It didn’t originate with the marketers, but that doesn’t make them blameless.

I thought I was done with this, but I see that Matt Walsh is continuing with his insistence that marketers are the reason women behave badly.

Imagine the message that would send. Imagine the Hollywood elites as they look at one another, stunned and shell shocked. “Dear Lord, the plebeians have become self-aware. They have… standards. They won’t sit obediently and devour whatever load of vapid, lifeless excrement we try to shovel into their anonymous faces. The jig is up, boys, we’re doomed.”

Elsewhere in the post he refers to the movie as a “cynical, boring, corporate marketing ploy”.  The great irony is that 50 Shades of Grey is a case where the marketers weren’t providing the type of depravity women demanded, so women went around the marketers.  50 SOG is a work of fan fiction which went viral.  By all accounts the mass enthusiasm for the book isn’t due to it being masterfully written.  Pretty much everyone agrees that it is horribly written, but that women are willing to overlook that because it scratches a powerful itch.  Even when women go around the marketers to get what they want, Walsh still can only blame the marketers.  He assumes women are being forced to consume this against their will.

The reality is that women will reward marketers who give them what they want and punish those who don’t.  Walsh really needs to get his head around this because marketing to women is the very business he is in.  At some level he has to know this, because he receives mountains of praise when he does things like undermine headship, provide excuses for women to divorce their husbands, and tell women they are beautiful.  He has to have also noticed that when he criticizes frivolous divorce, his otherwise delighted readers get hysterical and accuse him of being unChristian.  Matt even touches on the fact that many of the same Christian women who loved his posts against men using pornography are equally enthusiastic about 50 SOG.

I’ve noticed that some of the women who give me a hearty ‘AMEN’ every time I write a post condemning pornography, are the same ones gushing frantically about this film. They don’t want their husbands watching porn, but they’ll not only watch and read porn themselves — they’ll advertise that fact to the entire world.  As if the hypocrisy isn’t bad enough, they had to add in a touch of public emasculation.

Classy move.

This had me curious what Jenny Erikson has written on the 50 SOG movie, since she was so comforted in her sinful divorce by Walsh’s writing.  Not surprisingly, she is awaiting its release with bated breath.

But even Walsh’s creeping recognition overlooks the fact that when he called men out for using pornography he declared it as adultery (full stop).  Yet while he quotes plenty of Scripture in his 50 SOG post, he doesn’t manage to get around to making the same claim for women’s much more shameless consumption of porn.

If Walsh still requires proof that women (in general) are in the driver’s seat, he should look no further than the hysterical feedback he received for writing negatively about 50 SOG. Once he understands this, he will realize that while plenty of marketers are knowingly encouraging women to sin in the ways women most want to sin, most of the time they are just going with what brings the results they want.  Telling the truth and standing up for the parts of biblical morality which offend women isn’t good for business when your business is pleasing women, especially in our time of unprecedented feminist rebellion.  Once Walsh accepts this all too obvious fact, his next question should be what business does he want to be in?

This entry was posted in 50 Shades of Grey, Jenny Erikson, Matt Walsh, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

181 Responses to It didn’t originate with the marketers, but that doesn’t make them blameless.

  1. Pingback: It didn’t originate with the marketers, but that doesn’t make them blameless. | Manosphere.com

  2. donalgraeme says:

    If you ever talk to a great salesman, someone who just has a gift for salesmanship, they will tell you the secret to their work:

    You don’t close a sale by convincing people to buy something they don’t want, but rather find out what they want and then convince them to set aside any objections they have to buying it.

  3. Bob Wallace says:

    Romance novels, of any kind, are women’s pornography.

  4. Google the phrase “emotional pornography”.

  5. Any woman who reads/watches 50 Shades of Grey has self designated herself a slut, not even girlfriend material.

  6. Opus says:

    I was naturally eager to see the trailer and indeed it is just as I had imagined – except that Anastasia Steele has turned American. I was reminded of Secretary but with a bigger office.

    It was entirely predictable that Jenny Erikson would be getting wet at the thought of the movie.

  7. Good post, Dalrock. Another great calling out of that in which we swim.

    If Jenny Erickson eats night crawlers (baited breath) in anticipation of 50 SOG, I hope for the sake of others she also waits with bated (held) breath.

    Just sayin’. (I had this wrong until a couple years ago myself.)

  8. feeriker says:

    I can’t bring myself to read Walsh’s scribblings, so I’ll put this question out there to anyone who has: where does he stand on the question of whether or not women have moral agency?

    From the general tone of his work as cited here, he appears to come down on the side of them not having any. Can anyone confirm this with a citation clearly stating such, straight from the donkey’s mouth?

  9. writtenman says:

    As a young man, I have to ask why can’t they see the wrong in what they do? I just don’t understand… How can women just excuse that hypocrisy and then condemn men and condemn those who condemn women while not actually condemning women at all. The internet is a small portion of the world, hope it isn’t all like that.

  10. javaloco says:

    @Feeriker

    I’d consider Matt to be a pretty astute and ascerbic conservative writer. How he got tied in with the manosphere is a bit beyond me.

    I part ways with him on his treatment of women. Very churchian.

    He exhorts men to declare their daughters beautiful without providing a path for them to develop their beauty (note: I can accept a woman as beautiful even if she does not meet physical standards for appealing). Beauty doesn’t exist just because someone else says so.

    He is big on “chivalry” and gets very man up when he talks about it.

    I haven’t expressly seen the examples dalrock quotes, e.g. why Jenni would gush over him.

  11. Don's Johnson says:

    Matt is very good at spotting others hypocrisy, but has a blind spot to the mote in his eye. After all, women are beautiful snowflakes that get corrupted by society. Tabula Rasa and all that jazz.
    If anyone visits that site, please ask if Matt considers 50SOG to be adultery like porn. And if so, would it be biblical grounds for divorce in his eyes? I would do it, but I don’t want to add more traffic. I read the original porn is adultery post and was so disgusted, I won’t ever visit there again.

  12. sunshinemary says:

    Matt even touches on the fact that many of the same Christian women who loved his posts against men using pornography are equally enthusiastic about 50 SOG.

    He is quite right about that.

    Awhile ago when I still had my blog going, Moody Publishing contacted me to see if I wanted to review a book about the spiritual implications of FSOG. Moody also offered me a second free copy of the book to give away on my blog. Lots of readers wrote in to enter the giveaway contest, and one woman told me in her email that she had seen her pastor’s wife reading FSOG at church. Take a minute, friends, to wrap your head around that…The pastor’s wife was reading pornography at church.

  13. DeNihilist says:

    Thanks Dal. Good take. Lot of things you point out are missed by my outlook. This is why I appreciate others viewpoints, gives me something to grok.

  14. DeNihilist says:

    Ahh SSM, church for most of us is a social event (somewhere someone has called the Sunday Morning Night Club), not a house of worship.

  15. sunshinemary says:

    Oh, by the way, if anyone is interested in what I thought of the book about FSOG, my review is here:

    http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/pulling-back-the-shades-erotica-intimacy-and-the-longings-of-a-womans-heart-book-review-and-give-away/

    It’s actually a good book. The two women who wrote it straight up called FSOG mommy porn, which I was glad to see.

  16. sunshinemary says:

    @ DN
    Yeah, you’re right about that.

    But still can you even imagine if a man casually whipped out his iPad and started browsing internet porn while waiting around for the service to begin? The outcry would be deafening. But apparently no one said anything to Pastor’s wife for reading mommy porn.

  17. javaloco says:

    @SSM

    “The two women who wrote it straight up called FSOG mommy porn, which I was glad to see.”

    Yeah but it’s modified so it’s not real porn. I listen to an urban aboriginal radio stn here sometimes because they have eclectic music. They had a skit once of dialog between a guy and an aboriginal lawyer. “So. Not a real lawyer.”

  18. paddy says:

    50SOG is an excellent test when talking to a woman. The most astute young woman I know, 25, said that she hated the writing, and that it was exactly the wrong advice to give a young woman; it was as if it was training a woman to be happy with an abusive relationship, and to think that a sexually perverted guy just needed a special woman, to be able to “heal”. She didn’t finish the book of course.

  19. cynthia says:

    What I don’t understand is why anybody is paying for a copy of FSOG.

    There’s a horrifying amount of fanfiction out there about BDSM, much of it better written, for just about any combination of characters a woman might like. It’s all open source, features a near-endless variety of plots, and very easy to find with a simple Google search. It’s not hard, at all. (And as for that movie trailer… I’m creeped out by that trailer. I think these women who are super into the book are in for a rude awakening come next February, when they realize that what gets them wet on the written page might be extremely disturbing when viewed.)

    Perhaps the pertinent question here is why are women are allowing the market to sell them something that’s essentially free.

  20. Blake says:

    Dalrock, 50 Shades may be even more depraved than you think.

    See here: http://tinyurl.com/n9h4lo2

    The article is by a Dr. Judith Reisman.

    According to Dr. Reisman, 50 Shades is pedophilia disguised as Mommy Porn.

  21. Goodkid43 says:

    SSM writes:
    Lots of readers wrote in to enter the giveaway contest, and one woman told me in her email that she had seen her pastor’s wife reading FSOG at church. Take a minute, friends, to wrap your head around that…The pastor’s wife was reading pornography at church.

    In the last two months, many of Dalrock’s revelations and the various links to other sites have repeatedly forced my soul to…….groan:

    “Out of the depths I cry to you, O Lord
    O Lord, hear my voice.
    Let your ears be attentive
    to my cry for mercy.. [for this nation]…

  22. Whatshername was calling women out on Fox.com in a recent opinion piece, for 50SOG reading, splainin’ that the women like it because it resonates with their innate desire to let go of control. I personally do not subscribe to that theory, but she had choice words for the genre in general.

    It is a shame Walsh misses so badly with his wild shots always at the man shaped silhouette, which when winched back for a look will always have lots of center of mass hits from these posts. He is a solid writer, doesn’t waste a lot of space, so forth. I think (because I see tiny shreds of it in his writing) that he really sees things closer to how many of us do. I suspect he has a spouse who would not approve if he were to spell things out boldly.

  23. jf12 says:

    Correction on word choices: bated, not baited. Same root as abated. Also, “reptant recognition” scans better than “creeping recognition”.

    [D: Thank you! Corrected.]

  24. @Paddy

    That 25 year old, I have to be the one with the bad news here…..the reasoning she gave for disliking 50SOG is revelatory of as toxic or more toxic a defect in her thinking then in those who mindlessly get lathered up over the book.

    Side benefit though, it may well be a good litmus test for a host of pathological tendencies. You uncovered one and apparently missed it.

  25. VXXC says:

    “As a young man, I have to ask why can’t they see the wrong in what they do?” I suppose the answer to that question is they lack agency.

