50 shades of fkn grey!

[F.W 5,734]

This is in the form of a rant i guess,but im SICK of hearing about this stupid book,now "a major motion picture".Because it was written by a woman for women,and crucially has no pictures,thus not truly pornography,its ok to print extracts in the papers,a double page spread on how you too can indulge in a little light BDSM perhaps.Well,i might write a book for men,call it "50 shades of piss".In my book,a guy has found a little gap in the wall behind a cubicle at the girls college where he is a janitor,and he hides in there most days for a few hours,but what he does,he disables the flush,and collects the pee,and takes it home to analyse into why there are so many different shades of piss...Whats that?No publisher would touch it?Why,its only tittilation,no pictures.Why is it ok for women to freely endorse their fantasies,yet we guys have to keep ours hidden?NO FAIR!Im sure women read it as harmless fun,but so what?Why does sex have to be harmless fun?

[Sophie 24,410]

50 Shades has often been described as a manual of how NOT to enjoy BDSM :p It's terrible.

[lordofcoatham1 179]

surely 50 shades of yellow would be more appropriate a title?

[F.W 5,734]

I think my point is that any kind of "porn" thats aimed at women,or even advertising,like big posters of David Beckham with socks down his grots,are considered to be acceptable,even though maybe demeaning to men in general.Its often discussed on shows like "Loose Women".Imagine on "Match of the Day" if the presenters began discussing whether they had been wanking to any kind of porn in the previous week,and how long it took them.Yet ive seen a discussion on daytime tv,about how women can enjoy reading "50 shades of grey" while trying new sex toys.I know porn for guys works on a different level,and women need their fun too,but it goes too far.In the 80s,the "Wonderbra" was developed,and there was a famous poster featuring Eva Herzigova,just a black and poster,of her waist up,wearing a black "Wonderbra",with the phrase "HELLO BOYS"..(it was kinda horny)There was an outcry from womens groups"it demeans women" etc,etc.Yet WE have to see Beckham,early tackle out everywhere.

[F.W 5,734]

Oh my GOD!Ive read that staff at B&Q are being told they must now read the book or see the film,as they are expecting a load of trade in bondage items,as mentioned in the book,and will be expected to answer questions about it if customers ask!Why cant people just fuck without having to do stupid things,like tie up with masking tape,or washing line?Id tell them to buy some condoms go home shag your brains out,ignore this pile of crap.

[lordofcoatham1 179]

Oh my GOD!Ive read that staff at B&Q are being told they must now read the book or see the film,as they are expecting a load of trade in bondage items,as mentioned in the book,and will be expected to answer questions about it if customers ask!Why cant people just fuck without having to do stupid things,like tie up with masking tape,or washing line?Id tell them to buy some condoms go home shag your brains out,ignore this pile of crap.

Isnt that sexual harrasment forcing people who may not have any interest in the subject to read or watch it? And it seems a bit industrial for a first forray into bondage to skip ann summers for a set of furry handcuffs and head straight to b&q for sheet steel and a bit of 2x4!

[Hamster245 590]

Fannywatcher I can't help but detect a feeling that perhaps the book isn't for you?

[Scot_Lover 1,877]

Meh, I couldn't get into it, didn't do a thing for me, Maigh and Mary didn't even bother, think they gave it to the cop's wife a few dozen km's away.

So, what do you think the movie will be like? Simulated, really low level stuff?

Not much interest in the movie either, opens tomorrow AU time.

[Scot_Lover 1,877]

So has anyone seen this yet? It only made an MA-15+ rating here, going on all the hype, I would have expected at least an R.

