Fifty Shades of Grey

On the other hand...

You're right, it's not.

So there is apparently a fine line between "totally acceptable" and "insane" - dictations of sanity are not usually so clear-cut. Comparing sadomasochism to cop-killing is a reach because the former is technically legal (until it crosses into abuse) and thus more likely to be practiced by the average citizen while the latter is unambiguously illegal and thus less people are likely to even try it.

Yeah, I didn't see the movie. I'm not forking out any cash for it lest it seem like I'm supporting it. Besides, it doesn't matter how much violence is depicted on-screen because people in real life can always take it too far on their own, especially if they have the wrong ideas thanks to this movie.

Being overly obsessive and controlling towards a partner qualifies as emotional abuse, not just a personality flaw that has to be worked around to keep a relationship going.

Way to jump off the slippery slope there.

Anyone can write excessive filibusters full of non sequiturs and logical fallacies too, so what's your point?

How is that even remotely ironic?

There are multiple people disagreeing with you in this very thread and you're still going to say "it's just one guy saying all this so who cares"? Entire groups of people find Fifty Shades of Grey to be extremely disagreeable for a number of legitimate reasons.

...but why let that stop you?

Meanwhile, you obviously speak for all the people who managed to spend $300 million on this movie.

"I'm not normally one to use the 'ad populum'" - 90sAce

"I'm not normally one to use the 'ad populum'" - 90sAce

Also, The Sopranos is a terrible example of "people like politically incorrect shows" because the un-PC characters on that show aren't meant to be sympathetic or heroic in any way. The same sort of goes for South Park, though that doesn't stop people thinking it's edgy satire. Also, that's one hell of a PC strawman you've built there. I could play Bingo with all the logical fallacies you're throwing out here.

An interesting variation on Godwin's Law there, and besides that, what does the lead actress have to do with anything?

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Because S&M never existed before the 50 Shades of Grey book was written... lol

And "Taxi Driver" is the reason that John Hinckley Jr. shot President Reagan - not the fact that he was... um insane?

Histrionic is being generous.

According to the APA sadomasochism is only a paraphilia by definition if a person is unable to achieve sexual gratification through any other means. Occasional bondage between consenting partners wouldn't meat the APA's definition of a paraphilia whether it "has risks" or not. (While the character in the film likely had a paraphilia, the actual S&M scenes in the film did not include anything which would qualify in and over itself).

Your claim doesn't have any more substantiation than claims like "sodomy is immoral", and using HIV statistics from anal sex to support that position.

It sounds like you simply have an agenda against S&M on the whole - and think you know better than the APA about what 'normal sexual behavior' is. The APA doesn't agree with you that S&M roleplaying is automatically a paraphilia or disfunction by default - this makes you the scientific outlier, like NARTH

Reminds me of Rev. Terry Jones admitting to having never read the Koran before burning it publicly.

More like, thanks to their lack of common sense. There aren't any statistics which support ideas along the lines of "watching violent movies leads to violence", or "playing Dungeons and Dragons leads you to joining Satanic cults". Most statistics show that countries which are them most lax on censorship, like Holland or Japan have among the lowest violence rates.

On the flip side, it's prudish countries like the UAE which are banning this movie, and look how women are treated there. Violence (against women in particular) was also more socially accepted in past eras where there was no mass media to speak of.


That's incorrect. Based on the obsessive behavior displayed in the film, she'd have no luck filings any charges or protection order in a court of law - the behavior was neither extreme, nor incessant enough to qualify as irreconcilable abuse - it's similar to PETA chanting that "meat is murder" just for shock value - while the way in which some animals are killed is arguably wrong, it's not "murder" by actual definition.

You should read up on actual court definitions of stalking and harassment instead of 'inventing' your own personal definition and injecting it here. The behavior would have had to either be severe enough in its own merit, or continuous enough to meet a court's definition, neither of which it was.

If not taken to an extreme which qualifies as abuse by actual definitions, versus "some guy's internet definition", then yes it can. Are you a relationship counselor now?

It's your slippery slope - apparently you think watching a movie with less violence than Star Wars will cause people to develop a paraphilia for torturing and abusing people.

You hypothesized - the burden's on you to prove it. All you've done is hypothesize and postulate - and going by your logic, there's not much to prevent someone from finding something objectionable or promoting of violence in pretty much... anything.