    That doesn’t solve our problem of what do we do?

    I actually concluded awhile ago that they’re rather like criminals in their attitudes towards right and wrong. It’s summed as lacking agency. They don’t know. That’s irrelevant to what is to be done.

    And Who/Whom.

  26. Opus says:

    Oh come on: this is just the sort of book women love; in no essential way different from a Jane Austen, a Bronte or the entire Gothic boom of the late eighteenth century – and its many later incarnations . As for the delusions of Dr Reisman; the woman is clearly missing out on her true vocation of witch-hunter.

  27. jf12 says:

    “Romance” novels account for about 20% of the entire sales of all written works, larger than the next two categories of sales (religion and mystery) combined, are by far the cheapest most formulaic to produce, and are also the most shared or sold used or otherwise re-read by others and not ccounted for. In short, there is much more massive consumption of this trash than you could want to imagine, and it’s not just due to lonely-hearts ice-cream bingers.

    There were about 80 million *readers* of romance novels in the U.S. last year, over 90% women. The most typical customer (actual sales) is married with children, in her 40s, middle class, and uses romance novels as an aid to masturbation, not sex.

  28. The Brass Cat says:

    One of the cardinal rules of marketing is that marketing cannot create demand, it just finds it.

    This leaves us with the cold fact that women want “mommy porn.”

  29. jf12 says:

    For those who like to think that women aren’t at fault because they have been deceived (i.e. lack of agency), e.g. because of marketers, the Bible is perfectly clear: allowing herself to be deceived is THE prototypical womanly transgression (1 Tim 2:14).

  30. kfg says:

    Hollywood made me do it. – Clytemnestra

  31. jf12 says:

    Women’s defenses of the book: “It’s not that bad! I’ve read a half dozen just this year that were much worse!”

    Women’s attacks on the movie: “It’s not as sexy as in my imagination! Christian should be more handsome and more cruel! Plus, I can get revved up in about twenty minutes of reading the good parts, but it took me almost forty five minutes of the movie.”

  32. The Brass Cat says:

    I just had a high school flashback. The typing/word processing class teacher would read romance novels in class while we were working on assignments. If someone asked a question, she would lower the book, answer, then raise the book, never putting it down.

    Nasty to realize she was sexually stimulated throughout class.

  33. jf12 says:

    Bad husband: looking at porn because his wife doesn’t want to have sex with him.

    Bad wife: looking at “romance” because she doesn’t want to have sex with her husband.

    One might say these are parallel cases. But one would be wrong. The wife is very very very much wronger.

  34. Barb says:

    Would this be a good place to remind the esteemed gathering that in a post a few days ago (July 22, 2014 at 7:07 pm) Dalrock himself posited, authoritatively, that:

    “(…) being possessed is (or should be) sexy to women. Submission is sexy to women. Even dread as Vox described it… is sexy to women.”

    From what I’ve seen, 50SOG is nothing but a major riff on that very theme.

    You also have female regulars here who comment on this and other Christian sites advocating both submission and husbandly domination, including through physical force, to “teach” that submission to their wives. Here is one example:

    “(…) I couldn’t help but think that modern women are ever so much crazier because they need their husbands to intervene and get them OFF all the antidepressants and birth control pills and START having non-contracepted sex (other than maybe using NFP) EVERY day with them so they get that oh-so-beneficial semen exposure, and give them a few firm swats on the rear when their emotions start ramping up. But modern women fight the very things they need and now it’s practically illegal for men to do this very loving behavioral intervention when it is needed. No wonder women are all so psycho.”

    http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/guest-post-a-husbands-authority-over-his-wife-is-not-limited/#comment-31814

    Given your position on female submission and male dominance — exerted by force, if necessary — your outrage over 50SOG seems, well, cognitively dissonant.

    It appears that you — regulars of this blog and others like it — are open advocates of the D/s, along with S/M (although you’d probably deny that), dynamics when it comes to Christian marriage. What then explains your objections to 50SOG and similar fare (for which I personally have no use)? Is it the fact that the couple in it are unmarried?

    Please explain, thanks.

  35. DeNihilist says:

    Well Dal, a bit more ammo for your slut line. The 4 comments are rather funny also.

    http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/175130/onenight_stands_arent_all_theyre

  36. greyghost says:

    Dalrock Walsh is not giving up pussy pleasing. The guy sells tickets to shows. In fact he is going to be in Fort Worth (sept. 19). That guy is going to double down on pleasing that stank because that is how he pays to keep his family happy. No different than the “How dare you” guy. It is going to be fun watching that guy

  37. Dalrock says:

    @Barb

    Would this be a good place to remind the esteemed gathering that in a post a few days ago (July 22, 2014 at 7:07 pm) Dalrock himself posited, authoritatively, that:

    “(…) being possessed is (or should be) sexy to women. Submission is sexy to women. Even dread as Vox described it… is sexy to women.”

    From what I’ve seen, 50SOG is nothing but a major riff on that very theme.

    If you are saying that the wild popularity of 50SOG points out that women aren’t turned on by footrubs and sensitive new age guys and are instead turned on by submitting to a strong leader, I’m inclined to (generally) agree. If you are saying the Bible is perverted mommy porn, I’m not.

    Note however that a good part of Walsh’s attack on the movie is that it is antifeminist. I imagine that is what has you the most upset as well.

    Given your position on female submission and male dominance — exerted by force, if necessary — your outrage over 50SOG seems, well, cognitively dissonant.

    It appears that you — regulars of this blog and others like it — are open advocates of the D/s, along with S/M (although you’d probably deny that), dynamics when it comes to Christian marriage. What then explains your objections to 50SOG and similar fare (for which I personally have no use)? Is it the fact that the couple in it are unmarried?

    Barb, now you are just making stuff up. I haven’t advocated husbands using force to obtain submission. I also don’t have an interest in BD S&M. If you are offended by biblical marriage, don’t be a coward and state such outright.

    Also, I’m not particularly animated about 50 SOG. In the scheme of things it is far less corrosive than divorce porn, or telling Christian wives they can divorce over porn. I don’t think I’ve ever written about women’s (non divorce) porn. Porn of the male and female variant has a number of problems, not just that the persons depicted aren’t married. But it isn’t my area of focus.

    You also have female regulars here who comment on this and other Christian sites advocating both submission and husbandly domination, including through physical force, to “teach” that submission to their wives.

    This argument that me allowing comments you object to, or me allowing comments here by people who have written comments elsewhere that you object to means their position is my position is tedious. By the same argument, in my not deleting your comment I’m signing on to not only the dumb things you write here, but all of the dumb things you write everywhere else on the internet. You have the right to be dumb, and I’m not inclined to stop you from it. But that doesn’t mean I agree with your dumbness. Please, knock this nonsense off. If you have an actual argument to make, don’t waste your time playing 7 degrees of Dalrock. Quote where you think I’m wrong and then rebut it.

  38. Craig says:

    Barb, the objection to FSOG is not that it portrays improper relations (it does), but that it does so in order to titillate. In short, porn is porn — no free passes for women’s porn.

  39. Don's Johnson says:

    Barb, did you just compare wifely submission and playful butt slapping to BDSM?
    If those are your best two examples, your straw man is not long for this world.

  40. IOW, 50SOG is a mere example of female hypocrisy. Its a sage example due to the mindless following it garners.

    Ive walked front to back in airplanes and seen a dozen or more traveling women noshing on the tasty morsels in the book…..right out in the open, no issues, no worries, and likely seated beside some schmuck who wants to have teasing banter about her taste. Said schmuck is perhaps in wife sexual exile, and wife has a copy of the book under her pillow.

  41. Pingback: The antidote that is also a vaccine | Empathologism

  42. JDG says:

    But even Walsh’s creeping recognition overlooks the fact that when he called men out for using pornography he declared it as adultery (full stop). Yet while he quotes plenty of Scripture in his 50 SOG post, he doesn’t manage to get around to making the same claim for women’s much more shameless consumption of porn.

    It’s only porn if it is being consumed by a man.

    My wife was given a couple of those “romance” books and brought them home to try out one day. I explained the facts about porn for men and porn for women. She didn’t believe that those books could be equated to porn. I opened one up and it didn’t take long to find a steamy scene, I started reading it to her.

    She was not expecting to hear what I read. She was also quite surprised that a 50+ year old woman (the woman who gave them to her) would be in possession of books like that. If you think about it, a lot of movies are just like those books.

  43. ballista74 says:

    50SOG is coming up because of the hypocrisy involved more than the fact that it’s pornography (it is). If something that trends towards the interests of men were put into a mainstream theater (let’s say “Backdoor Sluts 9”), you’d have such an uproar that you would think World War 3 has started. Or even a situation like what empathologism describes: If you had a group of men, sharing a tablet with porn on it, openly talking about it, they would likely be kicked off the plane and more likely spend a good amount of time in a prison somewhere. Not so the women.

    But when it comes to the pornography that women favor, there’s nary a peep. It took scouring a number of secular non-feminist sources to finally read someone demonstrate that they see this. But nothing about the scourge of female-oriented porn. No backlash against the 50SOG books. No backlash against the numerous female watch parties for Magic Mike arranged by women, even within the church.

    Female-Oriented Pornography

    Evangelicals like Mohler are screaming to the rafters against the male-oriented porn, but are conspicuously silent on the female variety. They need to realize that women aren’t reading novels such as these “for the articles” (to parrot the common Playboy ploy) or watching the movie adaptations because it’s a nice storyline. So why are these evangelicals silent on such matters?

    But from those out on the forefront of these anti-pornography crusades. Not a peep. It’s really only a proof that anyone who is an anti-porn advocate is just trafficking in feminist hate.

    Speaking of which, thank you Dalrock for the reminder. I’ll have to do another Fem Porn Watch when this hits the theaters, to give some of the movie smut reviewers a chance to write about this one and see what they do. I suspect the story will be the same.

  44. JDG says:

    Ahh SSM, church for most of us is a social event (somewhere someone has called the Sunday Morning Night Club), not a house of worship.

    I actually believe you, but why go at all? If I didn’t believe that God was real and the Bible was true, church is the last place I would be on Sunday morning. I wouldn’t go for just a social event.

  45. The Brass Cat says:

    @TFH

    Much better that than the daily molestation of boys by female teachers in public schools we read about.

    Was this a private school you went to? That would explain why her lust was contained to a book.

    It was public. She was older, on the countdown to retirement.

    The molestation of boys by female teachers seems to be a more recent development. These young teachers fresh out of college emerge from highly sexualized environment and bring that behavior with them to the classroom where the boys they are molesting are only a few years younger than the frat guys that gang-banged them on spring break. It seems they have trouble turning off their sluttery, and if they get caught the penalty is a mere slap on the wrist compared to what a man would receive.

