Does Anybody Else Have A Bad Taste In Their Mouths, Over Objections To Sexually Explicit Books ???

[WillyT]

I'll admit...I have NO CLUE what 50 Shades of Gray is about... but from what little I've heard...not my cup of tea.

Yet... my parents... I discovered one day looking through their "personal" store of books... back in the 60's... as a kid (Found Playboy's too)

Had 'The Life and Times of Frank Thomas', 'Lady Chatterley's Lover', 'The Tropic of Cancer', 'The Tropic of Capricorn', 'The Second Sex', "The World According To GARP'...

Thing is... although they may have hidden them from their children of tender years... they were NOT going to let the governement... or societal pressure...

From keeping them from reading, and forming their own opinions.

That was sort of what counted going through the Depression, WWII, and the Korean War...

Then McCarthy, Vietnam, et. al...

My parents were able to advise people to read a book, and then invite friends over for dinner to have fun and discuss.

Have we become so pathetically afraid and weak???

[fishwax]

1. I think people discussing books is a good thing

While I haven't read all of the 50 Shades threads, I haven't seen anyone calling for book burning or banning or anything like that. I just see people arguing that the book doesn't send a good message. I don't support calls for censorship, but I don't see discussing the merits of a book or its contents as a bad thing.

[TDale313]

5. Well put. Totally agree. n/t

[uppityperson]

12. +++

[pnwmom]

19. Right. What's wrong with people saying this book has bad writing and a lousy message?

Why aren't people who object to its themes granted the same freedom of speech by progressives as its author was? No one is calling for censorship. But what's wrong with saying: think twice before you waste your money?

[Eleanors38]

28. I prefer Fanny Hill. A veritable fountain of info.

[roguevalley]

59. my mom was a public librarian. She fought censorship. Given that, if you dont like a book

don't read it or see the movie. I hate vampires. None of those and zombie movies are interesting to me and i ignore them.

But I don't agree with censorship. I do believe that talking about what you like or dislike about books is what authors want. I know when i write my stuff, I look for what people believe in the story.

[Louisiana1976]

180. I agree 100%--if you don't like a book don't read it or see the movie.

[Zorra]

159. Agreed! The abuse and misogyny in 50 shades stems from this blatantly misogynistic book...

the Bible, so why get so totally tripped out over pop fiction when we could be discussing the seething, demeaning, unbridled hatred for women in this book that is undoubtedly the #1 reason for the questionable content of 50 shades?

This misogynistic, homophobic, conservative authoritarian book is the very basis and instruction manual for the Judeo-Christian culture that produces novels like 50 Shades.

GENESIS

2:22 Eve created from Adam’s rib.
3:16 Eve cursed with painful childbirth and domination by husband.
4:19 Man marries two wives.
12:13-19 Abraham prostitutes wife.
19:1-8 Rape virgin daughters instead of male angels.
19:26 Lot’s wife turned into pillar of salt for disobGENESIS

2:22 Eve created from Adam’s rib.
3:16 Eve cursed with painful childbirth and domination by husband.
4:19 Man marries two wives.
12:13-19 Abraham prostitutes wife.
19:1-8 Rape virgin daughters instead of male angels.
19:26 Lot’s wife turned into pillar of salt for disobeying god.
19:30-38 Lot impregnates his two daughters while drunk.
20:2-12 Abraham prostitutes wife – again.
25:1-6 Keeping many concubines is OK.

EXODUS

20:17 Wife as property.
21:4 Wife and children belong to master.
21 7-11 OK to sell daughters. Female slaves can be used for sex. Polygamy permitted. Unwanted female slaves can be set “free” without payment of money.
22:18 Kill witches.

LEVITICUS

12:1-8 Childbirth unclean, Women need to make atonement after childbirth.
15:19-32 Menstruating women are unclean.
20:10-16 Death penalty for homosexuality and various sexual transgressions.
21 7 Priests must not marry prostitutes or divorcees.
21 9 Burn daughters.
21 13-14 Priest must marry virgin, not “used” woman.

NUMBERS

1:2 Census lists only men – women do not count.
5:11-31 Fidelity test for women only.
30:1-16 Woman’s vow invalid unless approved by her father or husband.
31:17-18 Kill all except virgins. Keep virgins for yourselves.
12 Miriam punished for rebuking Moses.

DEUTERONOMY

20:14 Take women, livestock as plunder.
22:13-21 Stone non-virgin bride.
22:23-24 Stone rapist and rape victim.
22:28 Rape victim must marry rapist; rape victim’s father compensated for depreciation of his property.
25:11-12 Cut woman’s hand for touching foe’s penis.
24:1-5 Man can “send” wife from HIS house. Man must not marry “used” woman.
28:18 The FRUIT of your womb will be cursed – eclectic “pro-life” verse!

JUDGES

5:30 Women are spoils of war.
14:20 Samson gives wife to another man.
16:1 Samson visits prostitute.
CH 19 Concubine pack-raped and butchered.
21:10-12 Slaughtered all inc. women and children. Saved virgins for wives.
21:21 Abducted girls for wives.

1 SAMUEL

15:2-3 Attack Amalekites, kill men, women, children and livestock.
22:19 Kill all inc. infants and livestock.
21:4-5 Men avoid defilement with women.

2 SAMUEL

5:13 David took many wives and concubines.
CH 13 Ammon rapes his own sister.
16:21-22 Absalom sleeps with his father’s concubines.
6:20-23 Mischal punished with bareness.

1 KINGS

11:3 Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

2 KINGS

9:30-37 Brutal murder of Jezebel.

2 CHRONICLES

15:13 Put to death unbelievers.
11:21 Hoards of wives and concubines.

ESTHER

CH 1-2 Queen Vashti dethroned for disobedience; setting “bad” example to all other women.

PSALMS

51:5 Sinful since conception.
127:3 Sons are heritage from god.
137 9 Seizes infants and dashes them against rocks.

PROVERBS

CH 5 Beware of wicked women!
CH 7 More of the above.
6:24 As above.
31:3 Do not waste strength on women.

ISAIAH

3:16-26 Lord punishes haughty women.
4:4 Filthy women.
13:16 Ravish wives, dash infants.
19:16 Will be like women! (insult to Egyptians)

EZEKIEL

9:6-7 Slaughter all including children.
CH 16 Prostitutes, stoning, promiscuity…
CH 23 Tale of two adulterous sisters – reads like the script of a pornographic film. I bet you weren’t told this story at Sunday school!

HOSEA

13:16 Rip pregnant women, dash little ones. (Another “pro-life” verse!)
NAHUM

3:4… wanton lust of a harlot… prostitution… witchcraft.
3:5 I will lift your skirts over your face!
3:13… Your troops are all women. (insult to Nineveh)

MATTHEW

5:32 Husband can divorce wife for adultery. Can wife divorce husband for the same?
CH 25 Sexist tale of ten virgins.

LUKE

2:22 Mary must be purified after birth of Jesus.
2:49 Jesus rebukes his mother.

I CORINTHIANS

11:2-10… Woman created for man.
14:34 Women must be silent in churches.

EPHESIANS

5:22-24 Wives must submit to husbands in everything.

COLOSSIANS

3:18 Wives submit to husbands.
3:22 Slaves must obey masters in everything.

I TIMOTHY

2 11-15 Woman must not have authority – she must be silent. Women can be saved with childbearing.
5 9-10 Widows should be faithful to husband and must wash saints’ feet.

1 PETER

2:18 Slaves submit to masters, even masters who are harsh.
3:1 Wives submit.
3:5-6 Sarah calls husband master.

REVELATION

CH 17 Destroy great prostitute.
14:4…they did not DEFILE themselves with women but kept themselves pure.
19:30-38 Lot impregnates his two daughters while drunk.
20:2-12 Abraham prostitutes wife – again.
25:1-6 Keeping many concubines is OK.

EXODUS

20:17 Wife as property.
21 4 Wife and children belong to master.
21 7-11 OK to sell daughters. Female slaves can be used for sex. Polygamy permitted. Unwanted female slaves can be set “free” without payment of money.
22:18 Kill witches.

LEVITICUS

12:1-8 Childbirth unclean, Women need to make atonement after childbirth.
15:19-32 Menstruating women are unclean.
20:10-16 Death penalty for homosexuality and various sexual transgressions.
21 7 Priests must not marry prostitutes or divorcees.
21 9 Burn daughters.
21:13-14 Priest must marry virgin, not “used” woman.

NUMBERS

1:2 Census lists only men – women do not count.
5:11-31 Fidelity test for women only.
30:1-16 Woman’s vow invalid unless approved by her father or husband.
31:17-18 Kill all except virgins. Keep virgins for yourselves.
12 Miriam punished for rebuking Moses.

DEUTERONOMY

20:14 Take women, livestock as plunder.
22:13-21 Stone non-virgin bride.
22:23-24 Stone rapist and rape victim.
22:28 Rape victim must marry rapist; rape victim’s father compensated for depreciation of his property.
25:11-12 Cut woman’s hand for touching foe’s penis.
24:1-5 Man can “send” wife from HIS house. Man must not marry “used” woman.
28:18 The FRUIT of your womb will be cursed – eclectic “pro-life” verse!

JUDGES

5:30 Women are spoils of war.
14:20 Samson gives wife to another man.
16:1 Samson visits prostitute.
CH 19 Concubine pack-raped and butchered.
21:10-12 Slaughtered all inc. women and children. Saved virgins for wives.
21:21 Abducted girls for wives.