PETA says that playing Mario games "promotes animal cruelty" because he stomps on turtles, and wears Raccoon fur... prove them wrong, lol


I'd say a number of illegitimate ones - other than a devout Catholic who thinks PG rated movies are too extreme for his household, there's no grounds for objection to this movie based on the established percents of what's acceptable in the context of films and entertainment. The disproportionate objections to the film are based simply on prudery and political correct agendas, not on facts. If the film had been about a homosexual male S&M couple, there wouldn't be any PC objections (not to mention criticizing the movie would run the risk of seeming "homophobic); and if the 3 minutes of S&M scenes less disturbing than "Slave Leia" had been cut, it would've flown under the religious prudes radar as well.

$300 million within less than a week isn't just piss in the wind. I've noticed the people with the strongest objections to the film are the ones admitting they've never watched it.

You've obviously never watched those shows.

That was just a wake-up call for the other dude who seemed to think that most people agree with his silly views on the film and had the gall to think people who don't find the film objectionable should 'answer to him' - the reality is that those views on the movie are the fringe, not the mainstream. You're more than welcome to have whatever views you like, but I was just reminding the other dude of where he's coming from.

Doesn't matter, now that Fifty Shades of Grey is mainstream enough that BDSM killings get referred to as "Fifty Shades murders" the two concepts have now become inextricably linked in the public consciousness.

What does that have to do with anything?

Yeah.

What does that have to do with anything? We're not talking about paraphilias, it's the "light" stuff you're talking about that will become a lot more popular and ultimately end up being more dangerous because abusive partners will use its widespread acceptance to justify their behaviours.

My "agenda" is against the unsafe practicing of such acts, which can only be encouraged by the general public absorbing a film that gets the details wrong.


Do you really think me actually watching the movie is going to make a difference to the way I feel about it now? Not even your descriptions make it sound any more palatable.

Now you're just repeating the whole "GTA makes you a cop killer" argument and once again going for the slippery slope. This isn't as severe as joining cults or deliberately murdering people, but that doesn't mean it's any less insidious.

That sounds ridiculous. "It's perfectly okay because the obsessive behaviour is all technically legal". Really?

Yeah, well, since you are also "some guy" arguing from your definition then the burden of proof is on you and you have to cite whatever definitions you're working off first.

Who said it'd make them develop one? The more likely scenario is that people who already had these tendencies can use the film's romanticising of abusive relationships to justify themselves in their eyes, their partner's eyes and also the public's eye. It's a toxic film in more ways that just "making people torture people".

At least I have logic. You've been clogging up this thread with all sorts of fallacies, especially the slippery slope argument (which you even tried turning back on me and I was at least able to rebut it). Hell, your "you find violence in anything" thing is also a slippery slope argument. It's not like you've managed to put out much proof yourself.

PETA have used all sorts of racist and sexist campaigns as part of their attempts to prevent animal cruelty. This sort of hyperbolic argument is nonsense that is beneath recognition.

[quote]A number of illegitimate ones - other than a devout Catholic who thinks PG rated movies are too extreme for his household, there's no re. The disproportionate objections to the film are based simply on prudery and political correct agendas, not on facts.

Like you can automatically dictate what does and doesn't count as a legitimate opinion. I have yet to see one that's any less legitimate than yours.

Obviously, they're not going to pay money to see it because the last thing that film needs is more money. Besides, a number of people have read the book already and have already developed their own opinions of the series based on that because the odds are that the film doesn't deviate wildly from the source material.

Just when I think you can't find any more lines to cross...

I have watched The Sopranos and South Park. You can't even offer any good counter-arguments that would prove why I hadn't watched them. I like The Sopranos and used to like South Park, but I don't think the politically incorrect attitudes of their characters are things that should be admired. South Park is a problem because its tendency towards edgy un-PC satire is damaging in its own way, but that's a discussion for another time. Also, the bulk of the characters in The Sopranos are established as being violent criminals, and just because they're well-developed and fascinating to watch doesn't necessarily mean their views or actions are acceptable. And you're the one giving me guff for not being able to differentiate between fact and fiction...


You know, for a person who says they don't normally like to use the "ad populum" argument (and why should you? It is literally a logical fallacy, so why you'd use it to prove your point at all is beyond me), you certainly do use it a lot.

Trendy tabloid branding, what else is new?

Light, consensual S&M doesn't need "justification" because it's perfectly acceptable to begin with. The irrational opposition toward it which is not endorsed by the APA is what needs justification.

Serial abusers have sociopathic personalities, and there's no evidence that having "not watched this film" would have prevented them from engaging in their behavior, especially since it's existed for centuries before cinema even existed - the obsessive behavior also took place out of the context of the S&M. If the film had been about 'vanilla' sex, the obsessive behavior would have been identical.
Your disproportionate obsession with this particular film and issue shows an agenda.