  46. JDG says:

    That 25 year old, I have to be the one with the bad news here…..the reasoning she gave for disliking 50SOG is revelatory of as toxic or more toxic a defect in her thinking then in those who mindlessly get lathered up over the book.

    I was thinking along this line as well. I understood her to be opposed to the idea of a man in authority over a woman rather than opposed to sexual perversion or porn for women.

  47. JDG says:

    Would this be a good place to remind the esteemed gathering that in a post a few days ago (July 22, 2014 at 7:07 pm) Dalrock himself posited, authoritatively, that:

    “(…) being possessed is (or should be) sexy to women. Submission is sexy to women. Even dread as Vox described it… is sexy to women.”

    LOL

    Wow Barb! That one really got stuck in your craw.

    I’ve read at least four separate comments where you have brought that one up.

  48. Boxer says:

    “Barb” is an ignoramus, of the type this blog regularly attracts. Any energy spent debating with her is only worthwhile because of the excellent points raised for newbies, who haven’t had much experience seeing the usual feminist claptrap debunked.

    All that aside, I have my own weird experience with the book, which will likely be pornographic in its own right, but I just can’t help myself.

    Just after the first title hit the shelves, around Spring 2012, I had a bizarre encounter with a girl I picked up at a social event. I had known her for less than an hour when we decided to go back to her place for “coffee”. When her top came off, I immediately noticed she had pierced nipples.

    “Hmm,” I remarked, trying not to laugh, “I thought those were for gay dudes”.

    Before too long we hit the bed. During the act itself, she suddenly growls at me. Taken aback, I asked what was wrong with her.

    “Choke me!” she growled

    I didn’t really know what to make of this. It was unlike anything I had ever done, and frankly, she was so weird, I was on the verge of losing my erection.

    “Choke me!” she ordered, much louder this time.

    I jumped up off the bitch and immediately grabbed my pants.

    “What’s the matter?” she asked, all meek and reasonable suddenly. The bedside lamp came on. “What’s wrong?”

    “Bitch,” I told her flatly, “I came to fuck, not slap you out.”

    It was over a year and a couple of similar experiences later before I put the book together with this bizarre trend.

    Boxer

  49. ballista74 says:

  50. Anonymous age 72 says:

    A couple years ago, we drove to a city three hours away here in Mexico. My wife’s aunt had broken her hip, and was in the hospital in extreme pain. Of course, she did not live long, but I digress.

    In Mexico, whenever possible those in the hospital are accompanied, often night and day by a family member. An attractive young grand-daughter was with her when we got there.

    When the nurse did a procedure, she asked the young woman to sign as a witness of the procedure.

    While she waited, she was reading Fifty Shades of Gray in Spanish. The problem, beside the terrible book, was the translated title.

    In English, shade is two things. First, is reduced lighting under a tree out of the light of the sun, right?

    The second meaning of shade is a slightly different color. For example, a different shade of blue means a slightly different color of blue.

    I may be wrong, but I take 50 shades of gray as 50 slightly different colors of gray.

    In Spanish, reduced lighting under a tree is called sombra. A sombrilla is an umbrella or parasol. A hat is called a sombrero for the same reason, a reduction in sun on your bare head.

    The word for a slightly different color in Spanish is matiz.

    So, if 50 shades means 50 different colors of gray, the translation should be 50 Matizes de gris. But, it is plainly printed 50 Sombras de Gray.

    I might be wrong on this, but if so, then 50 shades of gray must mean 50 places of reduced lighting of gray. I suppose a book this sick, that could be the case. Or, it could be a key character has the family name of Gray, to know this I’d have to read the book. No, thanks.

  51. Ballista

    I actually once was on a looooong flight to India, in the newish cubicle lay down biz class eats, and there is only one other seat you can see when you situate yourself in these, the guy was watching full on porn on his laptop. He had it dimmed, and he was pivoting his head and closing the laptop when someone would walk the aisle. It was an Indian Carrier…..Jet Airways, so I was intrigued how would the attendants deal with it. I never found out.

    My point…..I found it pathetic, unbelievable in bad taste, stupid, you name it, as in the past I found men “reading” Playboy or Penthouse on planes to be same.

    Any such pressure on the gals reading smut?

  52. Splashman says:

    Charming, Boxer.

  53. A72

    Muy divertivo. Pero, me importa un juevo (sobre este libro)

  54. Barb says:

    @Craig:

    Thanks. I can see how the porn content in 50SOG is objectionable.

    @Dalrock:

    “If you are saying that the wild popularity of 50SOG points out that women aren’t turned on by footrubs and sensitive new age guys and are instead turned on by submitting to a strong leader, I’m inclined to (generally) agree. If you are saying the Bible is perverted mommy porn, I’m not.”

    I’m not saying either. I’m trying to understand your objections to 50SOG in light of your endorsement of the dominance/submission aspect of male-female relations.

    “Note however that a good part of Walsh’s attack on the movie is that it is antifeminist. I imagine that is what has you the most upset as well.”

    You imagine wrongly (BTW, projection is not a substitute for a rational argument any more than name calling). I don’t care about Walsh; I’m simply puzzled by what appear to be unaddressed cognitive inconsistencies expressed on this forum with regards to this particular issue.

    “Barb, now you are just making stuff up. I haven’t advocated husbands using force to obtain submission. I also don’t have an interest in BD S&M. If you are offended by biblical marriage, don’t be a coward and state such outright.”

    It is correct, you have not explicitly advocated husbands using force to obtain submission (save the advice about putting her over the table or what-have-you, which you sorta clarified later).

    But you do have an interest in D/s, because it is the basis of biblical marriage, is it not? BTW, the gamely dread is an expression of BDSM dynamics. The only aspect that may vary is the method and level of threat (pain) employed.

    And while you personally may not advocate use of physical force, others, like SSM, do, in the name of biblical marriage. You cannot deny that, since it is in evidence black on white.

    “This argument that me allowing comments you object to, or me allowing comments here by people who have written comments elsewhere that you object to means their position is my position is tedious.”

    Fair enough. I apologize for overdoing it. You have to take my word for it, however, when I say that I am just trying to establish how your beliefs about marriage translate into operational daily reality.

    The fact that your regulars praise your views while at the same time enriching them by their own interpretations (?) (e.g., Christian wives who seemingly object to the BDSM content of 50SOG, but seem fond of being “calmed down” or “put in their place” by their husbands, by physical means if necessary) does not help one discern what the exact, or proper, views on biblical marriage, as practiced by those who live it, are.

  55. crowhill says:

    People have such weird ideas about what “marketers” do. They don’t usually create desires. They appeal to them.

  56. Oscar says:

    empathologism says:
    July 27, 2014 at 6:00 pm

    “Muy divertivo. Pero, me importa un juevo (sobre este libro)”

    I think you meant “huevo” (egg, or testicle).

  57. sunshinemary says:

    It appears that you — regulars of this blog and others like it — are open advocates of the D/s, along with S/M (although you’d probably deny that), dynamics when it comes to Christian marriage. What then explains your objections to 50SOG and similar fare (for which I personally have no use)? Is it the fact that the couple in it are unmarried?

    Garsh, Barb, yer so smart, ya caught me! Cuz yer like totally right – having natural non-contracepted sex with one’s covenant wife and giving her a playful swat on the rear when she starts gettin’ crazy REALLY IS jest exactly like The Red Room of Pain where the guy from FSOG ties the girl spread eagle on the bed at the foot of a wooden cross and beats her while hymns play in the background. Whelp, I aint read that thar book, but I read that excerpt in a Christian book I read about it. Jest can’t BELIEVE I done couldn’t see the parallels between normal marital relations with a loving husband and being beaten by a fictitious psychopath! But yer right. It’s either wife-DOM modern marriage or it’s The Red Room of Pain. All that stuff in the Bible ’bout husbands bein’ the head and wives being the submitted helper…whelp, Barb, you know what those patriarchs were really thinking.

    Barb, yer suhpeerior book larnin’ and high IQ has humbled me for all time. I retreat in shame.

  58. sunshinemary says:

    (I know Game is evil and unChristian and all, but I have to say, I really do owe PUAs a debt of gratitude for the Agree and Amplify thing. I get so much amusement out of that, lol.)🙂

  59. Oscar

    Tienes razon, por supuesto.

    Doesn’t matter (so, here that expression would fit), My spelling and grammar are only incrementally better if I write in English, and supposedly that’s my native language.

    I just have a soft spot for that expression.

  60. ballista74 says:

    @empathologism
    I think most people really don’t care what the other passengers are doing on planes as long as they aren’t disrupted. That said, I have my own stories about more…shall we say…physical shenanigans that I’ve unfortunately witnessed on planes. But I’m not sure anyone cared about it either. My comments were more thinking about a group sitting and commenting to one another about the content than anyone keeping to themselves.

    @all I just noticed my links didn’t get put in right above. I linked to Female Oriented Pornography and Fem-Porn Watch. Hopefully those links will be better than the previous.

  61. Don's Johnson says:

    “It is correct, you have not explicitly advocated husbands using force to obtain submission (save the advice about putting her over the table or what-have-you, which you sorta clarified later). ”
    -See folks, by adding the “not explicitly”, she has accused him of implicitly implying it. This is how a leftist reframes arguments. She is a mind reader.

    “You imagine wrongly (BTW, projection is not a substitute for a rational argument any more than name calling)”
    -I have yet to see a rational argument from you. You don’t know what projection means either. Why would he not like an antifeminist?

    “But you do have an interest in D/s, because it is the basis of biblical marriage, is it not? BTW, the gamely dread is an expression of BDSM dynamics. The only aspect that may vary is the method and level of threat (pain) employed.”
    Yes, in the same way a firecracker is a bomb just like a nuclear warhead, because they both explode. The only thing that varies is the level of threat(explosion) employed.

    “And while you personally may not advocate use of physical force, others, like SSM, do, in the name of biblical marriage. You cannot deny that, since it is in evidence black on white.”
    Guilt by association. Why don’t you ask SSM? Why does Dalrock have to answer for her or any other commenter here? Where are the others?

    “The fact that your regulars praise your views while at the same time enriching them by their own interpretations (?) (e.g., Christian wives who seemingly object to the BDSM content of 50SOG, but seem fond of being “calmed down” or “put in their place” by their husbands, by physical means if necessary) does not help one discern what the exact, or proper, views on biblical marriage, as practiced by those who live it, are.”
    I won’t even try to go down this rabbit hole.

  62. embracing reality says:

    Walsh is either a dedicated marketer (to the profitable feminine imperative) or an average weak man. Walsh may be fully aware that women are every bit as filthy minded as men but panders to them shamelessly because it’s profitable. He may also be just another white knight/ mangina who simply can’t allow himself to embrace the truth, women are human and therefore like men, inherently evil by nature. The truth is your daughters, wives, girlfriends, mom and even your grandmother have at one time or another and likely often had lusts, sexual desires that might disgust and absolutely shock you, out of your ever loving mind. They’re no worse than men on average nor are they any better. We all have to fight our sin nature or be overcome by it.