1 SAMUEL

15:2-3 Attack Amalekites, kill men, women, children and livestock.
22:19 Kill all inc. infants and livestock.
21:4-5 Men avoid defilement with women.

2 SAMUEL

5:13 David took many wives and concubines.
CH 13 Ammon rapes his own sister.
16:21-22 Absalom sleeps with his father’s concubines.
6:20-23 Mischal punished with bareness.

1 KINGS

11:3 Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

2 KINGS

9:30-37 Brutal murder of Jezebel.

2 CHRONICLES

15:13 Put to death unbelievers.
11:21 Hoards of wives and concubines.

ESTHER

CH 1-2 Queen Vashti dethroned for disobedience; setting “bad” example to all other women.

PSALMS

51:5 Sinful since conception.
127:3 Sons are heritage from god.
137 9 Seizes infants and dashes them against rocks.

PROVERBS

CH 5 Beware of wicked women!
CH 7 More of the above.
6:24 As above.
31:3 Do not waste strength on women.

ISAIAH

3:16-26 Lord punishes haughty women.
4:4 Filthy women.
13:16 Ravish wives, dash infants.
19:16 Will be like women! (insult to Egyptians)

EZEKIEL

9:6-7 Slaughter all including children.
CH 16 Prostitutes, stoning, promiscuity…
CH 23 Tale of two adulterous sisters – reads like the script of a pornographic film. I bet you weren’t told this story at Sunday school!

HOSEA

13:16 Rip pregnant women, dash little ones. (Another “pro-life” verse!)

NAHUM

3:4… wanton lust of a harlot… prostitution… witchcraft.
3:5 I will lift your skirts over your face!
3:13… Your troops are all women. (insult to Nineveh)

MATTHEW

5:32 Husband can divorce wife for adultery. Can wife divorce husband for the same?
CH 25 Sexist tale of ten virgins.

LUKE

2:22 Mary must be purified after birth of Jesus.
2:49 Jesus rebukes his mother.

I CORINTHIANS

11:2-10… Woman created for man.
14:34 Women must be silent in churches.

EPHESIANS

5:22-24 Wives must submit to husbands in everything.

COLOSSIANS

3:18 Wives submit to husbands.
3:22 Slaves must obey masters in everything.

I TIMOTHY

2:11-15 Woman must not have authority – she must be silent. Women can be saved with childbearing.
5 9-10 Widows should be faithful to husband and must wash saints’ feet.

1 PETER

2:18 Slaves submit to masters, even masters who are harsh.
3:1 Wives submit.
3:5-6 Sarah calls husband master.

REVELATION

CH 17 Destroy great prostitute.
14:4…they did not DEFILE themselves with women but kept themselves pure.

[bravenak]

2. The World According to Garp was erotica?

Crap! No wonder my nine year old self had no idea wtf was going on.

[WillyT]

3. Well Yeah... I Guess The First Chapter Or Two... But It Was More About A Male Author, Trying...

to explain Feminism... as I recall.

[bravenak]

4. Thank you.

That clears it up for me a bit. It was a hard book to process.

[WillyT]

7. Thing Is...

I had never heard of 'The Word According To Garp', or John Irving, until one day years ago... my mom (just turned 85 This Friday)...

Came around the block where many of us kids hung-out with a certain family...

He was a Lawyer of Greek decent... His wife was an artist of Phillipino decent...

Their kids were my best friends... Lawyer dad was a Liberal but loved telling us the best dirty jokes he had recently heard... when we were old enough.

Anywho...

My mom walks around the block to their house one day, and puts that book under Pete's nose...

We're hanging around to hear...

She says, "Pete... This is the most disgusting, vulgar, vile, inappropriate, piece of shit, I've ever read.

I couldn't put it down for a second."

And I blurted out, after my own mom's review... "Hey Pete... I want it next, after your done."

I spent the rest of that summer laughing my ass off reading.

[bravenak]

8. Oh, that's great!!

My mom would have said the same thing. No wonder she had it on the shelf. I'm going to read it soon. I can't help myself. I even read all three twilight books and i was up last night reading the Gray trilogy, in parts, out-loud to my husband. He was dying with laughter.

[WillyT]

15. They Made A Movie Out Of It... It Basically Failed... Even Though It Had Robin Williams In It...

Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084917/

BUT...

This one was... as a Movie... FANTASTIC !!!

The Cider House Rules



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124315/

[bravenak]

17. I loved that one!

I bought it on DVD.
I vaguely remember Robin Williams in that, I was so young, feels like a million years ago.

[Paladin]

168. Read the book, it's a helluva lot better than the movie..... (nt)

[bravenak]

169. Thank you, I think I will. I love a well written tale.nt

[Louisiana1976]

182. I read The World According to Garp when I was in college. Loved it--it had a lot of weird stuff

but it was the right kind of weird.

[bravenak]

188. I was too young when i read it.

I kinda knew what the lady was doing to the soldier but i couldn't process it, i got hung up on it and couldn't figure it all out. I think i'll do better now than back then.

[Paladin]

193. That's the first book I read where I found myself mourning for the characters.

In response to a device John Irving employs at the very end of the novel. It wasn't used in the movie.

(TO THE REST OF YOU: NO SPOILERS, DAMN IT!!!!!)

[Gormy Cuss]

21. The movie sucked.

Last edited Mon Jul 28, 2014, 02:08 AM - Edit history (1)

The book was something else. Garp's mother was a rapist, even though the scene was presented as mutually beneficial by Irving. It was a different era.

[Atman]

73. I loved Garp

Still one of my favorite movies. I've seen it at least a dozen times.

[MADem]

29. World According to Garp had a break-out role for John Lithgow in it. It certainly did not fail in

terms of box office. It more than made its money back and continues to earn for the studio (you can buy it online if you'd like). It got two Oscar nominations (John Lithgow and Glenn Close) and won a number of regional film awards.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084917/

It was an odd and quirky film for the time--that was well over thirty years ago. It had one helluva cast, too.

[Yavin4]

161. Glen Close broke out as well

So, we got two good actors on the show.

[MADem]

194. HUme Cronyn and Jessica Tandy were great as usual, and I think that was Robin Williams'

earlier if not earliest role.

[FreakinDJ]

6. Closed Minded uninformed

Seems to be the order of the day

[99Forever]

9. What's even more chilling...

... is those screeching the loudest, have admitted that they haven't even read the book. That is the kind of crap I expect from RW Fundies and Teabaggers.

I haven't read it, won't likely ever read it, have absolutely no plans to see the film when it comes out, so I don't particularly have an opinion of it's quality or specifics of it's subject matter, but what I do know FOR SURE, is that censorship and censors SUCK.

[BainsBane]

14. Clearly you have no concept what censorship is

Censorship does not mean the absence of criticism. What you are in fact objecting to is not censorship but speech. You seem to think freedom of speech means no one is allowed to disagree with you or criticize anything you like. That is not how it works. As odious as you find it, people are allowed to express views that you do not personally sanction or control.

[Quantess]

26. If you haven't read it, how can you form any good arguments?

If I wanted people to take my criticisms seriously, I would read it first!

[BainsBane]

32. I have read the First Amendment

Amazingly, I don't need to read a trash novel to know the difference between censorship and critique, which is the subject of my post.

And what of all the OPs that preceded mine about the book by people who didn't read it? Did you criticize them? Of course not. Not only did they not read the book, they didn't read the posts of people who had issues with the book. In fact, it appears you did not even bother to read my OP, since I did not offer my own criticism of the book. I linked to news articles and a synopsis of the book, which clearly you find less acceptable than inventing strawman arguments, as in some of the other OPs, one of which you recommended. My point was about the discussion and the clear fabrication made repeatedly that those expressing concern over the book were uptight prudes who objected to consenting sex between adults. They had not only not read the book, they hadn't read the posts of the people they were maligning.

Any other double-standards you care to share?

[Quantess]

37. I have not read this novel, no. I don't go around praising it, nor trashing it.

How on earth do you find the confidence to speak out about a book that you haven't even read?

[99Forever]

74. It's what people that think they are "morally superior" do. n/t

[BainsBane]

119. Comments like yours

are what people do when they have no clue about the issues being discussed. You are the one who thinks censorship is when someone expresses a view that you don't like.

[99Forever]

192. You might think you can goad me into a back and forth with you.

You can't. I see you for exactly what you are.

[BainsBane]

116. How do you find confidence to endorse a condemnation of DUers

by someone who has not read the book? Why would you do that without reading the book, while condemning me?

If you are wondering what I actually wrote, can you read my OP. I did not claim to read the book. As I have told you already, I pointed out that the thread that you think so admirable that charged people with judging the private sex lives of fictional characters was based on a false interpretation of those arguments. I have read several published articles about the book. You have read noting, but feel entirely confident in endorsing the view that blatantly distorted the views of those who object to the book, many of whom have actually read the thing--something not done by the author of that OP that you recommended rather than chastising for not reading the book. I see a pattern here that you are intent on ignoring at all costs.

What gives you the confidence to pass judgment on me when you clearly cannot be bothered to read what I have written on the subject? That I continually repeat the same things to you and you don't show any signs of absorbing any of what I said tells me you don't bother reading what I write before condemning me.

[Quantess]

121. Yes, I admit that I am a bit judgmental about people who voice strong opinions over fictional books

that they have not actually read. To me, that is a deal breaker. I think it is intellectually lazy and disingenuous to make strong statements about fiction that one has only read reviews of. This includes Harry Potter books, by the way.

