Fifty Shades of Grey

[FloatyBoaty]

Ha, my girlfriend just bought the book, so it will be interested to see what she says about it.

I can't recommend this book at all.

In the meantime, the various posts on this topic beg a few questions. First WHAT is masculine and feminine? We can biologically state that quite obviously, but when it comes to behaviour its more difficult? A woman in a strictly Islamic country who wears a full burka to cover her body and face is being submissive, as it the woman in 50 shades of gray, but this leds to the queston that domination or submission is a SOCIALLY CONDITIONED or social created categories.

Further dominaton and submission have little to do with sexuality or gender - it is a feature of our daily social lives - every day we submit to being taxed, to the law...etc etc. Domination is a power exchange - it happens when we encounter the state, or it is a principle that can be even when we submit to a woman, or submit to the rules on this forum. Or am I confusing the categories of power with that of authority? But what is authority if not a reflection of power?

Thus a man or a woman could take up the role of domination or submission. Is there an automatic link that a woman is submissive? Prove that link? And judging by the West, women there are taking control. So is it "against" nature? Or is it simply what we have been used to.

I am not supporting feminists - but I am pointing out that it seems we are a bit lazy in our thinking and assumptions.

I have yet to see a study that shows women are biologically submissive and men dominant. It would a bit like saying jews are "naturally" drawn towards money, or coloured people are drawn towards drugs "naturally". If we see a coloured drug addict we say "oh poor man he is a victim of circumstance", while a submissive woman is not seen as a victim of circumstance.

OK, I am provoking a bit, but perhaps it sheds light that male=dominant traits and female=submissive traits is a bit simplified and leads us into a simple view of the world which the feminists used against us - and thus win the intellectually arguement. If feminine = submissive then Islamic women would be the most submissive women of all.

Time to get your thinking caps on gentlemen (-:

Very good question Richard. People can be trained against their nature - especially if it is started from childhood.

[ACLAF]

Fuck Her Like An Animal!! « KennyPUA's Kiss & Tale Adventure!

I plan to release 3 e-books by year’s end:”How to bang foreign girls”,”My Facebook Method”,and “Sexually Ravage Her”!!
The main theme throughout “Sexually Ravage Her” will be “Dominance in bed”.
“Dominate and ravage her”!
I’ve had more women return to my bed for sequels ever since I adopted some of what was taught in “The Sex God Method”,by PUA dating coach and expert Daniel Rose.
Now I’m not saying that you can’t keep a woman sexually gratified if you don’t beat her up(sexually).
However,you have a much solid chance of keeping her around if you dominate her in the sack;especially in these times where grandma-sex just doesn’t appeal to the up and coming sexual generation.
Sex Should Be A Dramatization!!
Sex should be more drama-filled than actual intercourse.
The actual act of putting dick in vagina isn’t what gives sex that extra edge.
It’s what you’re doing overall to the girl’s body that blows her mind.
Guys hate when the topics of biology and evolution come up,since they just fly right over their heads which are made of a solid matter called “Ignorance”.
In pre-historic times/caveman days,the manner in which the men had sex with their females were rough,dominant,savage-like:bruises,cuts,bites and marks.
Such sexual genetical record is encoded in every woman’s DNA.
It’s no secret that most girls prefer rough,dominant sex.
Sex in a sensual way was never part of the plan.
Sensual is great!
But you shouldn’t be sensual with a girl you’re shagging for the first few times.
An excerpt of what will be in the book,and what I generally advocate when it comes to sex:
How to sexually dominate her to keep her returning
•Dominant Kiss: Your 1st.kiss in a seduction location(before fucking her),should be dominant!
•Rather than tilting her chin upwards with your finger to kiss her;tug downwards by the back of her hair to tilt her chin up instead.
•Complete the kiss with a nibble on her chin!
Later!!!

And feminists hate pickup artists...

[Eidolon]

Thank you Richard, for a well-thought out and informed reply.

To respond to the thread in general:

It is not so simple as "do females want to be dominated and abused."