[F.W 5,734]

This is about the relationship of porn to men.In one of the papers yesterday,an article,written by a woman,was crying on about the amount of porn,and the types of porn available,i.e bondage,(but only where women are tied up,strangely..),or Bukkake(1 woman,12 guys etc),and how it was degrading,and why do we need to view such filth,degrades women,etc,etc,etc...?Or how young lads may see it and think that girls are sexual objects(dont girls see men as sexual objects too,or we wouldnt be here..).Then in a episode of blatant hypocrisy,the same paper had a double page spread on how some sex scenes in mainstream films,could be viewed as sado-masochism,just like the "50 shades of grey" movie......So according to the media,if porn is naked girls,dripping with cum,then its degrading to women,and we men are disgusting perverts!BUT,if its a guy tied up and being tickled,then its ok for women to enjoy,and discuss it on TV is it?

[steve25805 126,116]

This is about the relationship of porn to men.In one of the papers yesterday,an article,written by a woman,was crying on about the amount of porn,and the types of porn available,i.e bondage,(but only where women are tied up,strangely..),or Bukkake(1 woman,12 guys etc),and how it was degrading,and why do we need to view such filth,degrades women,etc,etc,etc...?Or how young lads may see it and think that girls are sexual objects(dont girls see men as sexual objects too,or we wouldnt be here..).Then in a episode of blatant hypocrisy,the same paper had a double page spread on how some sex scenes in mainstream films,could be viewed as sado-masochism,just like the "50 shades of grey" movie......So according to the media,if porn is naked girls,dripping with cum,then its degrading to women,and we men are disgusting perverts!BUT,if its a guy tied up and being tickled,then its ok for women to enjoy,and discuss it on TV is it?

There has always been a double standard with porn. If men get off on it it's sleazy, if women do it's erotic. If men tie up women it is using them as sex objects, if women tie up men it is empowering. If guys cum or pee on women - even if she is enjoying it - it is degrading to women, but if women pee on men then that's no problem at all.

In short, whenever things are being done by men to women sexually, it is degrading and disgusting, even though cnsenting adults do these things all the time. But whenever things are being done by women to men, it is seen as empowering.

If anyone thinks that a guy pissing on a woman is degrading even if she is enjoying it, how can a woman pissing on a guy not be equally degrading to such a mindset?

It's all just bullshit, really. This idea that porn uniquely degrades women was always bollocks. It either degrades both women AND men, or it degrades neither. And as far as I am concerned, if the performers in porn are consenting adults of either gender, participating entirely of their own free will, and those viewing it are also consenting adults of either gender - what's the fucking problem? No one is being degraded there. If anyone were to be forced or coerced into participating against their will, that would be wholly wrong and thouroughly degrading of course. But for the most part that is NOT what is happening.

As for differences between men and women. Both do often have a different primary focus in terms of erotica, with men being much more visual and women more into the literary side of things. Of course, this is not an absolute division - not only are there exceptions but also many women are able to appreciate visual erotica too even if not as much as men and even if they prefer the written word. And many men - myself included - can appreciate written porn stories that reflect their sexual interests. But in general, men are more visual than women, and women more literary focussed.

Once that is understood, it is rather hypocritical of any woman who enjoys reading literary erotica to condemn a man for watching a porn vid in which the participants are consenting adults. To condemn the man whilst reading such stuff looks very much like approving of what they like themselves whilst disapproving of what they don't. Or in other words, trying to make everyone else conform to their own tastes and standards - the modus operandi of narrowminds everywhere.

[steve25805 126,116]

Oh my GOD!Ive read that staff at B&Q are being told they must now read the book or see the film,as they are expecting a load of trade in bondage items,as mentioned in the book,and will be expected to answer questions about it if customers ask!Why cant people just fuck without having to do stupid things,like tie up with masking tape,or washing line?Id tell them to buy some condoms go home shag your brains out,ignore this pile of crap.

No need to be quite so judgemental about the sexual interests of others. We don't like it when others are judgemental about our fetish. Live and let live.

And if I had to settle for just having a "fuck without having to do stupid things" - for example being peed on - I'd find sex far too boring. There is far more to be interested in than just shagging. If that were not so, this forum would not exist. So let's not criticise the BDSM community, and in that lead by example in terms of not inviting criticism of us.