[BainsBane]

127. And I admit to being judgmental

about people who repeatedly falsely claim someone has made arguments they have not, even when they have been told multiple times what the actual argument is. So once again you have shown that you have not read my posts. And you refuse to address the strong opinion you did endorse, falsely aligning members of this community, by someone who did not read the book. Nor do you condemn this OP by someone who has not read the book or even the threads critical of it. Clearly you make no attempt at consistency. You could at least be honest and say you object to people voicing opinions that you don't' agree with because it is patently obvious that is what this is about. Given your willful refusal to engage with what I have actually argued and your obvious double-standards, you are hardly in a position to accuse me of intellectual laziness.

Let's break it down to what this is really about:
Sex good.
Anything that is at all critical of anything related to sex, whether consensual or not: Bad.

I think that is extent of the intellectual engagement for many.

[pipoman]

96. "critique"...interesting word...

Since it usually implies that the person who is critiquing actually know exactly what they are critiquing...read the book, seen the movie, went to the play, etc.

[BainsBane]

106. They have

and many have published those critiques.

[pipoman]

113. I have found i often disagree with movie critic's opinions

When I actually see the movie.

[BainsBane]

118. Well, by all means. Go to the movie

Enjoy it. Knock yourself out. In the meantime, a few on the site are having a discussion about cultural analysis. If you thought the word critique meant movie review, you have no idea what this discussion is about.

[pipoman]

128. I expect anyone claiming to offer a critique would know 1st hand

what they are talking about.

[BainsBane]

131. They have

how many times have I said that? I have not claimed to offer a critique of the book, and to argue I did shows you haven't read anything I've written.

I would think anyone who posited himself in opposition to another's opinion would at least bother reading her posts. Evidently that is too much to ask. You can't read three sentences, but I am somehow responsible for reading a literary monstrosity to even have an opinion about the discussion, whereas people who agree with you need read nothing yet get no criticism for it. That makes clear what this angst is really about is making sure people who voice opinions you don't like be shut up, while others who haven't read the book but malign DUers who have read it have absolutely no responsibility to read the book or even the posts of the people they condemn.

How anyone can't see through that is beyond me.

[pipoman]

135. Probably, when it comes down to it...

I am just tired of one or two small groups of cyberbullies who have proclaimed ultimate authority to distinguish between liberal and conservative ideology. Then going on the team sport of alert rampages trying to get dissenters vanquished and open discussion halted...it's the anti-liberalness of this that will/could destroy du and drive it further into irrelevance in the (actually important) 2016 election cycle.

[BainsBane]

157. Well, then perhaps you shouldn't echo their talking points

and target the same people and ideas they do?

[pipoman]

160. Or perhaps those people should actually act like open minded liberals. ..

[LanternWaste]

137. Which is precisely why no one on DU giggled about the 2011 production of Atlas Shrugged...

Which is precisely why no one on DU giggled about or discussed the 2011 production of Atlas Shrugged...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

86. The same way we do with lots of other things?

Probably 2/3 of the things you know about in life you never read in the original. You read reviews, secondhand accounts, other people talking about them. And you judge what you've heard based upon the trustworthiness of of those sources, as well as any further experiences you have on your own. Any 'systematic review' in a peer reviewed journal, for instance, is a secondhand version and summation of results from dozens or hundreds of other articles, so that you don't personally have to read all of the original articles to know what they're talking about, or how well they were written. Ditto the vast majority of textbooks. You almost never read the original sources unless you've got journal subscriptions so you can keep up with a specific field, you're doing your own research, or are simply paranoid about the agendas of textbook writers.

I read a really good, in-depth review of Shades when the book first came out. It didn't just talk about the psychology of the characters or the writing, but even delved into the political and economic aspects in a way that let me know reading the book firsthand would simply be a waste of my time.

That's quite a bit different than RW 'fundies' who start screaming about a book being evil because Rush Limbaugh gave them 4 or 5 talking points to parrot.

[Quantess]

90. Anybody who wishes their opinion on the book to be taken seriously

would read the actual book first before making resolute or strong statements about it.

And no, I am not one of these people who reads a book review and then discusses it as though I had actually read the book. Where do people get the nerve to do this?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

94. So you never discuss anything anyone else ever writes about

anything else, and never talk about anything you read in a textbook that wasn't original research by the authors. Got it.

[Quantess]

97. That's not exactly what I meant, and that is not the same thing as

having strong opinions about a fictional novel that one has not actually read.

To me, (and to English teachers), you kind of have to read the actual book before making strong statements about it.

Fiction does not = research, so don't even try to make that comparison.

[edgineered]

72. Censorship does suck, as does guessing about content. nt

[el_bryanto]

115. Yes if anybody were talking about censorship I'd be 100% against it

Funny thing, though, I don't see anybody who objects to the novel or movie bringing up censorship. Rather I see those who don't want the novel or movie discussed bringing up censorship constantly. Almost as if they would rather argue it on censorship grounds.

Almost like they wanted to construct, I don't know, a man made of something very weak . . . straw I guess, so they could argue with that instead of what people are actually saying.

Bryant

[edgineered]

146. Gamblers and talkers.

Poor gambler lose sometimes because they have cannot recognize what a win is, and they continue betting. In discussions however, the loss must be recognized soon enough to silence oneself. Many choose to talk more instead. And like a poor gambler they too do not win, nor do they recognize it.

When the odds favor the house it is best not to be a rambler, er, gambler.

[Quantess]

10. Rick Santorum can go FUCK OFF! I would spray RAID bug spray on that P.O.S.

Now that I have made that clear, I would like to say that yes, I appreciate pornography even though most of it doesn't excite me.

A lot of pornographic material is controversial, but, why don't we just open this up for conversation? Why is it sexy?

[jberryhill]

11. I never got that taste in my mouth from a book, no

[historylovr]

13. Look, nine times out of ten I'm not going to pick up a romance unless

Last edited Mon Jul 28, 2014, 12:59 AM - Edit history (1)

it has sexually explicit content. My Kindle is loaded down with good books, including some with hot m/m action. I don't have a problem with anything but rape masquerading as romance, even if the writing weren't horrid drivel.

Edit to add: okay, yes, I was being hyperbolic to make a point, a bad one apparently, that people who object to 50 Shades aren't objecting because of sexual content but to other things.

And also, five out of ten romances is more like it, really. And yes, I read lots of other stuff too. sigh

[tkmorris]

34. Really? 9 out of 10 you won't touch without explicit sex?

That's gotta make that love of history kinda tough. Sure, there is plenty of bawdy historical material but restricting yourself to that leaves out an AWFUL lot of good books. Most of them in fact. Not to mention all of the non-historical books which don't contain explicit sex for whatever reason. I'd hate to think of all the written material I would have missed out on if I limited my choices in the fashion you have.

[historylovr]

41. Well obviously I meant romances,

which I should have spelled out. But I was being a bit hyperbolic even then, to make a very bad point apparently. I love good, witty non-explicit Regencies, and the classics. Oh, goodness, no, I don't limit myself to that at all. Far from it. Come to think of it, there isn't much explicit sex in my math books either...

[BainsBane]

16. The dispute is about whether the book depicts consensual sex or also invovles rape and assault.

So to portray it as about objections to sexually explicit work is inaccurate.

[WillyT]

20. I Here Ya... Yet... How Do We Know, Judge, And Discuss... UNTIL We've Read It ???

And... are we allowed to express our opinions ???

Not accusing you... it just used to be the normal discourse for decades.

[BainsBane]

22. Yeah, but I ain't gonna read it

From the excerpts I've seen, it's a defilement of the English language. I was responding to a series of OPs by people who also hadn't read the book and were distorting the arguments of those critical to it. I fully admit it's stupid. As I said in another thread, I couldn't take anymore Holocaust analogies. It's painful seeing people I respect say things I find so troubling, so I retreated to familiar territory. If that makes me guilty, so be it.

[Marr]

67. Then stop reviewing it/moralizing about it.

For crying out loud, this proudly ignorant, loud indignation is what I expect from evangelical busy-bodies. It's absurd.

[BainsBane]

71. You expect evangelicals to stand up in opposition to rape?

Since when? When do they care about a woman's right over her own body? When do they care about a culture that portrays rape and as a form of seduction? When do they stand up for women's rights? I have never seen it. In fact, what they do is insist women shut up and do what they are told, just as you have done in your post.

Naturally you haven't read the book, but that doesn't stop you from demanding others follow your command. The person who posted the OP that started all this, by pretending critiques of the book and movie was about controlling the behavior of consenting adults, hadn't read the book either, but that didn't stop him from maligning people whose arguments he didn't bother to read.

You have the options of ignore and trash by keyword available to all members of the site. What you do not have is the right to control my speech. I will not take orders from you. Not now and not ever. I will continue to "moralize" against rape now any time I damn well feel like it. Take your sense of entitlement to someone who gives a shit. I am not some insipid little Anastasia, and I do not follow your orders.

[Marr]

138. You are talking about a book of fiction, for crying out loud.

The fact that I haven't read the book is irrelevant. I'm not the one moralizing and pontificating and making showy objections about it. What you're doing is absolutely no different from the puritanical set who condemned abstract painting as 'degenerate' or Catcher in the Rye as 'profane'. The perceived quality of the art makes zero difference.