First, there are many dominant women who like to dominate and abuse men or other women. There are powerful submissive men that are successful in their daily lives such as lawyers and doctors, but they like to be humiliated by having their genitals abused and being ordered to lick toilets clean by a Dominatrix. Does this mean all men want to be degraded? Dominance and submission is separate from "masculine" and "feminine."

Secondly, dominance and submission can be separate from sadism & masochism. There are relationships where the nature of the contract is service and obedience without any whips or chains. And just because there are whips and chains doesn't make it sadism and masochism. Sadists get pleasure from giving pain, masochists get pleasure from pain-- but there are many people who get pleasure from pleasuring other people-- so someone could chain up and whip a partner in a desire to pleasure them without deriving pleasure directly from restraint.

Third, Fifty Shades of Grey is poorly written drivel written by someone outside the BDSM community who hasn't got a clue what it is all about. It's basically "Kink-Lite" but without the philosophy of BDSM (safe, sane & consensual). From what I hear, without any philosophy whatsoever unless "Cinderella" stories with a "bad boy" count as such.

Fourth, "The Story of O"-- the most influential BDSM erotic novel ever written was written by a woman. Not only was it well written, philosophical, and incredibly erotic, but because she wrote under a nom de plume, people assumed that only a man could have written such an intense, erotic novel. The female heroine is is submissive but longs to be enslaved and degraded till ultimately her self/person-hood is utterly obliterated behind a mask and leash.

Finally, there is a hierarchy of dominance, everyone recognizes it with animals but then we pretend it doesn't exist for people. For instance, everyone knows if their dog is "dominant" or "submissive." Furthermore, D/s is an old practice that arose long before "feminism." Dominance and submission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Kinky" toys have been discovered from the Victorian era as well as "kink" shoes which were built so the woman wearing them could not walk in them. In Japan, the art of Shibari-- rope bondage without knots has long been used for kinky purposes. And Japan is a country where women could not have been more submissive nor men more dominant in society.

Trying to blame feminism for every quirk in society is foolish as trying to blame a specific racial group for all that ails society.

[FloatyBoaty]

Nice post Eidolon.

[Yan Yan]

It is not so simple as "do females want to be dominated and abused".

No, it's not. Domination is not necessarily allied to abuse. You know that (I hope), and are not just nit-picking. Good parents dominate their children for benign reasons, not to abuse them. The overwhelming majority of men in the world have benign aspirations for their wives and children.

There are powerful submissive men that are successful in their daily lives such as lawyers and doctors, but they like to be humiliated by having their genitals abused and being ordered to lick toilets clean by a Dominatrix.

Yes, but we've all been here long enough to know that the exception neither proves nor disproves the general rule.

Secondly, dominance and submission can be separate from sadism & masochism. There are relationships where the nature of the contract is service and obedience without any whips or chains. And just because there are whips and chains doesn't make it sadism and masochism. Sadists get pleasure from giving pain, masochists get pleasure from pain-- but there are many people who get pleasure from pleasuring other people-- so someone could chain up and whip a partner in a desire to pleasure them without deriving pleasure directly from restraint.

Meaning what? When the masochist asks for pain the genuine sadist says, "No". That's real punishment? The masochist is not not getting what he/she wants. Who's in control?
If dominance and submission are not related to sexual quirks, then why bring that into the current gender argument? What you say is valid but it's not clear what your message really is. This quiblling over minor details obscures the argument.

Trying to blame feminism for every quirk in society is foolish as trying to blame a specific racial group for all that ails society.

With you there. Feminism stepped in when the time was ripe for de-stabilisizing western societies. Gay rights, kid's rights and wonderful "eekwalitee" were all up for for grabs in the Brave New World. All wanted to get on the bandwagon.

Females do not want to be abused. Who would? They just want to be on the winning side. If that requires some submission, they're ok with that. Security is their ultimate aim.

This argument is about the ordering of society. Those who are net-contributers should dominate and those who are merely supplicants should submit.
All the erotic trash is just enternaiment.

[Eidolon]

No, it's not. Domination is not necessarily allied to abuse.

Yes, but we've all been here long enough to know that the exception neither proves nor disproves the general rule.

