said it before and I will say it again: I believe that they truly "don't get it." Partly as Scootaloo says, because they're too fucking dumb, but also because there seem to be many of them who have mommy issues and use the feminists on this board as stand-ins for the mean mommy in their head. I think that is where all the censorship nonsense comes from when there is no actual censorship, and where all these made up statements from feminists about consensual sex come from that were never said by any feminist here! It is why they seem to believe that we have magic and evil powers to stop their actions or thoughts from afar.

Mommy issues.

[BainsBane]

4. Makes sense

especially the last part about Mommy issues.

[Squinch]

5. I think that is where the hatred of sea comes from. She doesn't hold back her opinion, and

she often refers to her boys and the things she is trying to teach them. We all know that a lot of her opinions come through that prism of "how shall I make this clear to my sons."

It just puts these guys in a tizzy to be reminded of their own mothers in the context of these discussions, and it makes them go ape-shit with illogic.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. very astute observation of what is happening on this board in regards to seabeyond.

Thank you for stating it so clearly, Squinch.

[Squinch]

32. Thanks for the compliment!

[nomorenomore08]

40. Sad thing is, I'll bet her teenaged sons are more mature and self-aware

than some of the jackasses on this board.

[Squinch]

41. No question about that.

[el_bryanto]

6. I think there is a connection to the fact that this is a critique of an entertainment media

Try posting about sexism in video games, for example, and you will see a similar response. TV and Comic Books don't cause quite as much of a furor, but you will still get fanboys popping out to defend the media. I've been thinking about this the last few days and can see two things going on, in addition to the standard sexual blinders that many have.

Firstly, most of these media do have a history of censorship, and fans of the media have seen worthwhile projects derailed by censors. Some people react initially to moral objections to media on the grounds that such objections can lead to banning and production codes which would obstruct good works as well as lousy ones. This is an understandable initial response; but it doesn't hold up for very long as almost everybody who has argued against 50 Shades (in this case) has made it clear that they aren't in favor of banning the film or the book. So if their objection is really that they don't want the film banned, once it's clear that nobody wants the film banned, they should just drop it, right? But they don't. Or the bulk of them don't (every once in a while you will see someone drop it once they realize people aren't talking about bans.

Secondly, I think that people feel uncomfortable about entertainment anyway; I think people are aware that time they spend reading 50 Shades of Grey or playing Mario or watching TV could be spent doing something better. I certainly am (but still play a lot of computer games and watch a fair amount of TV). So I think there's a guilt factor that's already present, and when you add onto that guilt factor the suggestion that what they are watching or enjoy is actually morally problematic, they react strongly. Of course this one throws sex into the mix and it's not like the United States has a history of good sexual maturity.

Thirdly, and just to underline - obviously many just have their own gender biases that they don't really see through or want challenged.

I don't know; it's not a very satisfactory situation.

Bryant

[Squinch]

7. I don't agree with those who say that this is a frivolous discussion, even if the subject book is

frivolous, and you have listed some of the pretty serious, and interesting, issues the argument has brought up.

The censorship thing has been the area where I have done most of my posting in threads on this. People are saying that those who object to the book are wrong, or prudish, or evangelical, because they have voiced that opinion. Those calling people these names don't seem to see that they are engaging in more censorious behavior than the people who voiced the objections. So that is one real, important, issue: the complete misunderstanding of censorship, and the complete lack of self-awareness many posters have when faced with an opinion they don't share, while they are crying "freedom of expression!"

Another huge issue is that of rape culture. If it were ever possible to have a rational discussion about this without the guys who need to call people names and pout about "moralizing" while they are, themselves, moralizing, this book could be a jumping off point for that discussion. Clearly this book tells us a lot about our rape culture. However, there is no way to have that discussion here. Because, you know, we're all prudes. It's a shame, really.

I think you are on to something, though, when you point out that the violence of the defense has something to do with guilt.

[Flatulo]

23. I think I've identified a major area of contention. Obviously I haven't read all the posts

about '50' in the last few days, but for the ones I have, the sticking point seems to be around whether the BDSM is consensual or not (I haven't read it, but I've seen both claims being made). The 'defenders' of the book/movie point out that the if the sex is consensual, anything goes (although I have to wonder how people would feel if one person had consented to have their partner hack them to bits with an axe or slowly strangle them) while the 'critics' of the BDSM seem to be saying that consensus isn't the issue - we should be examining why it is that some people find hurting another person, usually a woman, to be titillating.