If you want to read it and critique the writing or criticize the themes, great. Wonderful. But proudly announcing you cannot be bothered to read the work you're condemning just leaves me wondering if you aren't up on that soap box purely for the attention.

[Quantess]

104. Are you thinking of evangelical busy bodies screaming about Harry Potter books, perhaps?

I wonder how many of those people actually read Harry Potter before declaring it satanic?

[Marr]

139. Not specifically, but sure-- the Harry Potter complaints would fit perfectly as well.

There's a long tradition of busy bodies making very vocal and self-righteous objections about creative work they haven't bothered to see/read/etc/. Maybe it's just because you mentioned Potter, but I'm picturing Mrs. Umbridge.

[Bonobo]

23. I've stayed out because I didn't read it as should EVERYONE that hasn't actually read it.

Don't you think people that haven't actually read it should kind of admit they don't know what they are talking about?

[pnwmom]

18. It's not the explicit part that's a problem. It's the glamorized rape, kidnapping, and violence

that some of us are objecting to.

If you don't want to read the book (and no one could blame you for that -- I couldn't get all the way through chapter 1 on Amazon), then read the reviews. Many have detailed listings of quotes and actions through the chapters.

[WillyT]

25. But That's My Point... We Were Told Not To Read Many Books ...Over The Last 50 To 60 Years...

Mainly because of sex, or communist propaganda...

Seems to me, part of Liberalism... is to do the reading... THEN the criticizing...

IOW... I won't read it... because I don't want me or you to be exposed to it...

Is a losing argument.

[Beartracks]

43. "Do the reading... THEN the criticizing."

Whoa, that makes too much sense.

I imagine, however, some might then counter-argue that if everyone reads a book in order to determine whether it is trash, then "the market" will determine that the book was successful and similar work will be encouraged and published... even if ALL of those readers decided it was, in fact, trash that should not have been published in the first place.

In other words: for all of use to read it is exactly what "they" want, no?

===================

[Quantess]

143. You can get a general sense of whether a book might be worth reading,

based on reviews. But if you want to actively discuss a work of fiction, then you really do have to read it first.

If after someone reads a book review or hears someone else describing the book, they decide it's not something they would want to read, that is where their argument should end. You will never see me voicing strong opinions about a book I've never read, because that's just ignorant.

I was never interested in "50 Shades", but now that so many people are flailing their arms and caterwauling about it, I am suddenly interested in reading it.

[Luminous Animal]

46. Nobody here is saying don't read the book. Nobody. I really don't understand why you are saying this

You are freaking me out, dude. I've never seen you being disingenuous.

[Squinch]

79. No one has told you not to read the book. Many have expressed negative opinions about the

book. Your saying that they shouldn't do that is the flip side of the same coin you are complaining about. I would have thought you would be a little smarter than that.

[A Little Weird]

24. This brave blogger read the book and does a chapter by chapter breakdown

It's hilarious.

http://jenniferarmintrout.blogspot.com.au/p/jen-reads-50-shades-of-grey.html?zx=ed116c39aa3f648

[MisterP]

44. semi-pro sporking here

http://impishidea.com/spork/fifty-shades-of-grey-pt-1-his-penetrating-gaze

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

87. That's a good one, as also is the other psot she links to -

Showing how 50 shades dovetails with abusive relationships, not BDSM

[A Little Weird]

100. Agreed

I like her humorous play by play but that's a good take on the book from a serious perspective.

[Z_I_Peevey]

111. Ha! I was just about to post that very link.

Trout, at her site, has apparently already dealt with the issues that are currently causing such a brouhaha here. She, as someone who has examined the 50 Shades trilogy in excruciating detail, comes down on the side of "Clearly, it's abuse."

She makes an excellent case.

[Puzzledtraveller]

27. I have found myself incredibly indifferent.

Perhaps because I have been down low, very low, and there is nothing that could possibly arouse anything in me anymore. I am retired and loving it.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. I loved Garp! But it does glorify the rape

of a disabled veteran by Garp's mom. I expect The Brigade to be out in force any moment now, to tell us we shouldn't read it or see the movie.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

88. Why you shouldn't see the movie?

One of the worst movies Robin Williams was ever in. I'd call it a total dog of a movie, except I like dogs.

Go see 'The Birdcage' instead. A much better movie.

[zappaman]

31. I am firmly on the

I don't give a fuck camp.

[MADem]

33. Where were all these dramatic threads when the frigging BOOK came out? Why is all the drama tied

to a film they've had trouble casting and the Rotten Tomatoes people are rubbing their hands together with glee over?

I have to wonder about that, frankly. Does no one read anymore? Is that why no one got upset when the stupid thing came out in hardcover, and later, in paperbback?

Or is this just all manufactured?

I really don't know.

I'll tell you this--it doesn't sound like my cuppa tea. Not because of the Ess--Eeee- Exx in it, mind you, but because, by all accounts I've seen , it's poorly written, SSDD over and over again, and a waste of fricken time.

[WillyT]

38. Because The Book...Came Out WAY Before The Internet Was Created...

[MADem]

42. No it didn't--I remember reading an article about women reading it while waiting to pick up their

kids at school, in the last several years.

It was first published in 2011.

We've had three years and change to gripe about this stupid thing--why NOW???????

[WillyT]

120. Sorry... My Bad... Was Still Focusing On GARP...

[MADem]

144. Garp was VERY edgy for the early eighties....

And that was before the days when everyone had a computer, certainly.

[Luminous Animal]

62. Because most of us don't read crap so it is off our radar.

[MADem]

147. But most of us go to crappy movies...? I don't think that logic is operative.

Come on--this stupid thing in book form got PLENTY of press three years ago when it came out--where was the outrage, then?

[mainer]

78. Exactly the question I asked. Few people actually seem to have read what they're criticizing.

I read the book because I'm in the book industry, I know one editor who acquired the book (and another editor who refused to publish it) so the controversy demanded I know what was being talked about. Yes, the writing is a crime against the English language, but everyone involved knew it was going to make the various publishing houses (it's an international phenomenon) a ton of money.

[Squinch]

81. And few people seem to have read what they are defending. It goes both ways.

[MADem]

149. I think many of the "defenders" are "defending" on the basis of the First Amendment, not the

quality of the work.

I've heard it's tripe, but if anyone wants to indulge in it, they can knock themselves out.

I certainly don't approve of censorship of the stupid thing, in book or film format. That doesn't mean I'm going to read it or recommend it.

[Squinch]

158. Though many here are crying "censorship!" against those who object to the book, I think if you look

very hard, you will not find any posts that advocate censorship or banning the book. Nor will you find those imaginary posts that the more ridiculous folks see everywhere in which a poster is saying that others need their permission to read the book.

This is not a censorship or First Amendment issue because no one here has the ability to censor anyone else here.

If the people objecting to the book are guilty of trying to influence opinion through argument (which is as far as anything on DU can go, unless we are talking about the sickos who PM threats and intimidation, but that is not what we are talking about here) those defending the book are just as guilty of exactly the same thing. As I said, it goes both ways.

[MADem]

195. Well, I say this all the time--the solution to speech is more speech.

I'm just at a loss as to why this is a topic NOW, when it wasn't in 2011 when the book came out and there were all sorts of dramatic opinion columns on it in newspapers and magazines.

These posts on this subject of late are approaching "Breast Feeding While Smoking at the Olive Garden" levels.

It's just bizarre. But hey, people are free to grind on about it...I know where the HIDE THREAD button is if gets to be too much.

About the only time I'm championing a jury HIDE is when people are in obvious violation of the TOS. If someone is championing that "Fuck Ron Paul" jerk then I'm all for getting the hook. People with an opinion on a stupid movie, though? Eh, let 'em beat each other up.

[Squinch]

205. But there are some interesting issues being brought up, even though the subject of the discussion is

an asinine, badly written book.

The issue of censorship and what constitutes censorship is one of them.

The issue of consent is another. To me, clearly, consent was absent during many of the acts described in the book, and those acts were rape. I am shocked to see that as a point of disagreement, because it was so clear to me as I read (before I threw the book across the room in disgust.) Which makes me think that consent is something that continues to need, as you say, more speech.

[MADem]

148. Thank you for my laugh of the day in an overly-serious thread!

...the writing is a crime against the English language...

[ecstatic]

112. it's an election year and someone is pulling our strings

Maybe someone instigated this and brought unsuspecting DUers along for the ride.

[MADem]

150. Hopefully the admins are taking notes... nt

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

151. The most important reason I didn't read the book and why I won't go see a movie based on it,

as you say:

it's poorly written

Now, not having read it, I can't say that's a positively true statement, but I have it on good authority.

[MADem]

152. DUer mainer is in the industry, and reports to us that it is a "crime against the English language."

That's good enough for me!

[TreasonousBastard]

36. I see some objection to explicit sex, but...

most of it is a lot of projection over rape and forced sex.

How dare a book or movie imply this sort of sexual pressure is not horrifically wrong? Acceptable, even?

Well, surprise surprise-- books and plays have been exploring crimes from all angles for thousands of years. Now movies are doing it.

Just what was Dostoevsky's point in not "properly" punishing Raskolnikov, and seeming to sympathize with his acts? I brought up "Salo' " in another thread and hardly anyone caught the point. Or said so. Should I bring up "The Story of O"?

The outrage I see in these threads is not over a bad book, or even so much the specific subject matter, but unresolved rage over sex. I see it all the time in this place dressed up in all sorts of almost acceptable clothing.