[steve25805 126,116]

50 Shades has often been described as a manual of how NOT to enjoy BDSM :tongue: It's terrible.

Lol, yes, I have heard it described as being less than a literary masterpiece in terms of literature, style, plot, and dialogue. I have heard it described as not being particularly well written. And yet - and as someone working in a store that sold the damned book I can personally attest to this - it flew off the shelves with women buying it in droves. Why?

Well, think of it this way. When guys like me view a porn vid, it is often very poorly acted, the dialogue is often atrocious or laughable, and it can be very poorly put together. And yet, if the activity taking place presses my own erotic buttons, that won't matter. I will still get off on it. If it excites me and stimulates or reflects my fantasies, I'll foregive a multitude of sins insofar as the production is concerned, and still get off on it.

And these books are probably similar in that respect for their predominantly female readership. If the things being depicted and described float the boats of readers in terms of stimulating and reflecting their fantasies, then most won't care too much about the poor literary quality or plot or whatever. It works for them on a more sexually visceral level where such niceties as plot or style or quality barely matter.

That's how I see it anyway.

[glad1 2,832]

I saw "50 Shades of Grey", actually had a woman take me. :)

By no means a great movie, but it was not as bad as some guys say.

As for putting ideas in women's heads, I don't think it's having much success. My date never even asked why I had cable ties and a coil of line in my car. ;-)

[F.W 5,734]

You see,THATS my problem.What is it with this cable tie or clothes line crap?Just have sex!

[glad1 2,832]

You see,THATS my problem.What is it with this cable tie or clothes line crap?Just have sex!

Interesting thing, I'd had them in my car for other purposes, the ties still there from when I fixed loose wires in my trunk, the line was for my kayak.

It wasn't until I left the movie that I realized the situation was funny.

[Sophie 24,410]

You see,THATS my problem.What is it with this cable tie or clothes line crap?Just have sex!

Different strokes for different folks.

Newsflash, people have different sexual interests.

[F.W 5,734]

Somewhere,my point about double standards was lost..i.e its ok for women to discuss their sexual fantasies on tv,in newspapers etc,Poldark is a prime example right now,but we men would be pilloried if a guy went on tv and said he wanted to fuck some particular woman..Drives me mad!

[Sophie 24,410]

Somewhere,my point about double standards was lost..i.e its ok for women to discuss their sexual fantasies on tv,in newspapers etc,Poldark is a prime example right now,but we men would be pilloried if a guy went on tv and said he wanted to fuck some particular woman..Drives me mad!

What are you talking about? I never mentioned double standards. I'm simply saying different people like different things, "What is it with this cable tie or clothes line crap?Just have sex!" is just plain rude.

[F.W 5,734]

I mentioned double standards..simply because there are.The whole media is biased against heterosexual male sexuality."Ban online porn","ban lads mags","ban page 3 girls"etc etc.But a book about BDSM,(i gather anyway)the tying up of people for sexual gratification,for some reason is considered ok?That was my point initially.:thumbsup:

[steve25805 126,116]

I mentioned double standards..simply because there are.The whole media is biased against heterosexual male sexuality."Ban online porn","ban lads mags","ban page 3 girls"etc etc.But a book about BDSM,(i gather anyway)the tying up of people for sexual gratification,for some reason is considered ok?That was my point initially.:thumbsup:

You are over-simplifying. The main objection to page three was always the notion of bare breasted women shown for sexual arousal in what is supposed to be a family newspaper. No reasonable person is that bothered by men looking at titties. It is pretty normal. It is the incongruity of this in a family newspaper that is the main objection.

And it has long been the case that some fetishes have become more mainstream than others. But this holds true for both men and women and is not gender-biased. BDSM has simply become more mainstream than our chosen fetish, to the point where books and films can be openly published about it. But - newsflash - like all fetishes, BDSM is not a females only fetish. Men are into it too. The book and the film in this case might be designed for a female audience, but the fetish itself has at least as many men interested in it, just like ours.