Meaning what? When the masochist asks for pain the genuine sadist says, "No". That's real punishment? The masochist is not not getting what he/she wants. Who's in control?

If dominance and submission are not related to sexual quirks, then why bring that into the current gender argument? What you say is valid but it's not clear what your message really is. This quiblling over minor details obscures the argument.

Yan Yan, I as responding mostly to the thread hook, "Do all females want to be dominated and sexually abused?"

I said it was not that simple. You said, no it's not. Then you went on to list how it is not a simple issue. Are you in agreement that it is not that simple? Are you arguing with me in agreement or agreeing with me in argument?

Of course exceptions do not prove or disprove the general rule. But at an estimated 20% submissive males in BDSM are hardly an exception. I was illustrating that there are many diverse people in BDSM of which Shades of Gray readers might be unaware. There are persons of all orientations, genders, age and race as well as all inclinations and proclivities. I was illustrating that people of specific, unique proclivities should not be used to define people in general. I used submissive males as an example. Yes, there are men that desire domination, but you can hardly say all men desire to be dominated. So why would we make that extrapolation for females? By your own logic no one can extrapolate any meaningful broad conclusions for gender from BDSM because BDSM is the exception.

Funny enough that you should pose that query, in fact denial of pleasure is sometimes exactly what a sadist does!

I'm not sure what point you are making here? This thread, though very general, seemed to imply that submission and "sexual abuse" are sexual quirks related to gender (specifically, all females). As you stated, dominance is not always allied to abuse. But this thread tied "dominance" and "abuse" together. D/s and S&M are very different things and I was showing that they are not always bound together.

With you there. Feminism stepped in when the time was ripe for de-stabilisizing western societies. Gay rights, kid's rights and wonderful "eekwalitee" were all up for for grabs in the Brave New World. All wanted to get on the bandwagon.

Females do not want to be abused. Who would? They just want to be on the winning side. If that requires some submission, they're ok with that. Security is their ultimate aim.

This argument is about the ordering of society. Those who are net-contributers should dominate and those who are merely supplicants should submit.
All the erotic trash is just enternaiment.

We were once one sick Kahn away from everyone in Europe speaking Mongolian. How many descendants does Genghis Kahn have again? You seem to forget that the "winning side" often time was dealt a great hand but had no inherent superiority. Is your motto "privilege is as privilege does?" Should we just let the conquerors (winning-side) dominate without regard for the well-being of citizens? Or hasn't every truly successful society-- the societies that conquered, invented and progressed, been "progressive" compared to other societies of their time? From Egypt (where women had more rights than they do today in Western civilization) to the Roman Empire (women could divorce and own property) to the industrial Western societies which, though imperialist, had more rights for their citizens than 3rd world nations offered?

There was this crazy "eekwalitee" idea championed by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin that started "de-stabilizing" western society over 200 years ago by helping to overthrow a monarchy. That the common citizen, not just the nobility, could defend and rule themselves and could, by access to opportunity and hard work, reach higher. Libraries and public education were created with the hopes that it might advance the public, and thus, the nation. Slavery too was abolished and former slaves given the right to vote so maybe we'd have Benjamin Bannakers, George Washington Carvers, Granville Woods'es and maybe a President. It's the idea that if everyone is given the opportunity to succeed that there will be more net success which contributes to progress. But if only certain classes (nobility), races (Caucasian), and genders (male) contribute, then we are relying on a small percentage to fuel success and drag everyone else along behind them like dead weight. (see Medieval Europe.) Remember the Renniassance occurred when the middle-class emerged and could start investigating the universe instead of tilling the fields like good serfs and Industrial Revolution didn't come naturally to countries where a stratified "caste system" was in full effect... like India.

I can guarantee you would be preaching at a different pulpit if we were having this conversation in Mongolian and you were the "mere supplicant."

[That Nordic Guy]

The 50 Shades book series Written by E. L. James. Has indeed caused quite a stir. While I could pander to the obvious desire to mock it incessantly I believe I will give it as fair of a review as I find in my power to do. I will attempt to show both its positive points and is more obvious shortcomings.