Unrepentant murderers, swindlers, armed robbers, hitmen... None of them generate the rage and 400 post threads that the rape and sex threads do.

in the end, it's really the sex that drives some over the edge and just the sex. It's time to just sit back and admit it. some of us are no better than the fundies.

[WillyT]

39. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - K & R !!!

[BainsBane]

53. Read my response

and think carefully about what you have just applauded. I did not expect this sort of thing from you. I remember hearing about your concern for your sisters. And now this.

[BainsBane]

52. Of course books and moivies have been portraying rape as a means of seduction for a very long time

They reflect a society in which women are subordinate and men feel themselves sexually entitled. It's called patriarchy and rape culture. That something has existed for a long time is hardly a reason to accept it. It is, however, the most common means of justifying power and oppression.

"Most of it is a lot of projection over rape and forced sex. How dare a book or movie imply this sort of sexual pressure is not horrifically wrong? Acceptable, even? . . The outrage I see in these threads is . . . unresolved rage over sex."

If only these women weren't so uptight, they would know to lay back and enjoy it.

The reason rape is more controversial than murder is that we don't have so many people lining up to justify murder and shame victims. Among the reasons for that is that rape primarily affects women, and too many see women as less than men. Murder is prosecuted; rape far less often. We don't have people insisting opposition to murder is unresolved conflict over sex or a desire to die or whatever twisted reason some come up with in order to insult women who care about rape and their right to consent.

in the end, it's really the sex that drives some over the edge and just the sex. It's time to just sit back and admit it. some of us are no better than the fundies.

Because who cares more about attacking rape culture and ending subordination of women than fundies, right? Fundies are all about affirming the rights of women to control their own bodies.

[TreasonousBastard]

63. I didn't say sit back and enjoy it...

I said admit that it can become an obsession.

Note that those who claim to not have read the book or seen the movie but still insist the point of it is rape are saying more about themselves than the book. And why didn't this become a big deal while the book was selling millions? Why wait for the movie to come out? And while we're at it, what's the significant difference between this book and the millions of bodice-rippers sold annually?

Rape in the real world is a problem and we should do whatever we can to stop it, but complaining about a movie while pontificating about a vaguely defined "rape culture" isn't doing a damn thing to help.

[BainsBane]

69. You said concern about rape

in the book is actually unresolved issues over sex. I would also note that you and the great defenders of the book haven't read it either, and that doesn't stop you from pontificating and insulting people who dare to critique the book as having unresolved problems in regard to "sex." You repeatedly use the word sex and implied women who voiced concern about rape were like fundies in their opposition to "sex." You justified the fact that rape has been presented as acceptable in novels because it's "always been that way." Your obsession would seem to be with debasing women who have the nerve to speak out about rape and misogyny. I consider that FAR more offensive that women who speak out about a culture that glorifies rape and presents it as a means of seduction. That you continue to equate women's rights over their own bodies with fundies shows how far removed from anything that could be considered liberal or progressive values.

As for what you think is effective in combating rape, your opinion doesn't interest me in the slightest. Consider that a permanent response to anything you have to say. I have seen more than I can stomach for this lifetime.

[TreasonousBastard]

70. That's not what I said at all, but...

if it makes you happy to believe it is, then have a good day.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

93. Society already and openly recognizes that

murder, swindling and robbery are wrong. Unfortunately, at this point in time, large swathes of society still consider coercing women into sex as not being wrong. In large part because such criminal acts are glorified in 'teen movies', pop songs, and godawful books.

In the end, no, it's not the sex. It's the rape. Lots of us actually enjoy sex, but object to to objectification and rape. The fundies are fine with rape, especially if it results in the 'punishment' of pregnancy. And they want to make sure you're forced to bear the rapist a child if that happens.

[Scootaloo]

40. it's not objection to sexual explicity though

if you haven't figured that out despite having obviously taken note of all the threads on the topic, I'm not sure what to say to you, though

[Luminous Animal]

45. Really WillyT? This a bullshit post. There is not one, NOT ONE person who has advocated

not reading it for any of the reasons that you proposed. NOT ONE.

Why did you do this?

Why did you set up this straw man?

Are you really going to present critics of the book, many of the victims of rape and domestic abuse as "pathetically afraid and weak?"

[WillyT]

49. Hey LA.. One Of My Sister's Had A Boyfriend Kick Her Out Of His Corvette When She Wanted To End It..

He tossed her out... circled around.,.. and went 120 mph into the side of Hughes Stadium... right in front of her.

Fortunatlely... his car was in the shadows of the satdium... so the carnage was not obvious.

Two years later... same sister was at a bar near the original scene of the first crime.

A guy came up to her to ask for a dance... she said "No Thank You".

The guy caught her out in the parking lot and tried to kidnap her.

She fought like bloody hell, and after being sliced twice in the arm, and stabbed once in the back/lung...

Her... big brother... ME ... got the phone call...

I went to the ER... to find my Sister under a simple sheet... only to tell me that...

The Mother Fucker STABBED ME...

I have three sisters... please do not presume that I have no idea what our family has gone through...

[Luminous Animal]

56. Hey Willy. You are talking to a woman who was beaten and choked 'til near death by her husband...

50 Shades of Abuse is just that. 50 Shades of Abuse.

The man is a starker.

He is jealous.

He isolates her from her friends and family.

She is afraid of his moods,

She has sex with him to mitigate his moods

She lies to her friends and family to cover up the abuse

This is a book that normalizes and sexualizes domestic violence.

[WillyT]

57. And... it's Either A Game With "Safe Words" Or IT IS Not...

Did you live through the 70's ???

It was called the sexual revolution...

Inspired by the Pill...

[Luminous Animal]

58. WTF? Sexual abuse was inspired by the pill? WTF? Please read it.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/jwh.2013.4344

Background: While intimate partner violence (IPV) affects 25% of women and impairs health, current societal conditions—including the normalization of abuse in popular culture such as novels, film, and music—create the context to support such violence. Fifty Shades of Grey, a best-selling novel, depicts a “romantic” and “erotic” relationship involving 28-year-old megamillionaire, Christian Grey, and a 22-year-old college student, Anastasia Steele. We argue that the relationship is characterized by IPV, which is harmful to Anastasia.


Intimate partner violence patterns
Our results distill the abuse patterns across Christian and Anastasia's 4-week relationship in the first novel, concentrating first on underlying emotional abuse patterns, and then on how the emotional abuse affects Anastasia, and culminating with a description of example sexual encounters that meet the CDC's sexual violence definition.63 We begin by discussing emotional abuse, because this type of abuse permeates all chronically violent partnerships, including nearly every interaction of Christian and Anastasia's relationship; the underlying emotional abuse in Christian and Anastasia's relationship also sets the stage for sexual violence to occur. To remain consistent with literary convention, we describe events in the present tense; “actual dialogue” between Christian and Anastasia is represented using italics and quotations, and Anastasia's “inner dialogue” is in quotations only.

Emotional/psychological abuse
Christian controls all aspects of the couple's relationship using the emotional abuse tactics of stalking, isolation, intimidation/threats, and humiliation.63 Emotional abuse begins immediately after the couple's first meeting when Anastasia interviews Christian for her college's newspaper, and continues through the couple's last interaction in the novel. Below we review three emotional abuse scenes; in each scene, the various types of emotional abuse co-occur and overlap, as is typically seen in abusive relationships.1,2 As an important caveat before describing the emotional abuse scenes, while BDSM can include power and pain exchanges outside of the bedroom (such as ordering a partner to eat or threatening to punish/harm), typically such exchanges involve consenting parties (those who have agreed to the power exchange) and those who have worked out an egalitarian process for negotiating such power exchanges.46–48 Within Christian and Anastasia's relationship, consent and egalitarian negotiation processes are not formally decided, and Christian uses a range of coercive strategies to control multiple aspects of Anastasia's behavior; as we will document, Christian's coercive control significantly erodes Anastasia's identity.

Emotional abuse example 1
Within a week after Christian and Anastasia's introduction during an interview Anastasia conducts with Christian for her college's newspaper, and without any additional form of communication, Christian stalks Anastasia, by “appearing” at Anastasia's place of employment, an independent hardware store located in Portland—173 miles from their original encounter in Seattle. As Christian asks Anastasia to help him locate various “odd items,” such as cable ties, masking tape, and rope, his “confusing double talk” (p. 29) and questions about “what else he might need” for his “do-it-yourselfer” home improvement project (p. 28) creates feelings of embarrassment and humiliation in Anastasia. Christian does not stop his innuendo after Anastasia's body shows physiological signs of embarrassment, including a “recurring blush” and cheeks the color of the “Communist Manifesto” (p. 27–28). During this interaction, Anastasia even has the “uncanny feeling [Christian] is laughing at [her]” (p. 27). Midway through the hardware store encounter, Christian's mood changes suddenly from “friendly” to “cold and distant” when Anastasia says hello to a male colleague; Christian “watches [Anastasia] like a hawk, his eyes hooded, his mouth a hard impassive line…his tone becomes clipped and cool…” (p. 30–31). In response to Christian's abrupt mood change, Anastasia worries “Damn…have I offended him” and attempts to “diffuse the antagonism” by introducing Christian to her male colleague (p. 30–31). Christian's anger and withdrawal during the hardware store interaction set the stage for future isolation of Anastasia from friends and family—specifically, his anger/withdrawal over Anastasia talking to a male colleague is an intimidation/threat intended to induce her withdrawal from connections with others. Later in the novel, after returning home from a night out with her friends, Anastasia finds an e-mail, five missed calls, and a voice message, in which Christian warns that she needs “to learn to manage [his] expectations” and he is not a “patient man” (p. 304). Anastasia panics in response and calls him immediately to express herself: “Double crap. Will he ever give me a break… He is suffocating me. With a deep dread uncurling in my stomach, I scroll down to his number and press ‘call’…He'd probably like to beat seven shades of shit out of me. The thought is depressing.” p. 304–305). As will be documented later, Anastasia begins to withhold information about her social whereabouts and her travel plans to visit her mother to avoid Christian's anger and ensuing consequences—a behavioral pattern that is pervasive in victims involved abusive relationships.60–62

[WillyT]

61. And What If... A Woman Wanted To Pursue Her Own Fantasies ???

Would you be supportive of that ???