It's also a little interesting that the people who are pleading to end the 'censorship' are themselves engaging in a bit of censorship. No one can ban the book or movie, so those are completely moot points.

Does this sound about right?

[ismnotwasm]

25. Yeah

From what I understand, the SMBD community in general considers the book tripe, and misleading. The movie may cause people to try acts they are not trained or qualified to do. So done in GD just started a reasonable thread, basically saying 'consult an expert'. People can and do get hurt.

Then there is consent, a huge part of the relationship

The book, again from my understanding does NOT represent a SMBD relationship

Since the foundation of any form of organised BDSM
(Bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, and
sadomasochism) communities, consent has occupied a
place of central importance. This is reflected in the popular
mantra that BDSM play should be 'safe, sane and
consensual', and the more recent revised phrase 'risk
aware consensual kink', which critically interrogates the
possibility of both entirely safe behaviours and completely
sane subjectivities, but retains the notion that consent can be clearly and simply negotiated when it comes to BDSM play. This paper compares understandings and discussions of consent within the vastly popular 50 Shades erotic novels to the current wave of writings on the topic in the BDSM blogosphere.

The 50 Shades series has arguably brought BDSM to a far larger audience, and to far greater popular attention, than any previous media product. The books include references to BDSM contracts, safe-words, and checklists of activities, for example, and several conversations between the lead characters centre around sexual consent. However, communication about what Ana (the heroine of the novels) desires sexually is poor, and Christian Grey (the hero) frequently violates their arrangements in the relationship more broadly, for example by controlling Ana's working life, eating habits, finances, and social time when she has explicitly asked him not to do so. The issue of consent is a tension between the main characters throughout the series.

http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/documents/barker_meg_pc_0.pdf

[Squinch]

31. I would actually disagree with you. I don't see much criticising of BDSM. What I am seeing on that

Last edited Tue Jul 29, 2014, 12:43 PM - Edit history (1)

side is people saying that it is NOT what BDSM is about, that there was no consent, and therefore it was abuse and rape.

I think for most, consent is the point of contention. There was no consent in the book for a number of the acts, which makes them rape. The book also depicts some pretty textbook emotional abuse, much of which did not include any consensual agreement.

There are a few who say, "How far does consent go before we prosecute it as a felony?" which, as you point out in your hacking example, is a valid point. But I think most of the controversy comes from the fact that the acts were not consensual, the woman never agreed to many of them, which makes them rape.

[Flatulo]

35. I've seen the claims of consent vigorously debated. Again, I haven't read the book, so I

have no opinion in that fight. However, I strongly agree that if consent were absent for any acts, then abuse has occurred.

Personally, the whole BDSM thing is the exact opposite of anything even approaching interesting to me. I can't imagine inflicting any kind of discomfort or humiliation or pain on myself or my wife. But I also don't 'get' male gay sexual practices in any way, but I understand that everyone isn't like me.

I still have some deep-rooted uneasiness with any sexual acts, consenting or not, that hurt either participant. Where should the line be drawn between legal and illegal acts? Well, obviously children cannot give informed consent, nor can intoxicated persons. Beyond that, I just don't know.

[Squinch]

37. I have no interest in sex that hurts or humiliates either, but I understand that there are many

who feel that it gives them a power that they do not experience elsewhere.

If it is consensual and, as you point out, within reasonable limits well short of your hacking example - limits which I believe are pretty well spelled out by the BDSM community, but anyone should feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that - then I feel their right to engage in it should be protected.

[dawg]

8. We have reached a point, at least on DU that is, where ...

anything related to sexuality is sacrosanct to a large percentage of posters. We're allowed to criticize people for how they make and spend their money, the car they drive, the breed of dog they own, their religious beliefs, and their weight.

But the porn they get off to must be beyond reproach.