    It takes a strong man to face reality, it’s much easier for weak men to pretend the women they love don’t have filthy sexual desires. They do! Grow up.

  63. ballista74 says:

    On the other topic going in here:

    Could it be that these women, who play Domme to their husbands in their marriages, (even Christian women, Gregoire laments), are finding expression of their pent-up repressed God-given sexual desires in unnatural, unhealthy, and excessive ways? Magic Mike and 50 Shades of Grey happened to have functioned as those outlets. We know women are the primary consumers of these things, and they aren’t consuming them for the articles (to borrow the common Playboy meme). Wouldn’t it be better for these women to just find proper expression of their sexual desires with their husbands in the first place?

    The problem is a matter of degrees if you want to look at 50SOG in terms of sexual expression. When women are encouraged within themselves to foster femDOM relationships, it shouldn’t be a surprise that their natural desires will come out in excessive and unhealthy ways.

  64. glamping4 says:

    donalgraeme says:
    July 27, 2014 at 12:51 pm
    If you ever talk to a great salesman, someone who just has a gift for salesmanship, they will tell you the secret to their work:
    You don’t close a sale by convincing people to buy something they don’t want, but rather find out what they want and then convince them to set aside any objections they have to buying it.

    I do recall an instance where a “salesman” closed the deal by telling the potential client “but a girl like you wouldn’t want to do something like this”
    The context? The salesman in this instance was a producer of hard core porn movies.
    He found after years of experience that women responded to this kind of incentive to show just how bad she could be.

    That interview really opened my eyes to the nature of the “fairer” sex.

  65. JDG says:

    Barb – You imagine wrongly (BTW, projection is not a substitute for a rational argument

    So far you have accused or insinuated that Deti, Rollo, Dalrock, and “almost everything else written about this couple” (the spreadsheet couple) of projecting when they don’t agree with you.

    Granted everyone but you could be wrong, but do you really want me to believe that not only are they incorrect, but they are also projecting in each instance? Couldn’t they be incorrect for some other reason? Couldn’t YOU be incorrect?

  66. feeriker says:

    Anonymous age 72 says:July 27, 2014 at 5:51 pm

    Matiz (or matices, plural) is indeed the correct word hete.

    Wow. I can only surmise that the book was translated into Spanish by a native Spanish speaker unfamiliar with the different English connotations of the word “shade” and who for some reason neglected to carefully consult their English-Spanish dictionary for all possible contextual translations (which, as any linguist knows, is the first thing one does when attempting to translate a word in one language with multiple meanings or connotations into another language).

    I’m guessing that the American publisher, in a move typical of such businesses, didn’t invest a lot of money or effort in translations. Odds are that published translations of the book in any other languages have been just as carelessly executed.

  67. VXXC,

    “As a young man, I have to ask why can’t they see the wrong in what they do?” I suppose the answer to that question is they lack agency.

    That is correct. Women lack moral agency. That is one of the many reasons why we must repeal (immediately) the 19th Amendment.

    But you see, I say women lack moral agency and they come out of the wordwork to criticize me. Even got them started down that path.

  68. JDG says:

    But you do have an interest in D/s, because it is the basis of biblical marriage, is it not? BTW, the gamely dread is an expression of BDSM dynamics. The only aspect that may vary is the method and level of threat (pain) employed.

    Wow! Now we’ve gone over into “I really don’t know what I’m talking about” territory. Like most things, BDSM is a perversion resulting from the fallen nature of mankind. The God given hierarchy within the family (Jesus > man > woman > children) is not based on sex or dominance as you describe it. The perversions you allude to are distortions of the real deal, kind of like the part a dyke plays in a lesbian relationship is a distortion of the husbands role in a real marriage.

    The institution of marriage is not based on D/s or any other human invention. Marriage is God ordained and was so since the first man and the first woman.

    “Gen 2:20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
    But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

    23 The man said,
    “This is now bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
    she shall be called ‘woman,’
    for she was taken out of man.”

    24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

    Marriage is a type of Christ and His bride (the Church). And it is really all about God and His glory.

    Eph 5:31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33”

    But now I’m casting pearls where I shouldn’t.

  69. Dalrock says:

    @Barb

    It is correct, you have not explicitly advocated husbands using force to obtain submission (save the advice about putting her over the table or what-have-you, which you sorta clarified later).

    I gave you the benefit of the doubt the other day on the question of you being a troll. You are working awful hard now convince me I was wrong. All you do is make stuff up and constantly reframe. All I can make of that is you lack a substantive argument and are here to stir up trouble. Feel free to prove otherwise, or carry on as you are and behave as a troll.

    But you do have an interest in D/s, because it is the basis of biblical marriage, is it not?

    As I wrote above…

    And while you personally may not advocate use of physical force, others, like SSM, do, in the name of biblical marriage. You cannot deny that, since it is in evidence black on white.

    More of the same. For the record, I delete comments which advocate violence or force. They don’t belong here. You also didn’t offer any evidence that SSM did, and your claim is that she did so on her own blog. All you did was assert that she wrote such a thing, and now you are citing your assertion as proof. Quotes or shut up, and even then you are talking about what she wrote on her own blog.

    Last warning. Stop acting like a troll.

  70. JDG says:

    IBB – But you see, I say women lack moral agency and they come out of the wordwork to criticize me. Even got them started down that path.

    Sorry IBB but, if I recall correctly, your arguments about this subject didn’t hold up well under the scrutiny of your opponents.

    But I’d like to clarify. Do you mean to say that women posses zero capability of acting with reference to right and wrong, or that they are less capable of acting with reference to right and wrong?

    If I am kicking the hornets nest, I apologize to everyone who gets stung.

  71. sunshinemary says:

    I’m loath to lend any credibility to Barb-the-troll, but just for the record, she is lying. I have never advocated the use of violence to obtain submission, ever. I’ve seen what real domestic violence looks like (not in my own marriage, though), and it’s an ugly, ugly thing.

    Barb might be thinking of a guest post that Artisinal Toad wrote for my blog awhile back in which he argued that a husband’s authority over a wife is unlimited:

    http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/guest-post-a-husbands-authority-over-his-wife-is-not-limited/

    Please note that at the top of the post, I directly state that I don’t agree with AT. It’s a long comment thread, but in it I specifically argue against the use of Christian Domestic Discipline. Personally, I don’t find a lighthearted swat on the rump to be domestic violence nor BDSM, and I don’t think anyone who isn’t being disingenuous does, either. There is a big difference between a slap on the butt and beating someone. And at least a dozen times I’ve noted that submission, though it is a moral obligation, must be something the woman chooses to do voluntarily. Beating her into it sort of defeats the spiritual purpose of it. As I’ve said many times.

    Barb is troll.

  72. lgrobins says:

    Dalrock,

    “You also didn’t offer any evidence that SSM did, and your claim is that she did so on her own blog. All you did was assert that she wrote such a thing, and now you are citing your assertion as proof.”

    Barb left a link directly to SSM’s blog and quoted from that. You might not think that was a strong enough quote for her position, but she did cite where she was forming her opinions from. A firm swat is violence to some and light hearted fun for others, I guess that is the 50 shades as their are 50 shade of opinions here on where the line is drawn for something perverse and something fun.

  73. Boxer says:

    Dear SSM et. al.:

    Personally, I don’t find a lighthearted swat on the rump to be domestic violence nor BDSM, and I don’t think anyone who isn’t being disingenuous does, either. There is a big difference between a slap on the butt and beating someone.

    Right. You’ll also note in her argument with Dalrock above, the kook repeatedly conflates what you guys call “biblical marriage” with BSDM nonsense. S/h/it’s credibility immediately collapses when that argument is made, as most people know that the Bible doesn’t discuss weird paraphilias like tying folks up or beating them. (The Bible, in other words, is made for normal couples). I believe it was TFH who deconstructed these loonies who show up here as largely sexually frustrated females, who get a weird sexual thrill out of arguing with the sorts of men who would never pay them any real-world attention.

    On a more general note, I find the whole BSDM paraphilia interesting, though I’ll admit to not understanding it. One overarching theme in it is that it seems to drain away the actual intimacy from the sex act. People “get off” in a sort of mental way, on inflicting pain and humiliation on each other, and normal sex is a sort of masturbatory event that happens incidentally after the real “fun” of torturing each other (and even, in many cases, not at all).

    I don’t have any specific moral objections to people who like this stuff; but, I don’t think it is a particularly healthy pastime. It suggests some sort of underlying personality disorder in these people who indulge in it.

    Boxer

  74. Dalrock says:

    @SSM

    …at least a dozen times I’ve noted that submission, though it is a moral obligation, must be something the woman chooses to do voluntarily. Beating her into it sort of defeats the spiritual purpose of it. As I’ve said many times.

    Barb is troll.

    I don’t know how many times I’ve stated the same, but having never said otherwise and written about it directly should be sufficient for all but the disingenuous.

    As I said above, I’m very close to being done with Barb trolling. If she doesn’t understand the difference between offering contrary arguments and trolling, she can learn it elsewhere.

  75. JDG says:

    Next we’ll be reading about how John Wayne giving Maureen O’Hara a well deserved spanking in the Quiet Man was really just a prelude to 50SOG. He gave her another one in Mclintock for good measure but of course that one was domestic violence. Sigh…..

    I miss the good ole days when people still had common sense and didn’t see a sexual motive for everything that happened, and we use to understand what the word “abuse” meant.

    My favorite line from the Quiet Man: “Sir!… Sir!… Here’s a good stick, to beat the lovely lady.”

    I suppose that makes me a D/s pervert / woman abuser. Why not, I’m already a homophobic, racist, white male sexist pig.

    Oh well.

  76. James K says:

    @Blake

    That article says:

    Thanks to the insight of my friend, and my own experience, I know it for what it truly is – a story of the sexual abuse of child, wrapped in the cliché cover story of a mysterious and troubled wealthy man… Take away the aspect of money, and the character of the abuser becomes much less attractive and therefore it would have been much more difficult to pull of[f] the deception. Are women actually that shallow? Yes, we can be.

    In other words, the sexuality of the women who love 50SOG has not developed beyond that of a child. Unfortunately, these women are rather numerous, as the sales figures attest.