The book is split into a trilogy the first being 50 Shades of Grey, the second book, 50 shades Darker, and the third book, 50 Shades of Free. I suppose the logical place to begin would be the first book 50 shades of gray.

In this book we open on the main character a Miss. Anastasia Steele who is finishing up her last year of college to be an editor at a publishing company. She is full of the hope and vigor of any young lady just beginning her journey through life.

The story starts out slowly enough, giving her back story telling how she is moving to Seattle Washington to see if she can find a publishing company where she can find employment. The book starts to pick up when her roommate Katherine Kavanagh sends her on a mission to interview a multibillionaire named Christian Grey. And upon her arriving at the offices of Grey Incorporated this book starts to show one of its major flaws. Unbeknownst to some this book series was actually an aborted twilight fan fiction and unfortunately it shows with every single chapter.

Everywhere from the character’s build up, to the location, down to even the minutest details such as number of siblings the main characters have. I'm not saying the story isn't set apart, because it is, saying otherwise would not be a fair judgment of the book series itself however the “shades” (no pun intended) of what used to be shined through very clearly when you know what to look for. Having read both the twilight series and the 50 shades series gives me an interesting perspective, on what these books could have been. But I digress.

The Heroin describes herself as being clunky, clumsy, and overall very normal in appearance there's nothing terribly attractive about her, which I suppose is the main drawing point for the story. Not to say the main character pictures herself as ugly mind you, but there is nothing special to draw attention.

After long and drawn out meetings with people that we don't know we will never see again and don't really care about she's ushered into Mr. Grey's office, all the while extolling her readers on how she doesn't want to be there and isn't cut out to interview someone who is super wealthy or super famous. That's probably another one of the biggest downfalls of this book series is the main character has no personal pride. She puts herself down at literally every possible moment. Upon interviewing Mr. Grey, Anastasia talks about electricity and butterflies in her stomach and all other sorts of things that most of us put away when we were 12. Not because we don't want to believe in love mind you, but because we know that true love takes time to build and while I'm not saying that love at first sight doesn't exist I am almost positive it is not how she describes in her book. To go through the book again would take entirely too long so I'll just give you a quick synopsis.

She meets Gray they go out he flies her around his chopper they go out to dinner, almost have sex, and go through a bar fiasco. Throughout every one of these scenarios Anastasia is talking about how she doesn't feel right about talking or dating a multibillionaire. After about 100 pages of this nonsense Mr. Gray finally takes her to his apartment. It is at this point that the BDSM aspect comes into play. He shows her his playroom and gives her a submissive contract, all the while changing from complete narcissistic asshole, to loving caring individual in the blink of an eye. It's absolutely ridiculous; the character Mr. Gray has emotions that are not only complex, but also impossible to keep up with. While this does make for interesting literature it does leave the leader wondering what the hell is going on. That being said main character wonders that often herself. However, it often distracts from the main storyline to the point of being irritating and extreme.

Also the inner monologues go on forever. Three quarters of all three books in the story are nothing more than her inner monologue going back and forth which can be a real pain. Sometimes I don't need to know what she is thinking I just want the story to move on. The first book ends with Anastasia running from the room after an (in her opinion anyway) especially intense scene with Mr. Grey. It is a few days after this the second book opens,

50 Shades Darker where we delve more into Christian Grey's inner issues. The second book is mostly fluff. While I wouldn't call it unnecessary as it did help move the story along I would be lying if I said I was riveted. In order to keep this review is short as humanly possible I won’t dig into the second book too deeply. Mostly it's full of Anastasia and Grey working through their personal issues in and outside of the bedroom, with lots of steamy sex and a healthy spattering of her inner goddess and Gray's tortured, tortured, soul (which I was more than tired of by the end.) The writing style and overall use of adjectives could be described as clunky at best. And the plot while interesting gets left behind way too many times.

Moving on to the final and third book 50 Shades of free. This is the one that really gets me going; it pisses me off on a molecular level. Not only does the main character get pregnant and for some reason she thinks that will fix everything, it works! In no situation anywhere ever will having a child make a foundering relationship better. Again, this is something I would chalk up to a 12 year old's fantasy.