Yes, would be great if our fetish achieved the same degree of social acceptability. But we won't help lessen the judgementalism that comes our way by being all judgemental about other people's sexual interests.

There is also a significant difference between books and porn vids. One is purely using imagination with any erotic happenings being imagined only by the reader, whilst the other involves real men and women actually doing stuff in front of a camera. That is why porn vids attract more flak from those overly concerned with the wellbeing of those men and women doing that stuff, whether they are being exploited, etc. I think most here, of course, are more enlightened and believe that if consenting adults willingly choose to perform in porn, then leave them the fuck alone and let the rest of us enjoy it. But I can at least understand why a video is more potentially open to attack from judgementalists than a book is, simply because it intrinsically involves real people doing real stuff.

[F.W 5,734]

I want to end this now,my point has been bulldozed,into details of cable ties etc.Im not criticising other folks sexual proclivities..Im saying there IS a bias against ALL forms of male entertainment.About 15 years ago,there was a craze for "The Dreamboys".Basically male strippers.This was advertised in newspapers,posters on bus stops,coach outings "for the girls",were organised,groups of women would go en masse to see a few men strip naked.Which is ok..But what isnt ok,is at the same time female strip joints were being closed,as councils began ending their licences;such joints rarely even being advertised publicly,you had to know of them;"massage parlours" were being raided more regularly by the law,men were arrested and their names made public.The whole ban page 3 thing was going on.In other words,what MEN enjoyed was driven underground,or even persecuted,but as long as WOMEN enjoyed themselves all was ok in the world.Its the same now with this 50 shades thing.Would a movie get a release,that featured Bukkake,or peeing over each other?I think not.What people do behind closed doors is ok by me,but im sick of the anti straight male hypocrisy!

[steve25805 126,116]

I agree that to a certain extent there is a double standard at play sometimes. One need only look at the attitudes towards strippers is such a mainstream British soap as Eastenders. Whenever the male characters talk about hiring strippers for stag nights or whatever, the female characters will label them perverts or express strong disapproval and it never happens. The entire message being given out is that men watching female strippers is sleazy and perverted.

Yet when the female characters talk of male strippers it is all condidered a good laugh and generally acceptable and the storyline often allows this to happen, albeit of course with nothing explicit being shown on what is an early evening soap. Generally, women watching male strippers is portrayed as a good laugh, and totally acceptable.

Place the two examples side by side and the double standard becomes immediately obvious.

And I can think of numerous other examples, ie the furore that erupted when some sculptor planned to create a statue equipped with inbuilt water feature of a urinating woman. This was roundly attacked and condemned by many, notwithstanding the fact that statues of not just guys but young boys too peeing can be found all over the place.

But criticising a double standard between the sexes is one thing. We must be careful not to stray towards attacking other consenting adult fetishes themselves. Because when it comes to fetishes, we ourselves live in a fucking massive glass house. We are best advised not to go throwing stones. Live and let live.

[glad1 2,832]

You see,THATS my problem.What is it with this cable tie or clothes line crap?Just have sex!

Fannywatcher, I didn't mean to get into a pissing match with you. After all, I'd much rather share that sort of experience with a few of the women here. :biggrin:

My only reason for the mention of the cable ties and line, was when, after I came out of the movie, I saw the irony of the situation, having these very objects in my car. Sure, at times I've kidded about bondage stuff, like when somebody who's late says they've been tied up and I'd ask, "literally?" But I'm too independent-minded to be a sub and I like women too much to ever be a dom.

Bladder is getting full now, so I'm going to look about to see if I can turn to another subject. :wink:

[Blackinksoul30 1,246]

I read the title of this.... and i was like..UGH.. *about to throw computer out the window*

I will say... i read book one.... part of book 2..then gave up on it... saw the first two movies... and i've never... in my life actually been seething livid, screaming at the tv angry while watching a movie. but damn these movies bring out so much pent up anger in me. 

 

The romance writer in me just can't stand it. 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Blackinksoul30