[Luminous Animal]

64. You didn't read it. Sit down, have your favorite morning beverage & then muse on why the "pathetic

and weak" might take issue with the books.

[Luminous Animal]

60. Oh, Ana never signed the contract. Never. But Christian just plowed on through as if she had.

So much for BDSM consent. Not.

[Luminous Animal]

47. This woman is not pathetic and weak

.http://50shadesofabuse.wordpress.com/page/2/

[H2O Man]

132. You can say that again.

[Luminous Animal]

48. This woman is not pathetic and weak.

http://das-sporking.livejournal.com/242338.html

[Luminous Animal]

50. This woman is not pathetic and weak.

http://theramblingcurl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/need-more-evidence-that-50-shades-is.html

[Luminous Animal]

51. This man is not pathetic and weak.

http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2014/03/lets-read-fifty-shades-of-grey-chapter.html

[Luminous Animal]

54. This man is not pathetic and weak.

http://davidbunce.com/fifty-shades-of-grey-reviewed-by-simple-bible-reading-feminist/

[Cleita]

55. Smacks of censorship, Catholic Church style, with their list of forbidden books,

many of which are regarded classics today and taught in university literature classes, the works of Alexander Dumas for instance, or maybe try the Soviet Union who strictly censored what the comrades could read. I once worked in a book store where patrons often complained about various books on the shelves and we told them that we don't practices censorship. It's up to the individual to decide what they want to read or not read.

I could see it coming though, when the censorship started first here on DU. First it was certain words, certain factions thought were offensive, not everyone just some. I knew it was a matter before there would be objections to certain magazines and it would creep to books. It has happened and no one will do anything about it because if they do, they end up being pprd because the alert and jury system is being abused by a small group of censorship advocates here.

[kickitup]

84. And those classic books are still being criticized. Heart of Darkness is a perfect example.

But nobody wants to ban it. How in this world does literary criticism equate with the banning of books? What's being censored/shamed here is intellectual curiosity. I expected better out of this forum.

I have sat in a graduate seminar where the popularity of bodice rippers was discussed and analyzed. Nobody wanted to ban them.

[Z_I_Peevey]

126. This is a fascinating display, is it not?

Let me just out myself.

I am a public librarian. I detest censorship. Not only do I cheerfully place the 50 Shades trilogy in the hands of anyone who asks for it, I make no moral judgments whatsoever about those same people.

But it's a bad book that romanticizes the worst parts of Old Testament patriarchy and rape culture. It reinforces the cultural norms that allow and downplay domestic abuse. The lessons it teaches are dangerous ones.

As a librarian, I'm also aware that we all bring our own preferences and life experiences to our interpretations of literature. I've led a number of book groups in hundreds of book discussions over the years, and there have been times when I marvel at the wildly different conclusions we reach in these discussions.

One woman even called "To Kill a Mockingbird" the worst book she had ever read, if you can believe such a thing. So I understand differing viewpoints.

It nevertheless surprises and dismays me that so many on a liberal website can defend the themes that, to this reader at least, seem so obviously reactionary and dangerous to women.

I'll not shut up about my opinion.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

153. Thank you for your post.

I would suggest that anyone interested read the books and judge the content for themselves.

Clearly, there needs to be more discussion on what constitutes the differences between:

1. Rape vs. Sex

2. Love vs. Obsession

That young girls reading this trilogy may learn, grow, and educate themselves. Hopefully, they will be able to decide for themselves what types of relationships they may want to embark on in the future and hopefully that decision will be mutual and not forced on anyone that is not of consensual age.

[Cleita]

164. Also, there is a reason these works are called FICTION,

which seems to be lost on those advocating censorship. Fiction is not reality and is story telling. It may be inspired by true events, but is not fact. It's just a story you can read and decide for yourself whether you like it or not, or not read it at all. I myself have not read the fifty shades of gray novel, even though many acquaintances have recommended, nor will I. It's not my kind of reading, but I will defend to the end anyone else's right to read it and discuss it and for it to be available in libraries and bookstores.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

165. I have not seen anyone on DU3 advocate censorship. Have you? Please PM me the link. Thank you. n/t

[Cleita]

172. Huh? Surely, you jest. eom

[Luminous Animal]

174. I'd like those links also. And no. I'm not jesting.

[Cleita]

177. I guess you've been in a cave this past week. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

178. Nope. And I have read and/or participated in every Shades of Grey thread.

No DUer is advocating banning or censorship. Not one.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

176. In fact I am quite the opposite and fully serious. Can you please, direct me to WHO on here said

such a thing.

and Yes, I will be requiring proof in the form of direct quotes and links.

You make the claim, not I.

Surely, you are willing to back up this assertion.

Again, my PM box is open if you are afraid of a hidden post due to a call out of another DUer.

[Cleita]

181. You are the third person who is talking to me like I owe you something.

The word is not said. But you have already participated in those threads by your own admission and the Harlequin romance threads I presume. So if you are in agreement with them, why do you need links?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

197. How can I be in agreement with anything when I honestly I don't know what the fuck you

are talking about. I honestly have not seen anyone post about banning/burning/censoring any book. If I am wrong then I am fully ready to admit it.

Please, point me in the direction where any DUer has said such and, I will gladly admit to being wrong.

All I am saying is that -*I*- myself have not seen the statement by anyone in these discussions and, I am only asking that you point me in the right direction.

You are right though, you do not owe me shit.

Just forget it, Cleita.

You said your piece. You are entitled to think what you like however wrong it may or may not be.

[Z_I_Peevey]

173. Censorship--I do not think that word means what you think it means

Last edited Mon Jul 28, 2014, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)

What is tremendously ironic is the fact that I read the books to be prepared to defend them against censorship challenges. (As of course I would, still.)

But the books are still garbage, and they still describe an abusive relationship.

I don't have the right to tell you what to read, and you don't have the right to tell me what to think about what I have read.

[Cleita]

175. Yes, but if you remove those books from the shelf or stop

conversations about them, that is censorship even though the word is never said. There's lots of banal trash reading out there and much of it is not about sex, but it doesn't seem to have anyone trying to ban it, nor should it be banned.

[Z_I_Peevey]

183. And if I obtain multiple copies and hot-glue them all together, I will have a coffee table.

But none of these things have happened, so why bring up a hypothetical?

I make these books available to anyone who wants them. I welcome conversation about books. I make my living from conversation about books. The more people talk about this particular book, the better. With an honest discussion of this series, vulnerable women might take a second look at what the culture has taught them is "romantic." Women (or abused men) may indeed begin to wonder "Hey, why am putting up with abuse just to stay in a shitty relationship?". People who like kink might stop furtively shopping at the hardware or tack store, and get better information about what BDSM is supposed to be.

And again, once again, who on these multiple threads has called for censoring or banning this book? No one that I have seen.

Again, once again, people are giving their opinions about the book. You disagree with those opinions. That is not censorship. To my mind, it's more akin to different levels of reading comprehension.

[Cleita]

185. It's not a hypothetical but a metaphor. Removing ideas on a website

because you don't like them is no difference than taking printed matter off the shelves.

[Luminous Animal]

189. And no DUer has advocated removing ideas on any website in regards to

50 Shades of Grey

No DUer advocates for banning the book
No Duer advocates that it be removed from shelves
No DUer advocates against the movie being made

Many DUers are discussing the ideas and characters portrayed in the books. This is a discussion board, after all. Millions of book club members do the same every day around the world without do so without recommending banning or censorship. Thousands and thousands of critics and academics do the same every day around the world without recommending banning or censorship.

[Z_I_Peevey]

191. This is a hypothetical: If I continue this exchange with you, you will see the light.

This is a metaphor: Fifty Shades of Grey is garbage.

Please proceed with your debate with The Imaginary Censor. I'm ready for him or her, should he or she show up at my workplace. Perhaps that's why there haven't been any posts advocating censorship on DU--the censors are on their way to the library.

They won't get past me! I vow it by sacred poodle of Jacqueline Susann!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

202. lol

[Louisiana1976]

187. +1 million

[BainsBane]

124. Then tell Skinner you want to abolish the jury system

and stop complaining that people have the nerve to express ideas you disagree with. Or go to Yahoo where people can say any foul thing they want.

Your comment on the jury system is ridiculous. One of that "small group" had a post hidden for saying the word "bullshit." The people crying censorship somehow think it essential to banish speech and people they disagree with from this site. You see, the whole argument about censorship is a transparent ruse by people who get all upset that they anyone dare articulate ideas that they disagree with.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

166. amen.

and funny but my last hidden post in regards to Hosts ... and NOW they are changing the Hosts functionality ... coincidence?