The relationships are far-fetched and completely unbelievable at times. Also, throughout the entire series BDSM is demonized. I find this completely unacceptable, especially as an active member of this… alternative lifestyle.

People don’t turn to BDSM to recover from horrible emotional trauma. While I can't speak for everyone, I feel fairly safe in assuming that most of us do it because it's fun. We enjoy the chemical release and or the power exchange. And assuming as this author does think that everyone that's ever been involved in a BDSM situation must have some hidden childhood trauma is absolutely ridiculous (not to mention insulting) in the extreme.

Now I could point out that the acts themselves were completely unsafe, dangerous and consent was at best, hinted at. I could also say that Mr. Grey's activities were very, very, tame as far as Domination goes. Or I could point out some simple facts such as how the author has never been to America or never heard an American speak and yet tries to write in an American-style. However, these points are trivial, and not really relevant to the material in the book itself.

Yes, she had no idea what she was talking about, and that's what makes this book so terrible. Had she done more research than just the simple terms we use and where on the map Seattle Washington is, this book possibly would’ve been a passable piece of literature. And perhaps even a learning experience for the author herself. Alas she did none of those things. So what we’re stuck with is the 50 shades trilogy. So now that I've ranted about the book a little bit how does it pan out?

Here are my thoughts on the book as a whole after having finished reading the entire trilogy. It was cheesy, campy, and more than a little bit insulting and I could not put the book down. For all the horrible writing style, I have to admit, the woman tells a good story. I was seriously invested in the characters and found myself sympathizing when something went wrong. While, I was rolling my eyes at the terrible descriptions I was very pleased with the hot sweaty animalistic sex. Was it completely irrational? Yes. Was the sex so good it was unrealistic? Yes. Was it entertaining? Oh hell yes. And as a die-hard romantic I have to say, I need a story where the good guys win and the endings are happy from time to time.

Also, both characters were completely unattainable. But believe it or not it kind of made the story more fun. The sweet young virgin who found out she could be a bad girl, meets the insanely wealthy misunderstood Man of her dreams who just wants to be loved. And, I’m not going to lie the take charge attitude of Mr. Grey was a breath of fresh air in a media world dominated by Soft, sweet, guys who are non-threatening and couldn’t make a decision if their life depended on it (I’m looking at YOU Michael Cera) Also, it’s a lot of fun to imagine being a well-endowed mega billionaire that could literally do whatever he wanted. (Seriously, who doesn’t want to own a yacht and whisper sweet nothings into a beautiful woman’s ear from the deck of said yacht?) In the end folks this book is nothing more than a Bodice ripper. It isn’t going to go in the history books as a great work of art, but if you can take it at face value it’s harmless enough and a lot of fun to read. So there you have it. My nonprofessional view on the matter.

[Yan Yan]

Sorry Eidolon, I missed your thoughtful response by a whole week.

Of course exceptions do not prove or disprove the general rule. But at an estimated 20% submissive males in BDSM are hardly an exception. I was illustrating that there are many diverse people in BDSM of which Shades of Gray readers might be unaware. There are persons of all orientations, genders, age and race as well as all inclinations and proclivities. I was illustrating that people of specific, unique proclivities should not be used to define people in general. I used submissive males as an example. Yes, there are men that desire domination, but you can hardly say all men desire to be dominated. So why would we make that extrapolation for females? By your own logic no one can extrapolate any meaningful broad conclusions for gender from BDSM because BDSM is the exception.

As I recall, I said much the same thing. So no argument there.

[But what's this 20%? Twenty percent of which males (racially) in which country? There's a scent of The West=The World equation here.]

I'm not sure what point you are making here? This thread, though very general, seemed to imply that submission and "sexual abuse" are sexual quirks related to gender (specifically, all females). As you stated, dominance is not always allied to abuse. But this thread tied "dominance" and "abuse" together. D/s and S&M are very different things and I was showing that they are not always bound together.

So if you say, 'As you stated', then I was in agreement. So where's the beef?