You could for example that "The Hangover" promotes unrestrained alcoholism, and going by death statistics alcohol leads to far more deaths per year than "unsafe S&M". That would be a way more rational argument.

If the sexes in this film had been reversed (a la The Graduate), or it had featured a homosexual couple instead of a straight couple, I highly doubt it would be on anyone's radar - it's a PC agenda which sticks out like a sore thumb.

As far as games like Grand Theft Auto go; here's a more plausible scenario. Maybe it won't cause the average person to shoot a cop - but maybe it will "romanticize" the criminal lifestyle, and "influence" kids to join gangs, sell drugs, etc. Someone could easily postulate that and have about as good a "case" for it as you do with this movie.

Your agenda isn't against "the film" then - simply against the film containing S&M at all. Not much different than, say the American Family Association opposing Brokeback Mountain simply for having "homosexual sex" at all, and with claims equally unsubstantiated about "what it will lead to".


So much paranoia and histronics... I feel like I'm reading Infowars at this point. And you seriously think that consentual sex play is "just as insidious as murder"?

Bottom line is this is your original research, it's not "factual" just because "you believe it will happen".

The obsessive behavior in the film is within the social norms enough that it qualifies as reconcilable, as opposed to something which is irreconcilable, like rape, stalking, etc

I've used definitions by the American Psychiatric Association, and by actual courts of law - you've invented your own and plastered them all over this thread.

As I mentioned above the dysfunctional behavior in the film is portrayed as the prime source of conflict; based on your standards regarding the Sopranos; the obsessive nature was not promoted as "good" at all and is what prevented the relationship from working. The actual S&M itself was perfectly within acceptable bounds; and is unrelated to the obsessive behavior (which would have been no different even if the relationship had involved vanilla sex).

You keep arguing against it while admitting to have not watched it - I fail to the the point in that.

Where are you hiding it?

The person making the hypothesis is the one who the burden of proof is on - that'd be you.

The prime provider of slippery slopes (ex. "this movie which I haven't even watched is dangerous and will lead to widespread sadomasochistic abuse... etc") is also you.


You're the sole arbiter on what's "nonsense" and what isn't. It's "insidious" when it's something you don't like, but "nonsense" when it's something you do like; despite your line of reasoning being disturbingly similar.

PETA hasn't used any sexist campaigns which I'm aware of; they've, but that wouldn't qualify as sexist by any definition other than that used by an Iranian Mullah or Trappist Monk. If you're asserting that using sex appeal in marketing is "bad" in itself then that's another unfounded assertion, but that's a different debate and I don't want to go off on this red herring.

If you examined your own harder then you would.

You're the one making the outlandish allegations without citing any studies or references other than your own original research and opinions - and expecting others to "prove you wrong" rather than substantiate yourself, as you'd be required to do in any serious study in academics, science, or anywhere else.

And have you read the book?

At this point your mentality really seems to be that this rule doesn't apply whenever the show is "something that I like"; there are a lot of very similar claims you could make about shows like the Sopranos to the wild ones you're making about this film. Oh but wait the Sopranos is a show I like... so those claims are nonsense...

I enjoy arguing with you though - you at least present somewhat challenging and original opinions.

The point is that by normalising this problematic take on S&M it can allow for a widespread misinterpretation that can at the very least lead to experimentation gone wrong and at worst lead to abusive behaviour becoming more acceptable. At this point, the S&M is beside the point.

Your willingness to keep defending this particular film shows the same.

The difference being that The Hangover is a comedy where the point is that the characters' excessive drinking and partying is ultimately portrayed as foolish and not something that should be emulated, while Fifty Shades of Grey does not condemn the behaviour it depicts.

I seriously doubt that.

That is a bit more plausible, even disregarding the studies into how video games don't cause violence.

As I said before, the S&M in and of itself is besides the point - it's the fact that it's portraying a legitimately unhealthy relationship as some sort of romantic ideal. You're the one who seems fixated on the S&M content by itself.

If it stops being consensual, then yes. You presume too much as to how much of the sex inspired by this film can be truly consensual.

Because you've been citing your sources the whole time.

I suppose that's a good point, though it's hard to think of there being a distinction between reconcilable and irreconcilable obsessive behaviour.

Then the burden of proof is on you and you have to link to the definitions that you are running by.

Well, I'm just hoping from other reports I've heard that the film version at least tried to compensate for the book's more glaring flaws - mainly working off the book here.

Because it's six kinds of terrible.

Does it matter?

I never said I was the sole arbiter. I'm just going off what I already know and understand about the possible influence this has had and may have.

Just try Googling "PETA sexist", the pictures of their campaigns are full of objectification and sex-shaming. But yes, definitely an issue for another time.