  77. Spike says:

    Another excellent post Dalrock. A few things:
    1. ” A satisfied man never wanders” – Italian Proverb.
    Surveys in the USA put platonic marriage at 25%, and undersexed marriages at another 40% on top of that, meaning that the majority marriages are affected, badly, by women’s lack of involvement. Further evidence is that between 50%-70% of brothel visitors are married men. As every sex worker interviewed has said, to the consternation of their audience: “If wives did their job at home, our jobs would disappear overnight”.
    This means women ARE DRIVING the sex industry: prostitution, pornography, peep shows – the lot.
    2. Men’s porn is what it is: visual and prominent, and thus an easy target for Christian moralists like Walsh. Yet the majority of men using porn are married and stay that way.Women’s porn is more subtle and far more damaging: “Eat Pray Love” , “How Stella..” “Xena” and FSOG have launched a generation of women to leave their families and condemn their children to fatherlessness . One recalls the Australian girls London 2012 Olympic Swim Team – several under 18 – saying in interviews how they stayed up late reading FSOG and were tired for their events. Everyone shrugged and said, “Oh.. OK…”. Could you imagine if the Men’s team did that with porn?

    3. FSOG is only the tip of the iceberg. The Romantic Novel has been the mainstay of women’s porn for decades without any critical examination. It is always a stylised rape fantasy. Consider Barbara Cartland’s formula: A wealthy heroine is betrothed to a hardworking Beta, yet something is missing. She flees the marriage and ends up in a far flung corner of the British Empire. there she meets “The Man”, who usually has huge muscles and long hair.
    At the climactic scene, they are alone, and sexual tensions are high. “No.. No..We mustn’t…” says the heroine. But our man doesn’t take “No” for an answer. He “roars with the indignation of passion denied…”, tears her bodice, and consummates their love, with “…waves of pleasure pulsating through her…”
    The problem with this, as I was told in my public-school sex ed class, is that “No” means “No”. Yet here, “No means “Yes”. Men though can’t be blamed for this one. Men don’t write, read, or distribute this shit. Women own it.

  78. Oscar says:

    empathologism says:
    July 27, 2014 at 6:36 pm
    Oscar

    “I just have a soft spot for that expression.”

    Heh. Considering that it pertains to testes, I assume you do have a “soft spot” for that!

  79. Dalrock says:

    @lgrobins

    Dalrock,

    “You also didn’t offer any evidence that SSM did, and your claim is that she did so on her own blog. All you did was assert that she wrote such a thing, and now you are citing your assertion as proof.”

    Barb left a link directly to SSM’s blog and quoted from that. You might not think that was a strong enough quote for her position, but she did cite where she was forming her opinions from. A firm swat is violence to some and light hearted fun for others, I guess that is the 50 shades as their are 50 shade of opinions here on where the line is drawn for something perverse and something fun.

    Thank you. I had missed the link and the quote. I’ll let SSM defend her own words, as I think she has already done. All I will add is that those are her words, not mine, and I linked above to a post where I made my own stance clear. In my Headship Game post I suggested a firm and loving hug at times for a wife who feels out of control, but I tempered that with a caution not to do so if the wife is truly pushing you away.

    I was wrong on that specific point, and I appreciate the correction. However, Barb really is generally out of control here. I’m being very patient, but my patience doesn’t last forever.

  80. Dalrock says:

    @TFH

    It may not be deliberate, conscious trolling (as a man would understand it), when a woman behaves this way. Rather, women usually get their way from the use of shaming language, reframing, and strawmen, so have had little need to learn any other form of disagreement. They couldn’t argue in a more sophisticated way if they tried.

    This is the only reason I haven’t already banned her.

  81. Barb says:

    @Dalrock:
    “For the record, I delete comments which advocate violence or force.”

    No, you don’t. These are just a few examples from the last several weeks:

    “If a man can’t be good to his wife she needs to be put to death or just a booty call. This kind of catch 22 was the reason for civilization and social order in the first place. It is also a reason why gun sales are through the roof. The only reason to marry a woman these days is to get a uterus to grow a child in. There is absolutely nothing else there.”
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/one-at-a-time-please/#comment-131151

    “And how will single men react to divorced mothers turning up and demanding food & protection? More than a few will respond with loaded guns. This married man will too.”
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/a-bridge-too-far/#comment-130998

    “You have to handle women with a firm hand. That means if they get out of line, you drag them back, kicking and screaming if need be. That will work to keep them attracted. Women respond to strength, but you need not be cruel. Do not bounce her head off a wall when a slap will bring her to her senses.”
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/when-dennis-rainey-got-it-right/#comment-128309

    I see that you’ve removed the last one, probably after it made rounds on the web as a common example of violent misogyny expressed at your place. I believe the folks who caught and publicized it have screenshots to document it, should that be necessary.

    More from your response to me:
    “You also didn’t offer any evidence that SSM did, and your claim is that she did so on her own blog. All you did was assert that she wrote such a thing, and now you are citing your assertion as proof. Quotes or shut up, and even then you are talking about what she wrote on her own blog.”

    Yes, I did offer evidence, but in your rush to dismiss my words you overlooked it. (Thanks, lgrobins, for pointing it out.)

    If asking legitimate questions to clarify your own positions is seen as trolling or “being out of control,” then it suggests the problem is with your positions and inability to defend them in a rational manner.

    I suspect you will not post this comment, as it would force you to admit your dishonesty, both in your professed disavowal of violence against women on your blog, quoted on top of this comment as your alleged habit of deleting comments that advocate such violence; and spurious accusations leveled at me (of fabricating SSM quotes) and trolling. Wouldn’t be a surprise. Don’t worry, though, I’m done trying to converse with you (or as you call it, trolling).

  82. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    However, Barb really is generally out of control here.

    Barb dangerousness is her disingenuousness. She is not trying to convince anyone of anything in particular, yet. The putrid reference to you “sounding like some people somewhere advocating S&M and wife beating in Christian marriage” is to spook folks. This usually causes backpedaling, needless clarification, and generally discourages people from talking lest they be seen as sympathizers to abusers. This has two separate (but related) goals.

    1) Later, having mired everyone in a fog of equivocation, she can plausibly (in the minds of the backpedalers and equivocators) make a case that egalitarian is the only sensible form in the mist; among other things. Tied into this, she’s subtly setting boundaries to the discussion aside from those that set the overall frame of the discussion. Some people are polite because they believe in being polite. Other masquerade politeness to trap others, and then make stiletto charges about S&M (which is my book is an insufferable defamation) from under their costume. Barb, indeed.

    2) Her writing reveals a woman who really wants to be seen as the “wise woman” so common in modern crap fantasy after they stopped calling them “witches”. I believe it is important to her that she get to be the one who points out the phony forms in the fog. This is different from the woman who wants to be the most admired barmaid at Dalrock’s. Barb wants to be the magistrate.

    She’s a worse Lydia McGrew.

  83. jf12 says:

    Barb pretends to mistake the perversion of submission as exactly equivalent to real submission. This is the common tactic of idol worshippers: to pretend the substitute is as good as or better than the original.

  84. It may not be deliberate, conscious trolling (as a man would understand it), when a woman behaves this way. Rather, women usually get their way from the use of shaming language, reframing, and strawmen, so have had little need to learn any other form of disagreement.

    All true, but it doesn’t apply to Barb. As Cane just said, the key is her disingenuousness. She’s followed a well-established pattern here. First she shows up and pretends to be interested in the conversation but has some small objections she’d like us to respond to, to establish herself as a reasonable person with worthwhile things to say. When we take her seriously and respond reasonably, she shifts the goalposts, makes false claims about what we’re saying, and starts slipping in ad hominem pot-shots at people. Before long, she’s in full-blown “you guys are just losers who want to rape women” mode or whatever she’s up to now (I stopped reading her comments already, but I get the gist from others’ replies to her).

    It’s not just that she’s stupid (though she is) or that she’s using standard female tactics (though she is). She’s also a troll using a particular set of techniques to try to derail the conversation and put us permanently on the defensive. If she weren’t, she would have been honest about her true position from the start.

  85. pancakeloach says:

    *crunches popcorn* For those of you who’ve been bouncing logic off Barb’s idiocy, please don’t feel like your efforts are wasted. The audience is entertained! At least this part of it is. Could anyone be any more ignorant of the way blog comment moderation works? If Dalrock leaves up any comment even vaguely referencing hypothetical violence to women, even if those women are engaged in bald-faced robbery in the hypothetical, then it’s proof that he personally advocates domestic violence! And if he deletes comments actually advocating violence against women as per his blog rules, that is ALSO proof that Dalrock advocates violence against women! Never mind that he personally has not advocated violence against women and has stated his position as anti-violence very clearly.

    Barb seems to be under the impression that it’s Dalrock’s job as blog owner to police every single comment with the singleminded obsession of a public school administration enforcing their zero-tolerance policy by suspending grade schoolers who nibble poptarts into the shape of guns or make a gun shape with their fingers and say “pow! pow!” or bring gun-shaped bubble-makers to school. Or play with nerf guns in their own front yards. IT’S ALL DALROCK’S FAULT, don’t you know. It’s his bounden duty to make his little corner of the internet as safe and secure as a padded cell in a mental institution for the protection of the womenfolk, amirite? Their delicate ears can’t bear to hear a word of harsh speech.

    Dalrock, you apparently have a dedicated crew of volunteer comment moderators. You should thank them for their hard work in helping you enforce your blog rules, but they seem to be under the impression that they get to run your blog for you. I guess that’s the trouble with these kinds of busybodies!

  86. jf12 says:

    Speaking of true position, nice guys are just doing unto others what they would like done unto them, but women don’t like nice guys. Also sprach Wissenschaft.
    http://www.newsweek.com/study-finds-men-nice-women-not-other-way-around-261269?piano_d=1

  87. Don's Johnson says:

    Right on cue, she ends the debate after declaring herself the victor. Feminists are the worst.

  88. Dalrock says:

    Barb is gone. I didn’t do a thorough enough search before. I see now that she first arrived under the name Shell back on the One at a time post. Since then she has gone by Shell, then Ben, then Barb (and who knows how many names I can’t link before that).

    As for comments advocating violence, first she accuses me of not deleting them, then of deleting them once I see them. The second is true. I make every effort but I don’t notice everything. If something is out of line, please call my attention to it. Tomorrow I’ll check the other ones out that she referenced and delete them if I agree that they are advocating violence.

    One last note. One of the accusations is the “regular readers” think X, so I must think that. This assumes there is orthodoxy of thought here, which is understandable because this is what our adversaries have. It ironically shows that the person accusing me of not allowing dissenting views can’t imagine allowing dissenting views.

  89. Dalrock says:

    Correction. Shell’s first comment was back in December. I won’t bother trying to trace it further, but her pedigree as a troll is thoroughly established.

  90. @Barb (your comment from 10pm):

    Here’s a little more of that quote you cherry picked (I am adding/fixing punctuation — I’ll let the original commenter say if I got it wrong):

    “Marriage betatises a man because it is common sense. What other way is there[?] If a man can’t be good to his wife[,] she needs to be put to death or just a booty call[?!] This kind of catch 22 was the reason for civilization and social order in the first place. It [i.e., the re-emergence of the original Catch 22 caused by the current breakdown of civilization] is also a reason why gun sales are through the roof.”