Should we just let the conquerors (winning-side) dominate without regard for the well-being of citizens? Or hasn't every truly successful society-- the societies that conquered, invented and progressed, been "progressive" compared to other societies of their time? From Egypt (where women had more rights than they do today in Western civilization) to the Roman Empire (women could divorce and own property) to the industrial Western societies which, though imperialist, had more rights for their citizens than 3rd world nations offered?

At this point you abandon thoughtful debate, start to get seriously goofy, and regurgitate accepted propaganda. Priveleged and pampered western women have less rights than Ancient Egyptian women? Which feminist historian told you that?
In the Roman Republic the 'paterfamilias' had the power of life and death over his wives and children.

We were once one sick Kahn away from everyone in Europe speaking Mongolian. How many descendants does Genghis Kahn have again?

Sick? Koreans are basically Mongols, culturally, racially and linguistically. In the South, they've done quite well for themselves.

There was this crazy "eekwalitee" idea championed by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin that started "de-stabilizing" western society over 200 years ago by helping to overthrow a monarchy. That the common citizen, not just the nobility, could defend and rule themselves and could, by access to opportunity and hard work, reach higher. Libraries and public education were created with the hopes that it might advance the public, and thus, the nation. Slavery too was abolished and former slaves given the right to vote so maybe we'd have Benjamin Bannakers, George Washington Carvers, Granville Woods'es and maybe a President. It's the idea that if everyone is given the opportunity to succeed that there will be more net success which contributes to progress. But if only certain classes (nobility), races (Caucasian), and genders (male) contribute, then we are relying on a small percentage to fuel success and drag everyone else along behind them like dead weight. (see Medieval Europe.) Remember the Renniassance occurred when the middle-class emerged and could start investigating the universe instead of tilling the fields like good serfs and Industrial Revolution didn't come naturally to countries where a stratified "caste system" was in full effect... like India.

Please spare us the wimmins studies perspective and revision of history. Tom is a dumbwit and Jerry is not only smart but morally superior. There's a surprise.
I said:

Females do not want to be abused. Who would? They just want to be on the winning side. If that requires some submission, they're ok with that. Security is their ultimate aim.

I stand by that. Sucking up feminist garbage or sucking anything else is acceptable as long as their needs (and in the western world, desire for luxuries that are a mere dream for most other women in the world) are met.

I can guarantee you would be preaching at a different pulpit if we were having this conversation in Mongolian and you were the "mere supplicant."

Since we speak Visayan (mixture of Malay, Chinese, Arabic, and Hindi) at home, Mongolian would be not be out of reach.

What kind of dominatrix are you, to be so arrogant? Is your supremacy based on race, culture, gender or a distorted world view? Or is it that you just believe what you're told? You're lost in a dream of 'goodies' and baddies'. Meanwhile, the world turns.

[FloatyBoaty]

People don’t turn to BDSM to recover from horrible emotional trauma. While I can't speak for everyone, I feel fairly safe in assuming that most of us do it because it's fun. We enjoy the chemical release and or the power exchange. And assuming as this author does think that everyone that's ever been involved in a BDSM situation must have some hidden childhood trauma is absolutely ridiculous (not to mention insulting) in the extreme.

Another point is that the classic male dom female sub is a natural order. ;-)

[That Nordic Guy]

Another point is that the classic male dom female sub is a natural order. ;-)

For the most part I have no argument there. However, there are lots and lots and lots of exceptions to that rule. Just because that is the common theme, doesn't mean there are thousands of exceptions. So I would be careful who I said that to even if it does happen to be true =P

[FloatyBoaty]

For the most part I have no argument there. However, there are lots and lots and lots of exceptions to that rule. Just because that is the common theme, doesn't mean there are thousands of exceptions. So I would be careful who I said that to even if it does happen to be true =P

I choose not to be oppressed by feminism.

[That Nordic Guy]

I choose not to be oppressed by feminism.

Oh don't misunderstand, I'm not talking about oppression. I'm just saying that Males aren't NECESSARILY always Dominnts over Females the opposite is true a lot more commonly than you would think.

[themanonthestreet]

I have a question.... A guy reading a playboy at work or in pubic would be a no-no... right? Since we know what this book is - chick porn - shouldnt it be just as wrong to be reading at work? In public?

Ahem.

TMOTS