Yeah.

Why would I do that?

Like what, that watching The Sopranos would make people join the Mob? Sure, that'll happen.

I wish I could say the same. Unfortunately, I think half the reason I still argue is that I don't have the sense to know when to quit arguing like everyone else obviously has.

I don't think there's anything in the movie that is particularly bad anyway. There is only really whipping and a ice cube scene. But I can see some people point, them ice cubes are dangerous if you throw them hard enough.

__________________

Both the film and book - terrible writing.

__________________

Alright, I'm going to make a confession -- there's a good reason for that.

WSSlover is another one of my alters.

Remember how I always say I have more of them you haven't figured out? That's one of them. Surprise.

I don't buy that.

If it's true, make her appear right now and respond to your post.

__________________

I can't do that. Then people will know she's me.

You can't do that because she isn't you.

I think everyone is mentally whacked in some way or another.

That's right. She's not me. Exactly.

What are you going on about? O.o

Nothing unless you wanna talk to me about THE TOWN.

Sure, I'm down, fill me in about this town of yours. =P

Who did that? If you're talking about winter, he simply said he knows people into BDSM who think the movie is awful. This isn't pretending to speak for anyone but those people. You can dismiss it as anecdotal evidence, but not as pretending to speak for all.

I'm also not sure what the film's box office gross is supposed to prove.

I think you'd do well to choose analogies that don't involve the Taliban or the KKK. They don't add to how understandable the analogy is--they only add a provocative, incendiary veneer to the argument.

Okay, you've said that already...


There's nothing to "defend" since there's nothing wrong with the film. The person making the assertion is who the burden is on The only one who needs to defend their position is you.

From the guy who's never read the book or watched the movie - it's been explained to you that the behavior was the source of conflict, and therefore was not portrayed in a correct light - the S&M scenes themselves were within the realm of acceptable and don't need defending.

In the Hangover there is actually way less ending consequences from the drinking than there is from the behavior in 50 Shades of Grey.

The same branch of studies also seem to indicate that movies don't cause violence; you selectively dismiss these paranoid claims when the movie, video game, etc is "something you like".

So if a video game version of this movie was made which followed the same plot - you'd be completely fine with just because "it's a video game"? Um okay... no double standard there

Incorrect - I'll explain once again that the character's paraphilia for S&M, and obsessive attitude are what prevented the relationship from working, despite the good chemistry between the two characters. That's essentially the jist here.

A person of legal age of consent agreeing to it is consensual by legal definition - if you're inventing your own internet definition of "consensual" now, then that's where the problem lies. In a court of law everything in the film would be consensual. If you want to re-write the definition of 'consensual' to something ambiguous so that an adult could say yes to something, and yet it still somehow not be "consent" - then again that's just you making up your own definitions.

The American Psychiatric Association, courts of law - actual violent statistics - versus your postulations.

I'd say that a relationship counselor would be a better judge of that; the behavior in the film was not so out of the social bounds that it would've been immediately irreconcilable or criminal in nature.

I listed my sources above.


Prove it. If your whole argument hinges on trying to convince others by saying "I just know it's true!" wtihout any evidence other than your original research, then you might as well be trying to convince people that they need to believe in Jesus to be saved.

I suppose that would hinge on how you differentiate "objectifcation" and simply using sex appeal in marketing, but that's another issue yes.






Um I dunno... by your standard, maybe have a romanticized view of the gangster lifestyle - maybe join a local gang in HS, start selling drugs, go to prison, get shot in a drive-by - etc.

See your double standard is obvious - you like the Sopranos so you pick an outlandish scenario like "Joining the Italian mafia" over more plausible scenarios.


Fair enough.

So. It doesn't matter if he would go to jail for those behaviors, but those behaviors most always lead to abuse. When a man isolates a woman, tries to control her behavior, it will escalate.

The reason the book and movie or so dangerous is that domestic violence is a very real and somewhat accepted problem. None of those other crazy analogies are a real problem so they don't apply.

This movie and book feeds into that whole "he acts like this because he loves me," line of thinking.

I don't care how it did at the box office. That means nothing. Those people are not also not trained to see onset behaviors that can lead to abuse and the more this is romanticized the more likely to get into an abusive relationship themselves. The odds of women finding themselves in an abusive relationship are so high anyway. No one needs to sexy it up.

Also I had a feeling the writer knew what she has doing. It would be hard to accidentally write a character that checks off every warning sign like that.

Just quoting this because Iroquois said it much more eloquently than I and the above is exactly why I feel this film is dangerous, but other movies can be harmless fantasy.