[Cleita]

184. I have nothing against the jury system.

I dislike how it's being abused. It's up to DUers to stop abusing it.

[NuttyFluffers]

204. hugs. i feel your viewpoint.

and i find the jury system is still dumb and should end, too.

[Warpy]

65. I've only read excerpts and more than one hilarious synopsis

but the excerpts were enough to put me off reading the book, they were that badly written, badly enough to be annoying but not badly enough to be particularly hilarious on their own.

But yes, it seems like a ridiculous stab at a BD/SM novel that missed a lot of salient points very badly, while titillating long married women with forbidden forms of erotica. I am informed that it's long on anticipation and short on delivery.

I should say here I'm not into romance fiction of any type. I have the soul of a cabbage.

However, cautioning women not to see the movie? Oh, please, the women who will watch this thing are women who already read the book. In any case, most of them have seen far worse battery in real life, either themselves or with family and friends.

Book and movie wannabe censors only cause more people, especially young people, to read or see the material that has the censors in a permanent state of hissyfit.

I am just waiting for the Marxist take on it. That should be enough to put everybody to sleep, especially the hissyfitting censors.

[Louisiana1976]

190. That's right. If you censor something, it only serves to get people, especially young people,

interested in reading or seeing it.

[Coventina]

66. I love Erotica. I read it and I write it.

I've never read "50 Shades" because it originally came out of "Twilight" fanfiction, and I despise "Twilight."

But, I would never try to ban it.

I have no interest in going to see the movie myself, but I don't think poorly of those who have a different opinion.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

95. And no one on here has tried to ban it. That's pure strawman.

No one has told anyone else not to read it either, other than in a 'it's poorly written schlock' kind of way.

The people rending their garments and wailing and pouring dust upon their heads over 'censorship' are doing so simply because a lot of people are criticizing the book's message and it's effect on pop culture. That's it. No banning, no 'OMG BDSM sucks', just people criticizing the book.

[Coventina]

129. I'll freely admit, I've been away for a few days and haven't been involved in this latest kerfluffle

I was only responding to the parameters of the OP, really.
I didn't even read through the thread, other than the post titles.

I know that GD tends to get all "het up" about whatever the latest "thing" is, and start ascribing all kinds of bizarre beliefs to posters with another viewpoint, so what you say is certainly within typical DU pattern.

I only posted what I posted because I wanted to stake out a "pro-erotica" stance, as a producer and a consumer of the genre.
FWIW: I'm also pro-fanfiction, which I also read and write.

Good writing is good writing, no matter the source.

And bad is bad.

"Twilight" is garbage, IMHO, so the whole "50 Shades" phenom never held any interest for me. Although I guess on an abstract level, I've found it interesting to watch a work of fanfic permeate popular culture.

[historylovr]

201. That has been interesting.

I've written fanfic also, and I continue to read it. But I've felt that this series does a disservice to fanfic, as it does to BDSM fic, and to romance writers of all sub-genres because it makes all three look bad due to all the issues mentioned. I may be biased though; I have friends who write fanfic, friends who write it and who are also published by Dreamspinner and Liquid Silver, and friends who write for other romance publishers, and they are all much, much better writers. It's sad that something so godawful could take hold like this tripe has.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Yes.

I think one of the wonderful things about our media-rich world is, there are choices for everyone.

If you don't like something, don't read/watch/listen to it. And the answer to bad art is better art.

In my opinion.

[IronLionZion]

75. I like these threads where DUers share lots of scandalous books to check out!

keep it coming!

[LongTomH]

186. Know any good ones?

[Squinch]

76. Does anybody else have a bad taste in their mouth over the suggestion that people should not be

allowed to voice their opinions in which they object to books that glorify rape?

I sure do.

Do you not get what you are doing there?

[brooklynite]

80. The allegation that rape occurs in the book in question has already been disproven several times...

...and I find the number of people opining on the book without actually having read it disturbing.

[Squinch]

82. So they shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions? In the interests of avoiding censorship?

And no. It hasn't been "disproven." It appears to be a matter of opinion whether the depiction was of abuse or not.

[IronLionZion]

98. You don't need anyone's permission to voice your opinion

any more than anyone would need your permission to read the book. We don't live in a country where we get punished for voicing an opinion or reading a book.

[Squinch]

102. No one has ever said anything about anyone needing anyone's permission to read the book. If

you believe that anyone has, I suggest that you see if you can find a post where someone says it. You won't find one.

[IronLionZion]

105. "shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions"

[Squinch]

108. I see that you are taking a phrase from my post, but I don't know what you are trying to say

from it. I was pointing out, with that phrase, that I thought that those objecting to the book had as much right to express their opinions as those who were defending it.

What is your point with that quote?

[IronLionZion]

110. I was merely supporting your right to voice your opinion

since you seemed to think some might be against that. I don't believe anyone is going to stop you from voicing it.

[Squinch]

114. Though that doesn't answer the original question of why you were thinking anyone was saying that

they needed permission to read the book.

[joeglow3]

91. Bullshit it has

Read post 58

[Tuesday Afternoon]

167. careful with the word = bullshit. just sayin'

[Chan790]

117. In the less precise sense, no.

I generally believe that people should not voice their opinions in which they object to books they haven't read. Their opinions are generally invalid and poorly-informed. They do little other than make the critic look like an idiot, a histrionic or both.

Through the selective use of quotes and synopsis I can make an equally-strong (or weak as the case may be) argument as the ones being made against 50 Shades in criticism of the works of Catharine MacKinnon, bell hooks, Mary Daly, Erika Jong, Audre Lorde, Monique Wittig and Kate Bornstein. One sufficient to backstop an equivalent argument that they belong on nobody's bookshelves or in the public library on the basis of their exploitative content.

I can also make them against the works of Dr. Seuss, Ernest Hemingway, Chuck Palahniuk, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Emily Dickinson, John Donne, Stephen King, J.K. Rowling, Jane Austen, William Makepeace Thackeray, Denis Diderot, Emily Bronte, Dan Brown, Umberto Eco, and Joan Walsh.

All of those criticisms would be of equal (negligible) merit...and I've read most of those authors extensively. Literary criticism, media criticism in general, tends to be the realm of sophistry. Selective quotation and slanted synopsis allows one to use nearly anything to justify nearly anything; make any argument, no matter how absurd.

It's very easy to have strong and ill-informed opinions of media-content when you don't experience them yourself. It's easy to be led astray. How do I know that Mein Kampf sickens me? Because I read it. Not because I know who wrote it, what their opinion was on Judaism, or because someone Cliff-noted it with quotes and citations. Because I read it. Someone else didn't read it and tell me what to think of it.

Because I read. Because humanities and critical-thinking are important first-hand experiences. Because the world is full of charlatans and people seeking to advance their agendas over the low-informed--why think when you can be told what to think? Usually by malevolent individuals and entities looking to subvert your autonomy and agency by telling you how to think and telling you that you shouldn't think for yourself or have first-hand experiences to uncomfortable materials and facts when they're more than happy to tell you how you should feel. This isn't even a new tactic...it underlies a full millennium of Catholic domination of Europe from the Council of Trent to the Protestant Reformation...the Church believed that the rabble should never read the Bible because they might draw the wrong conclusions. They were scandalized by the printing press, the availability of the Bible directly led to the collapse of their religious monoculture. Because people read and realized how corrupt and astray the church had become. Information is power. Even vile and disgusting information, shitty trash-novels and purple prose about grey rape.

I'm not saying E.L James 50 Shades series isn't utter dreck and offensive to women...I'm saying that's a commentary one is only entitled to first-hand. Any other position is to parrot your own oppression. I make lots of decisions to not read things...but I generally avoid taking strong positions on things I've never read based on someone's interpretations and biases.

[Squinch]

156. Have you read the book?

[Chan790]

171. Unfortunately. Probably 100 pages of it...it's awful.

I don't merely mean the content...it's also some of the most sophomoric prose ever type-set. The content could have been utterly staid and uncontroversial and it would have still been unreadable. The fact that the content is an exploitative misrepresentation of kink which reinforces notions that BDSM is about oppression of women and contains multiple depictions of such exploitation/oppression presented uncritically is problematic.

I was in a book-group/reading-circle and we took turns choosing the books.

I'm convinced that one of our members chose it explicitly to torment me for choosing Possession: A Romance by A.S. Byatt as she complained about the Byatt book; it's too long, it's confusing and boring, "I don't want to think that hard", "reading is about enjoyment and this isn't enjoyable." The rest of the group was enthusiastic about her book-choice...they really wanted to read that crap.

I needed a better book group. Sadly, these people all want to be writers; that was the genesis of the group: aspiring novelists reading and discussing novels. What I thought would be one of the best and most-enlightening experiences of my word-nerdery turned out to be one of the most frustrating.

As an aside, I highly recommend Possession. It's a highly enjoyable novel if you're in the right frame of mind for experimental fiction and a different kind of mystery. I can't recommend 50 Shades, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't read it if they think they might have strong feelings on it. (It'll either prove you wrong (but almost-certainly not in this case) or better prepare you to be critical of it.) It's perfectly valid as-well to start reading something, declare it "complete shit"¹ and abandon it.