    I’m not saying my edits remove any basis for disagreement (in fact, I’m not even sure I would fully agree with it in its modified form). I just suspect the comment was not as sinister as it appeared to be.

  91. JDG says:

    John 2:13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

    We really have to stop letting feminists set the narratives and draw new boundaries.

  92. Johnycomelately says:

    I wonder what’s Matt’s opinion on dildos? I wonder if he considers women using dildos as a form of adultery….

  93. Random Angeleno says:

    Shades of Lydia McGrew. …

  94. Cane Caldo says:

    @Cail

    First she shows up and pretends to be interested in the conversation but has some small objections she’d like us to respond to, to establish herself as a reasonable person with worthwhile things to say. When we take her seriously and respond reasonably, she shifts the goalposts, makes false claims about what we’re saying, and starts slipping in ad hominem pot-shots at people.

    Bingo.

    There’s something about Dalrock’s style that attracts the sort of women who prefer this tactic. That’s not a criticism, just an observation; and not only those women, but including them. I tend to get the kind who want to seem feisty right from the get-go.

  95. JDG says:

    And now since we have learned that Barb was shell under a new nom de plume, I have to wonder if the whole “old school married for decades” background story was fiction or not.

    I wonder what’s Matt’s opinion on dildos? I wonder if he considers women using dildos as a form of adultery….

    Of course not, but in Matt’s world a man and his hand can.

  96. Random Angeleno says:

    Really called that one, Cane

  97. Oscar says:

    JDG says:
    July 27, 2014 at 11:25 pm

    “And now since we have learned that Barb was shell under a new nom de plume, I have to wonder if the whole “old school married for decades” background story was fiction or not.”

    Once a person proves to be consistently deceitful, you pretty much have to assume deceit in everything they do.

  98. Robin Munn says:

    @Dalrock –

    Looking at the gravatar icons, Barb and Ben and Shell had different icons and thus different email addresses (as the icon is based on an MD5 hash of the email address). What evidence led you to conclude they were the same person: IP address? Something else?

  99. Days of Broken Arrows says:

    Of course women would come down on men’s porn but champion “50 Shades.” That’s because..
    “The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality” — Roissy

  100. Don's Johnson says:

    @pancakeloach,
    Correct. Rollo has a fantastic article on male space at The Rational Male. I hope he doesnt mind me quoting, but this paragraph puts a bow on it:
    “Even the most well meaning of women involved (however peripherally) in the manosphere are still motivated by their innate security needs – and those hypergamous security needs imply a want for certainty and control. As such the psychological influence of the Feminine Imperative will always be a predominant motivator in their participation in this all male space. This leads women to a want to sanitize Game to fit the purposes of the imperative, as well as oversee the thought processes of the men who come to participate in it.”
    http://therationalmale.com/2014/06/03/male-space/

  101. jack says:

    Marketers can’t make you buy, you spineless idiot walsh.

  102. MarcusD says:

    CAF:

    Singles. The forgotten people of my diocese.
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=899171

  103. MarcusD says:

    Some tweets I’ve come across:

    We need churches with ego-stroking pastors, or else we wouldn’t have a religion, but we also need fringe lunatics to slap Christians around.

    Lord, give me the courage to pursue all my base instincts and call it You. Amen.

    God, grant me Serenity to be passive-aggressive; Courage to play the victim and shirk responsibility; and Wisdom to manipulate hearts.

  104. Guilty As Charged says:

    Fifty Shades is not a romance novel, it is not “emotional porn”, it is straight up hardcore pornography and anyone who says otherwise hasn’t read it. I enjoy both literary and visual porn from time to time and as the Bible says nothing against either, I don’t consider it sinful, though I suppose a case could be made that watching real live people (as opposed to fictional literary characters) fornicate and commit adultery might be promoting sin and is thus sinful. Perhaps anime is the answer.

    One thing about Fifty Shades though is that Christian Grey protects and provides money, material things and opportunities for Ana, lavishing and spoiling her.

    “But its not just the explicit sexual fantasy that women seem to flock to. There is also the wealth fantasy of Christian Grey. Imagine being cared for in every aspect of your life. Pleasured and spoiled with sports cars, private planes and luxury homes around the world. Belinda Leskum, an editor at Time Magazine says she wouldn’t want that life, but many other women do”

    Interviewer: ”Are you surprised by the popularity of this series of books?”

    Belinda: “Women are increasingly the bread winners in their homes and this fantasy of being looked after, having someone who’s there to obsessively protect you and make sure you have everything you need continues to be so robust in our culture.”

    Interviewer: “Why is this such a fantasy, to have somebody take care of them?”

    E. L. James: “We have everything and its just hard work. Doing everything, getting dinner on the table, making sure the laundry’s done and your boss is happy, sometimes its nice to just switch off and let somebody else take care of stuff for a while.”

  105. Isa says:

    The important thing about 50 Shades. It not only started out as really really reallly realllllyyyyy crappy PWP fanfiction, its “source material,” Twilight, was itself the erotic fantasy of a middle aged Mormon woman. Oh sorry, a dream about a super hunky sparkly guy laying seductively with Bella adoraklutz Swan who has no discernible personalty, goals, or purpose thus serving as a cypher for all the woman reading it to also want the strange pasty, stalker boyfriend. Don’t blame 50 Shades, blame the source material. That one’s the pron for the Christian abstinent ladies.

    Also, where is the mommy porn line set? 50 Shades or anything with Fabio on the cover of course, but what about classics like Lolita? One of the most disturbing things I have ever read and definitely very sexual. Movies as well, sensual vs sexual fantasy… Tricky.

  106. LiveFearless says:

    “Fifty Shades of Grey: Book One of the Fifty Shades Trilogy”
    UNABRIDGED, by E. L. James
    Narrated by Becca Battoe …

    … is the BEST SELLING AUDIOBOOK OF ALL TIME

  107. LandonFogg says:

    I took one for the team and read it at the time. What is rapidly apparent is that it isn’t about kinky sex, its about consumerism. What is exciting about the book is that he gives her lots of stuff, specific “stuff”, all the time. iPads, money, cars, clothes. The protagonist is not especially excited by the sex itself and from what I’m told the BDSM community don’t really recognise what they are doing either as what they do (and it contains a range of really dangerous practices also, e.g., cable ties).

    I don’t know if this works as a reference in the US but in the UK the practice used to be that someone buying a porn mag would have a friendly newsagent who’d supply the regular order slipped inside a copy of The Times so nobody had see what was being purchased. The joke that follows this is the idea that a newspaper’s journalism has become so poor its the less embarrassing option is to walk out with the paper hidden inside a porn mag. That is actually what is happening with 50SOG, Its a ‘gimme stuff’ fantasy hiding behind being porn.

  108. LandonFogg says:

    I am at somewhat of a disadvantage being a liberal (in fact worse than that) in a Christian space but can I also point out to some of the commenters 50SOG does not describe BDSM as people who are into it do it. It simply describes an abusive relationship. This is not the same thing.

    The underlying dynamics of this story are all based around hypergamy. He isn’t just a millionaire, oh no, he is a billionaire and she is poor. That is what the fantasy is here. Now, modern empowered women know that this isn’t really an acceptable fantasy, they should use their moxie and go-girl powers to buy their own stuff. BUT HE MAKES HER TAKE STUFF ANYWAY AGAINST HER WILL. She has no choice. People have been writing dirty books for centuries, you can buy a BDSM novel on any street corner, they don’t sell in the millions. If you are obsessing about the porn aspect alone you are really missing the cultural significance of this book.

  109. Dalrock says:

    @Robin Munn

    @Dalrock –

    Looking at the gravatar icons, Barb and Ben and Shell had different icons and thus different email addresses (as the icon is based on an MD5 hash of the email address). What evidence led you to conclude they were the same person: IP address? Something else?

    Yes, IP. As is typical with a troll, the IPs when traced back in the comments eventually leads to another email address, which then leads back to other IP’s, and so on. Also, switching handles/stories isn’t the only way to troll. Even without that, a general pattern of being here to disrupt, not to discuss, is sufficient. This is a judgment call but Barb met the latter criteria some time ago. I had hoped she would settle down and discuss, but when I warned her I wouldn’t permit the disruption any further she doubled down on it. It was what she was here to do, and once she knew she couldn’t continue to do it as a slow burn she decided to go out with a flourish.

  110. Oscar says:

    I went back and braved the fever swamps of Matt Walsh’s comments section, and I noticed a running theme. A great number of the comments amount to…

    “You didn’t read the book; therefore you can’t form a valid opinion about its morality.”

    The excuse makers are almost universally women, of course. By their “logic”, one would have to view every single pornographic film ever made in order to form a valid opinion as to the morality of each of those films.

    Do we have any volunteers?

    ps: One very sensible lady made the following point – “I don’t have to eat dog crap to know it’s bad for me.” Well played, ma’am. Well played.

  111. Myopia says:

    Bill Hicks…

  112. jf12 says:

    Vasectomies cause prostate cancer.
    http://www.livescience.com/46810-vasectomies-prostate-cancer-linked.html

    The 20% increase should be compared to the 5-10% increase in breast cancer caused by all known genetic factors, which are now aggressively screened for and completely covered by Obamacare.

  113. “The molestation of boys by female teachers seems to be a more recent development.”

    I’m not so sure about that. I suspect it goes back further than most of us know, but it gets intentionally underrepresented for the same reason black-on-white racial violence does. It violates the Liberal script.

    Concerning Matt the Mangina, I can’t come down on him as hard as you guys. Advertisers are like corporations: they’re soulless entities that exist solely to make money. Catering to females and their innate misandry is par for the course. We can and should come down, though, on the self-professed Christian women who don’t think that reading this lousy book is the equivalent of one of their (unfortunate) husbands viewing online porn.

    If there’s any sort of silver lining, it’s that the book has reportedly rekindled the flame in many a passionless marriage.

  114. deti says:

    As to the OP:

    Matt Walsh (much like that other Walsh) doesn’t understand, or will not accept, that women are drawn to 50SoG because women want to be titillated. It isn’t about women falling victim to evil marketing ploys. It’s about unleashed female nature demanding satisfaction and using discretionary dollars to sate it, while marketers simply give the shrill, shrieking, quivering masses what they want (sort of like Roissy). I suspect Walsh doesn’t see this or won’t see it because female emoporn looks different from the more overt, highly sexualized porn marketed to men.