[Sheldon Cooper]

36. Yep. The sacred right to fresher and nastier wank material supersedes all.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[ismnotwasm]

9. Every one of those threads gets derailed.

The community is so busy defending pornography, even if there is general agreement that they are shitty books (number one on iTunes ebook Btw, price reduced-- SOMEBODY is reading them) there's a kind of mass refusal for reasonable discussion, only accusations and snark. It's herd mentality basically, as well as an apparent inability for critical thinking.

I've trashed around 20 threads on this topic.

[MadrasT]

10. Trashing those threads is like playing whak-a-mole.

It's gotten to be fun.

[ismnotwasm]

11. It is.

I haven't trashed the one Squinch referred too, but MY God-- even Key words wouldn't work--50 shades has outdone Gaza and the Ukraine.

Kinda sad, really.

[MadrasT]

12. Sometimes I deliberately don't use keyword trash...

...because trashing them one at a time is oddly satisfying.

[ismnotwasm]

13. LOL

Like picking out the chocolates you dislike from a mystery candy box.

[BainsBane]

15. That book has now taking on Biblical proportions

complete with Papal infallibility. It's unreal. All dissent must be silenced. They've got a talking point down they are repeatedly incessantly.

Regardless of the post:

"You can't critique a book if you don't read it."

I wasn't critiquing the book. I was talking about x, y and z.

"You can't critique a book if you don't read it."

I didn't. This thread is not about the book.

"You're trying to critique a book you didn't read."

on and on.




Imagine if they exercised that level of discipline while lobbying for a cause other than trying to make people they disagree with keep quiet?

[BainsBane]

18. +1, says Seabeyond

[ismnotwasm]

21. Well in that case

May they enjoy the book. I don't read a fucking thing Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or George W Bush writes either. I'm certainly within my rights and abilities to form an opinion reading reviews and excerpts of many a book. That's how I choose books, along with personal recommendations.

The actual topic matter is where the hissy fits are coming from. A poorly written example of objectifying a woman, sexualizing rape and degradation -- defending by people who apparently didn't read the book either, and apparently know very little about the sexual practices of Doms/Submissive's. There's Automatic neon sign that turns on in certain brains that flashes " they're taking my porn! Stop them! Argh! Panic button! Not the PORN!"--this leave little room for conversation or even debate.

Ironic that.

[Squinch]

33. I have seen your point about Rush Limbaugh etc pointed out in some of these threads. No one

replies to it.

[laundry_queen]

28. No kidding. nt

[Squinch]

34. And those making the "you can't critique if you don't read it" comment haven't read it either.

[Phentex]

14. I was trying to stay out of them...

but now someone is saying she never saw this book mentioned on DU. It's been referenced a brazillion times. Oh and when I did a search it was interesting to me that many of the people posting in the threads are no longer able to post.

[BainsBane]

16. Because of five hides?

Or flags?

[Phentex]

20. PPRd

ghosts of discussions past, lol

[YoungDemCA]

17. What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that these are Libertarian arguments....

....that we are up against. Not disagreements among reasonable progressives.

And Libertarianism is
reactionary right-wing bullshit masquerading as enlightened independent thinking, so go figure.

[ismnotwasm]

19. Oh yes

We have a libertarian infestation. They simply cannot reconcile being close to a Republican in ideology.

[BainsBane]

22. Liberal and libertine are synonymous as far as they are concerned.

[nomorenomore08]

38. "reactionary right-wing bullshit masquerading as enlightened independent thinking"

One of the best descriptions of libertarianism I've seen.

[kickitup]

42. Deriding the books as "shitty" is an excuse to not assign any importance to them.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the books are anything but "shitty." But even shitty things can have influence on culture or tell us what is going in our culture and those who deny that are living in a make believe world.

[Z_I_Peevey]

24. I was just told I want to censor a book

that I read specifically so I could prepare a defense against would-be censors. A book I am prepared to defend against REAL censorship challenges to this very day.

Mind-boggling.

[BainsBane]

26. They can't deal with actual arguments

So they create distractions and strawmen.

[nomorenomore08]

39. I see this "criticism = censorship" bullshit and I can't believe people are that simpleminded.

Well, not on DU anyway. So that really leaves "disingenuous" as the only option.

[historylovr]

29. That was some post, wasn't it.

Holy cow, what does one even say to that? Although you did beautifully there.

[BainsBane]

30. It took all the restraint I had

I was furious.