1: e.g. 50 Shades of Grey by E.L. James

[hobbit709]

77. The Two kinds of people.

The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no
such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest
number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more
comfortable neighbors than the other sort.

[Blue_Adept]

125. A little Lazarus Long is always welcome.

Contrary though he may be, and the works from a different time that may not apply quite the same anymore.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

83. I think we've become more nuanced and thoughtful.

The recent objections have not been against 'sexually explicit books'. They've been against the portrayal of rapist wank material. They're the same objections that you hear against creepy rapist/stalker songs like 'Blurred Lines'.

Media the pushes the notion into the public psyche that intimidation and sexual aggression are acceptable means of coercing physically weaker individual into sexual acts, and at the same time proclaiming that they 'secretly want it'.

There are any number of sexually explicit songs, books, and movies that do not try to convince men that women will 'like it if you just push them into it'. And people on the left aren't objecting to them.

So no, it's not 'pathetically afraid and weak' to object to certain books when you discuss them. It's a principled recognition that certain memes actually work to make society more dysfunctional when they are simply accepted into pop culture. It's a stripping away of the 'male privilege' of pretending that the right to coerce or outright force women into sexual acts is acceptable and even to be emulated.

It's understandable that so many posters are trying to trivialize and deny that there's anything to object to. It's uncomfortable when we're forced to face up to the fact that we've internalized behaviours and thoughts that center on turning other people into something less than human, objects to be controlled and used simply for our own comfort or enjoyment.

[kickitup]

85. Thank you.

[LadyHawkAZ]

89. I have a bad taste in my mouth over people pretending the book causes rape

I think DU is pretty much used to people objecting to all things sexual.

[NaturalHigh]

200. +1

[malaise]

92. I'm not sure we have become so pathetically afraid and weak

What we have now are a variety of morons with access to the internet so we see their regressive views on everything.

As long as we were reading, our parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles didn't care what we were reading.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

99. lemme fix that for you.

"What we have now are a variety of morons with access to the internet...

So now there's a lot more godawful tripe out there that we might unwittingly read, unless other people warn us first. Then, having read those warnings, we can decide whether or not to go ahead and read tripe or not.

[TBF]

101. I'm not interested in books that glamorize violence against women -

but I'm also not going to censor what others read. I encouraged my tween daughter to read the Hunger Games when she was interested. If she wanted to read Twilight we would talk first about the themes (mainly that dying to be with your true love is not the most positive message).

[gollygee]

103. The complaint here is the same as against the song "Blurred Lines"

It's more a societal complaint than specifically about the song or the book. Many people in our society still see the line between sex and rape as blurred, and a lot of people recognize that it isn't healthy to blur that line, because people end up raped when the line is not shown as more distinct.

I haven't seen anyone say they want to ban any books. Just commentary on what this shows about our society, which is an ongoing problem illustrated by the book.

[MineralMan]

107. Not unless they're advocating banning the book.

Criticism of books is just fine. I don't remember seeing anyone suggesting that any books be banned. Did you? If so, please provide a link.

[merrily]

109. Not sure which objections you are referring to.

I have no interest in seeing Fifty Shades of Gray, or advising someone else to see it or discussing it over dinner. Among other things, I don't often pay for a movie unless I expect it to make me laugh--intentionally.

I figure, in my life so far, tragedy and drama have always been free. That doesn't mean I have a problem with other people paying for dramatic or tragic movies, though.

That also does not mean that I object to Fifty Shades of Gray having been written, published and sold or to the movie's having been made or its being shown in theaters and it means even less about my attitude to real life sex involving consenting adults. And, even if I did object aloud to the existence of the book or the movie, I am not sure that would be a problem, or just an exercise my own First Amendment right.

I have no problem with anyone determining their own reading and viewing preferences and talking about them. I'd have a huge problem with censorship, though.

[seaglass]

122. Can not believe ANY work by John Irving is mentioned in the same breath as EL James. Never mind your

ridiculous premise, that is just vomit inducing.

[LanternWaste]

123. It's a tough old world when people criticize a book you've never read...

It's a tough old world when people criticize a book you've never read... I guess I'd pretend it's simply weakness too.

[onecaliberal]

130. Freedom of speech is not

Pathetic or weak. If you don't like a particular post or OP there are several functions on this site that allow you to ignore.
Books and movies that portray rape as sexy are pathetic and weak.

[steve2470]

133. controvery here is not over explicitness

It's over BDSM versus rape, as portrayed in the book. I haven't read the book, so I have no idea what is portrayed in the book.

[NCTraveler]

134. Is someone here lobbying the govt to ban certain books?

I know some here have a very authoritarian streak, but I missed this one.

[WinkyDink]

136. I think you'll find that the author IS NO JAMES JOYCE, FGS. Are we not even to make literary

judgments now?

Is "Spamalot" (which I saw many times) to be placed on a par with "Hamlet"?

[lumberjack_jeff]

140. Depends on the nature of the objections.

"I read the book and I found it stupid and a waste of time"... no bad taste.
"I haven't read the book, but I know from a blog I read that if you buy a ticket to the movie, it makes you complicit in the acts of criminals; a participant in rape culture." .... yes, quite a bad taste.

My wife read all three books and claims to like the story. I've read enough excerpts to have no interest, but enough that I don't accept that it's a referendum on patriarchy.

I'm just glad that there's now a controversy that the usual suspects can't blame on the Men's Group.

I think the problem they have with it is the conflict between their gender-political world view and the apparent fantasies of many women.

[alp227]

141. "pathetically afraid and weak???" I call it having a moral conscience.

Sheesh. I don't want to see Freep language like "wuss" and "weak" thrown around at people who DARE have moral consciences about sex and violence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

142. Let me introduce you to the organization that fights this idiocy

This is before I sent the necessary email.

The Comic Book Legal Defense League concentrates mostly in comics, but also books. Like the better known ACLU they are about the first amendment.

Yup. I might not want to read a work of fiction, I might even find it questionable, but this is all but a liberal value, this instinct to suppress. Comics and other cultural products can be so subversive that people want to ban them. It looks like this book is one of those.

http://cbldf.org/

[apnu]

145. What '50 shades of gray' is:

... Twilight fan fiction. Erotic, Twilight fan fiction to be exact. That someone noticed and convinced a publisher to print it.

So now you know what it is.

[WinkyDink]

154. My hair?

[MADem]

196. BEST post in this ENTIRE thread!!!!!!!! nt

[WinkyDink]

206. And sadly true! (Thank you!)

[mainer]

155. A little background on the publication

I know one of the editors who bought it for her territory. She's an amazing, brilliant, powerful woman who saw that it would generate huge profits for her company. She never shared with me what she really thought about its merits, but as she has excellent literary taste, I am assuming this was purely a business move on her part. Yes, she is a feminist. And yes, her company made out like bandits with the book.

I know a different editor who refused to publish it. She too is an amazing, brilliant, powerful woman, but she was so disgusted by the book that she said she didn't care if her company lost out. She too is a feminist, and she made a personal decision that probably worked against her company's profits.

So two equally strong women came to two different decisions. Neither one was wrong.

The moral of the story is that women should be left to their own choices. Read the book or not. Publish the book or not. At least they make their own decisions.

[In_The_Wind]

162. I never did like being told what I could and could not read.

I still don't like it.

[MadrasT]

163. Nope. Everybody gets to have an opinion.

And I don't feel like the whole world needs to be in lockstep with mine.

Seems like a strawman argument, by the way. I haven't seen anyone here object to "sexually explicit books" as a category of books. In this latest case, people are specifically objecting to scenes depicted in one particular book (now a movie).

I do not understand why some people have such a monumentally difficult fucking time allowing other people to have different opinions about a work of fiction.

[Aerows]

170. I am FAR from shy

in both my reading AND writing. I've read and written enough lesbian smut to make a sailor blush, and I do not shy away from that fact.

This - it's something different. It's a psychological portrait of a young child getting sexually dominated and controlled by a man. Reading reviews of it put it in that context - it's not BDSM - it's molestation. This chapter by chapter review puts it in perspective.

http://jennytrout.wordpress.com/jenny-reads-50-shades-of-grey/

That said, read what you want and explore your feelings through other people's written words. That doesn't mean that you have to go out and do them yourself.

The lack of consent that is continuous throughout the whole thing is what bugs the hell out of me.

[Warren DeMontague]

179. I think it's a coincidence that many of the same people were ecstatic over Iceland's porn ban

I mean, at least until the trial balloon went pfffffffdfffffffffft.

If those same folks made supportive noises of censorship last year, so what? When they swear up and down they're not interested in telling consenting adults what they can do or watch NOW, we should take them at their word.

And if those people have been defensive of their right to "culturally critique" consensual BDSM activites, or have demanded the authority to regulate the private bedroom decisions of consenting adults because "the personal is political"... Well, just because they said those things last week, doesn't mean they believe them NOW.

And you are WAY put of line to suggest that there is anything untoward in progressives DEMANDING that a Democratic board agree with the positions of Rick Santorum, Ed Meeese, and Phylis Shlafly, because when the topic is smut, the rules totes change, silly!

[CTyankee]

198. Is this about the "love=death" argument? If so, you might want to look to the 19th century

for the full application of that theme in "Tristan and Isolde" by Wagner, namely "liebestod," a world famous aria. Not defending it, just saying...nothing is new. The famous "Tristan Chord" and all that...

Here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3SA2KsY0ZRI

[NaturalHigh]

199. Yes.

It doesn't surprise me, though.