    Women like this not so much for the BDSM element; but because it’s essentially an NC-17 mashup of “Pretty Woman” and “Twilight”. Dull, boring Everygirl meets up for interview with darkly handsome, impossibly wealthy billionaire. She’s attracted. She discovers he’s a freak and a kink. Goes there with him on multiple occasions. But the best part is – surprise surprise – he falls in love with her. Boring girl “tames the Alpha” and gets to claim him for her very own.

    Women eat this stuff up and lick the droppings up off the floor. We know this because they will have sex at the drop of a hat with dickbags and aloof Harley McBadboys, who they want to fix and take care of and “tame”. What they want is for Harley to “change” into Eddie Steadyman, and trade in his bike for a minivan. Then when they get it, they want him to be Harley again, but only when they want him to be Harley. They want him to make lots of money and be the bad boy when they want, and then be the minivan driving, loving, doting “Handsome Dad” when they want.

  115. feeriker says:

    @SSM

    [T]hat she had seen her pastor’s wife reading FSOG at church. Take a minute, friends, to wrap your head around that…The pastor’s wife was reading pornography at church.

    Nothing, and I do mean NOTHING that goes on inside the typical churchian franchise in Norte Amerika today would surprise me. The only exception I can think of would be one in which actual scrpitural precepts were preached, studied, and enforced among the body (but of course that would make it a real church body rather than a churchian franchise).

  116. feeriker says:

    deti says:July 28, 2014 at 10:44 am

    Yup. And of course the ferocity of the denial of such an assertion by the herd will only serve to cement its veracity.

  117. As a side note Jenny Erikson does not bring up her faith much, if at all anymore. Oh yeah she seems to do bible studies of some sort. BUt I would not lay any money on her actually being a christian of any real conviction. She certainly does not say she is these days. She writes about pop culture, mommy porno, her daughters puberty and just a bit of pop bible study. But nothing convicting just feel good stuff. Spiritual not religious as they say. Being a cool mom is so important. I think you need a new Christian woman to pick on. I don’t think she is one

  118. deti says:

    Marketers realize that to sell their product, they need to identify a market, seek to fill it, and make their buyers feel good about themselves. Because the one thing that people need to know in this society is that no matter what they’re doing, they’re Good People (TM) (or at least they’re not bad people) for doing it. In the words of Don Draper:

    “Advertising is based on one thing, happiness. And you know what happiness is? *** It’s a billboard on the side of the road that screams reassurance that whatever you are doing is okay. You are okay.”

    It makes me happy, therefore when I do it I am okay.

    I like it, therefore when I do it I am OK.

    It makes me feel good (or at least not feel bad), therefore when I do it I am OK.

    I want it, therefore when I get it or it is given to me, I am OK.

    I am OK. I am a Good Person.

    If you disagree with me, you are Not OK. You are a Bad Person. You want to deprive me of what makes me happy. That makes you a Bad Person.

  119. DeNihilist says:

    jf12 – “Vasectomies cause prostate cancer.”

    you of all people know better! the change from non V to V is about 0.02 percent. That’s right, in the realm of error bars. Read the comments, others explain just how bad the tittle is and the study was. I almost thought a climate scientist had written it it is so bad!

  120. embracing reality says:

    I concur with LondonFogg that “The underlying dynamics of this story (50sog) are all based around hypergamy.”

    Women’s fix is the consumerism provided by the ultimate Alpha of every woman’s dreams in combination with her being the object of alpha’s desire revealed through interesting kinky sex. The tingle is all about him desiring fabulous her and proving it with gifts and his compulsion to do weird things to enrapturing, fabulous her. However a quick search of the “top ten female sexual fantasies” reveal elements of women’s lust some of which are found in 50sog.

    The list is typically something like this in no particular order

    * Male dominating female
    * Female dominating male
    * Sex with stranger (Alpha undoubtedly)
    * Threesome (female with 2 Alphas out of her league of course)
    * Rape (by an Alpha she really wanted anyway or multiples)
    * Threesome (2 females 1 male)
    * Sex with authority figure
    * Voyeurism
    * Exhibitionism (she’s the object)
    * Stripper (she’s the object)

  121. AdmiralBenbow says:

    Awhile ago when I still had my blog going, Moody Publishing contacted me to see if I wanted to review a book about the spiritual implications of FSOG. Moody also offered me a second free copy of the book to give away on my blog. Lots of readers wrote in to enter the giveaway contest, and one woman told me in her email that she had seen her pastor’s wife reading FSOG at church. Take a minute, friends, to wrap your head around that…The pastor’s wife was reading pornography at church.

    Modern American Evangelicalism is truly “a haunt for every unclean bird” (Rev. 18:2).

  122. jf12 says:

    @Paige Roberts, re: “Jenny Erikson does not bring up her faith much, if at all anymore.”

    You’re right, but I only read her when she is mentioned like here. I never heard of her or read anything she wrote before last year’s hoo-hah. Was she more overtly faith conscious before then?

  123. LandonFogg says:

    Walsh also has a conundrum to solve.

    There is something a bit strange about 50SOG. Christian Gray’s dark secret is that he practices (but not really) BDSM. I say again, ‘dark secret’, the whole book is set up around the idea that this is shocking and illicit. But back in the godless mainstream this is slightly less edgy than saying you secretly play golf, its a complete non-vice.

    Only a certain sort of person is going to find this exciting and daring, hence the mommy-porn tag and why the J. Ericksons of this world find it fascinating. 50SOG is not an incursion by a heathen element, its actually something the conservative have created in their own midst.

    The real-life counterparts of Anastasia Steele couldn’t be more bored by this kind of thing, tried it, got the t-shirt, moved on. Yawn. Seriously, if your idea of being dark and mysterious is to wave the Anne Summers handcuffs around she isn’t going to be prostrate with desire, she is going to wonder why you have no imagination.

  124. cicero says:

    @Don’s Johnson
    “Right on cue, she ends the debate after declaring herself the victor.”
    It reminded me of this

  125. Opus says:

    Who can forget that wonderful scene in Peeping Tom (1960) when Miles Malleson goes into a newsagent (near The British Museum if I am not mistaken) and asks the man behind the counter for a copy of The Times (price 3d) and then, dithering, cautiously enquires whether the newsagent has any ‘views’. An album is produced and Malleson leafs through it and with mounting enthusiasm decides to buy not just one photograph but the whole album – and also a copy of The Telegraph. He hands over a £5.00 note – the papers at no extra charge – and leaves the shop with the album between the broadsheets. We do not see the photographs in the album but in a later scene we see a model being photographed Harrison Marks style by Carl Boehm in a room above the newsagents. This ‘Porn’ could now be displayed at a Vicar’s Tea Party – or The Photographers Gallery – without raising a hint of embarrassment.

    That is all long before my time, not that anyone would walk around the street with a Porn Mag on display.

    I have no idea what the BDSM community (if there is such a thing) get up to because (never invited) I have never come across anyone who admitted to being involved and anyway it would not be the done thing to discuss ones sexual antics or lack of them – which is the more likely. I may live a sheltered life (mercifully) but I would hate Americans to think that Landon Fogg (obviously a relation of Phineas) is accurate in his suggestion that playing Golf is considered more edgy than indulging in Sado-Masochism.

  126. Oscar says:

    Paige Roberts says:
    July 28, 2014 at 10:56 am

    “As a side note Jenny Erikson does not bring up her faith much, if at all anymore. Oh yeah she seems to do bible studies of some sort. BUt I would not lay any money on her actually being a christian of any real conviction.”

    I thought that was fairly obvious when she detonated her family for no good reason.

  127. Boxer says:

    I thought that was fairly obvious when she detonated her family for no good reason.

    She certainly isn’t playacting as much any longer, anyway. Amusingly, she fashions herself some sort of minor celebrity, who crashes the runway to take goofy “selfies” with her favorite actors in the background. I’m starting the countdown until she converts to Scientology and begs Tom Cruise to walk her down the aisle.

  128. Guilty As Charged says:

    “The real-life counterparts of Anastasia Steele couldn’t be more bored by this kind of thing, tried it, got the t-shirt, moved on. Yawn. Seriously, if your idea of being dark and mysterious is to wave the Anne Summers handcuffs around she isn’t going to be prostrate with desire, she is going to wonder why you have no imagination.”

    Those women are not who this movie is being marketed towards. Depending on the rating it receives, you are going to get increasingly younger and younger audiences showing up for this thing, and get this, it opens on Valentines Day 2015, if that’s not brilliant marketing I don’t know what is. Expect long lines of teen, middle aged and old couples outside a theater near you, but especially teen couples and packs of teen girls.

    True BDSM life stylists won’t go see it and if they do, it will be to tear a hole in it. But again that’s not the demographic this film is targeting. I wouldn’t be surprised if this becomes the best selling movie of all time.

  129. LandonFogg says:

    @OPUS

    Lots of people hate golf, the people who play it and the culture around it.
    THAT is making a statement about the kind of person you are.

    I think a bit of kink in the bedroom is a fairly mainstream practice these days, you’ll find articles about it in all the women’s magazines that supermarkets carry (and after all, they sold more copies of 50SOG and its imitators than anywhere else).

  130. Oscar says:

    Boxer says:
    July 28, 2014 at 1:23 pm

    “I’m starting the countdown until she converts to Scientology and begs Tom Cruise to walk her down the aisle.”

    He may not be the most profitable leading man in Hollywood anymore, but I doubt he’ll ever be that desperate. Should be entertaining.

  131. Guilty As Charged says:

    “I have no idea what the BDSM community (if there is such a thing) get up to because (never invited)”

    Its been underground for decades, possibly a few hundred or more years, complete with secret handshakes, code words and necklaces. Now its pretty much out in the open thanks to the internet.

    This book and movie are misleading because the majority of people into it do not look like Christian Grey or even the more plain Anastasia Steele, and they certainly do not have Grey’s wealth or education. Going from internet pictures alone most are older, fat, unattractive trailer trash looking types. I had a friend who tried about 10 years ago to enter a local BDSM group (they used to have very strict rules for gaining entrance into their circle, don’t know about now) but he gave up once he saw the talent. He thought it would be an easy place to get laid by hot chicks except there were no hot chicks and access into that circle was not easy.

    I can picture a 15 year old girl walking out of the movie thinking that all or at least most guys into this stuff are young, hot and wealthy like Grey.

  132. Opus says:

    @Landon Fogg

    I do not read Women’s Magazines nor do I have any interest in Golf: I neither hate the women who so read or the golfers who so play – and do not think of either from one year to the next.

    I have never met anyone who hated Golf, the people who play it or its surrounding culture (whatever that might be – I am struggling there).

    Do I detect that you – as a dues-paid card-carrying liberal – are proselytising for ‘kink in the bedroom’ or elsewhere. I too read 50 Shades of Grey – twice – at least as much as Amazon allowed and I think the author missed considerable erotic opportunity in Anastasia Steele’s arrival at Grey Industries. I would have had her strip on the carpet.

  133. Opus says:

    That should have been ‘trip’.

  134. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    I don’t believe in campus rape hysteria, but wouldn’t a college male roommate forcing himself on a female be 1000 times more probable than 50SoG? Remember the mentally ill, deranged Santa Barbara College Campus killer Elliot Rodgers obsession with hot college sorority girls? That was real. I can definitely see a film made about that.

  135. jf12 says:

    @alcestiseshtemoa, you’d be surprised. One of the big reasons that feminists lobbied so hard for so long to sexually integrate dorm rooms was to cut down on sexual activity. The girl gets to tell her roommate “You’re like my brother, so I feel like we can’t.” along with telling her boyfriend “No, we can’t go to your dorm either, because she’s like your sister, so I feel like we can’t.”

  136. jf12 says:

    @MarcusD, the single path to alpha is Danger. Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to know. Not Firm, not Decisive, not Confident, nothing else except Danger, specifically Danger to women.

  137. Pingback: Shades of Grey movie reviews from the Man… | Honor Dads

  138. jf12 says:

    re: coed dorms. The coed dorm hall experiment that started in 1970 was for the same reason, supposedly: to get girls and boys so comfortable together, so used to each other, that they would be less likely to engage in sexual things, including sexual assault. Of course the exact opposite happened. Those who live in coed dorm halls, as opposed to single-sex housing, are more than twice as likely to have a single sexual partner, and more than five times more likely to have had multiple partners that school year. And to drink more than twice as often, to excess more than three times as often, and to be arrested for alcohol-related activities more than five times as often. In contrast, the majority of college students who remain in the already rare, and dwindling, totally single-sex dorms, did not report any partnered sexual activity of any kind in that school year.

    Clearly, of course, the charge of selection bias for this data is well-justified. But explanatory anyway.

  139. jf12 says:

    A subtheme of a debate we’re having over to the j4g is whether a woman’s sexually provocative dress tends to be for actually getting more sex from someone or mostly for rubbing other people’s noses in the fact that they won’t be sleeping with her. I’m leaning towards the latter, and I think that is the reason for the promotion of coed dorms: not so much to ensure that more boys will have more sex, but to *definitely* ensure that more boys will feel deprived by dangling deliberately the impossible possibility before them for that purpose.

  140. Guilty As Charged says:

    I know there are lots of co-ed dorms but what about co-ed dorm rooms? Do co-ed dorms report an increase in sexual assaults? Seems like they would with the increase of all the above, sexual assault is usually not too far beyond, especially alcohol abuse. If that’s the case then co-ed rooms must be off the chain.

    “She wore a loose-fitting white tank top that revealed the sides of her breasts and a pair of fluorescent-pink cut-off shorts. The disc jockey could be heard urging her on as she squatted in front of a man with his flaccid penis in his hand. She bobbed up and down three times before moving onto the next man, and then the next and the next. The blonde 18-year-old repeatedly curled her pointer fingers at the men, as if to say, “Bring it on.” In all, she reportedly serviced 24 men in that crowded nightclub, all in the name of a contest for which she was rewarded with a $4 bottle of Cava.

    It’s all captured in a now-viral video by an onlooker at the bar in Magaluf, a party-destination on the Spanish island of Majorca. The U.K. press is all over the story and has already identified the girl and interviewed her horrified parents. There is apparently a name for what she did — this alcohol-fueled game of performative sex — and it’s “mamading,” which comes from the Spanish word for blow job. Now, there is an abundance of headlines like this one: “’Mamading’: The Sexually Degrading New Trend Humiliating Young Brits In Spanish Bars.”

    I suppose most assume that women who do this sort of thing suffer from bad parenting, broken homes, low self-esteem, but I don’t know if that’s entirely the case anymore. There’s an increasing attitude that sexual exhibitionism is cool, sexy, healthy and an indicator of high self-esteem. Its the normalization of porn and pornification of culture that the internet has birthed. Where the Sexual Revolution lagged behind, the Tech Revolution picked up the slack.

  141. Chris says:

    “’Mamading’: The Sexually Degrading New Trend Humiliating Young Brits In Spanish Bars.”

    Yeah, it’s the “trend” that’s to blame, because, after all, someone pointed a gun to her head and made her do it.

    Seriously?

  142. Guilty As Charged says:

    ” Certain rules about sexuality dictate your daughter’s life. She’s expected to LOOK sexy and sexual and be desirable by men and boys alike. But she’s also not … supposed to BE sexual. She’s supposed have an air of sexual knowledgability and an enticement to young men around her, but not actually seek out sex or enjoy it too much. … For young women like your daughter, sexual experience is [the] standard they’re supposed to live up to, but it’s also a taboo.”

    While there is peer and media pressure to look good in general, does she really believe women feel a pressure to look and be sexual for “all” men?

    “The schizophrenic nature of our attitudes toward sex make everyone sneaky about it.”

    Kind of agree with that.

    ” Women look for excuses to be sexual, and men look for way to trick them into being sexual.”

    In the context of relationships this just isn’t true. Sexual expression and exploration is encouraged and welcome between a couple, particularly in the early stages. There’s no shame involved.

    “You know what is truly disturbing about the so-called Magaluf girl story? She was reportedly told that in exchange for this sexual stunt she would be given a “holiday.” It turned out that was the name of a cocktail, which she was given for free.”

    Disturbing but she should have been more business savvy and negotiated the terms in detail.

  143. “as she squatted in front of a man with his *flaccid* penis in his hand”?

    He must have been protesting about “shrinkage” or some such.

  144. Guilty As Charged says:

    Followed a link on that web page and it got me “Anal sex: Science’s last taboo.
    A new — and almost entirely unreported — study about anal sex and pain shows how little we really know about it” at http://www.salon.com/2012/10/05/anal_sex_sciences_last_taboo

  145. Pretty much the same reason 50 SoG is popular.

    I wrote a piece about 50 Shades when it first started going viral;
    http://therationalmale.com/2012/04/12/50-shade-of-twilight/

  146. Tam the Bam says:

    “Yes, IP. As is typical with a troll, the IPs when traced back in the comments eventually leads to another email address, which then leads back to other IP’s, and so on.”
    Blimey, so what does that make me then, landlord? Currently operating off of about two-and-a-half IPs, (one-and-a-half ADSL, one cable, depending on where I’m at).
    Good news is I stick rigidly to the same u/n and addy on account of I’d just end up confusing myself ( yeh yeh, I know, even more than usual; this ‘being old’ thing does have a couple of snags, you’ll find ..)
    Or even worse, I’d get into a mindless argument with some cantankerous old coot who turned out to be me.

  147. Robin Munn says:

    @Guilty As Charged –

    “You know what is truly disturbing about the so-called Magaluf girl story? She was reportedly told that in exchange for this sexual stunt she would be given a “holiday.” It turned out that was the name of a cocktail, which she was given for free.”

    Disturbing but she should have been more business savvy and negotiated the terms in detail.

    In other words, this was the classic joke (which is sadly not a joke any longer): “We already know what you are, ma’am, now we’re just haggling over the price.”

    What the author of that article missed (or rather, didn’t want to see) is that nobody tricked her about the nature of what she was being asked to do. It was laid out, clear as day, that she was being asked to perform sexual “services” to twenty-four men in exchange for remuneration. The switcheroo pulled with the reward (making her think she was getting one thing, and then she actually got something else of much less value) was just telling her “We already know what you are, now we’re just tricking you over the price.”

  148. tacomaster2 says:

    It showed up in my Facebook feed that several of my church friends had like Matt Walsh’s 50 Shades article. For fun, I read through the comments listed below his post on his FB wall. If anyone wants a good laugh or just feel disgusted by the downward spiral of our society, I’d suggest reading through them but I must tell you that they are hard to tolerate. The “pro” group uses the excuse that it’s just literature and “you can’t judge me! God says you can’t judge me!”. A lot of people got into the whole “the Bible says you can’t judge me” conversation/debate.

  149. jf12 says:

    A young man being trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent, and confident, and caring, never was intended to impress the chicks, evidently. It was intended to impress the chick’s *father*. Chicks dig Bad instead. The badder the better, with no limit. Hear me now. No comfort calibration is needed OR desirable, IF you seem like you can get away with it. In the same way that simply thrashing around spastically isn’t actual Danger violence, undirected and shall we say uncamouflageable Badness does not look like you could get away with it: it simply looks infantile.

  150. Anonymous age 72 says:

    feeriker says:
    July 27, 2014 at 7:32 pm

    Anonymous age 72 says:July 27, 2014 at 5:51 pm

    >>Matiz (or matices, plural) is indeed the correct word hete.

    I just realized shades also can mean the souls of the people damned to Hell. Dante.

    And, if a key character is named Grey, that sure clouds what the intended title really is. But, i cannot imagine the lack of sunlight version.

  151. Dalrock says:

    Just a guess Anon 72 but I had always assumed that SOG referred both to the main character and the refutation of good and evil (black and white) with the idea that there is no black and white only different shades of grey. This would go with the meaning of color and not shade from a hat or tree, etc.

  152. jf12 says:

    re: fifty shades. I don’t know whether the authoress knew this or what, but 50 shades of gray is what people can normally see. With caveats.

    The ordinary human eye/brain can only distinguish linearly spaced shades of gray, under constant illumination from pure black 0% to 100% white, if they are at least about 2% different. In terms of grayscale compression, 6 bits of information more than suffices for every human application bar none. Hence 50 shades of gray is all you can see.

    (under optimized logarithmic spacing with optimized variable illumination (brighter light just for blackest grays, dimmer light just for whitest grays) a person can almost reliably discriminate upwards of 8 bits grayscale, but ignore this part)

  153. imnobody00 says:

    As a native Spanish speaker, it’s “50 tonos de gris”.
    Shade of a color -> tono.
    matiz -> nuance
    sombra-> shadow

  154. Guilty As Charged says:

    “50 Shades of Pedophilia”

    The third book in the trilogy “Fifty Shades Freed” has a scene wherein after sex with Christian, Anastasia’s baby that is in utero kicks and she says, “See! She already likes sex.” There’s also a scene where Anastasia gets turned on watching Christian lick popsicle juice off of his little son’s fingers.

    “What the author of that article missed (or rather, didn’t want to see) is that nobody tricked her about the nature of what she was being asked to do. It was laid out, clear as day, that she was being asked to perform sexual “services” to twenty-four men in exchange for remuneration.”

    Oh no doubt. If it had been a reverse scenario wherein one guy stuck his tongue inside of 24 women at the bar, it would have been interpreted the same: He’s not the victim, those women he serviced are. People have a really hard time realizing or admitting how normal and mainstream sexual exhibition has become amongst young people who grew up on internet porn.

    I can assure you this young woman does not see herself as a victim, her parents and these writers do, but she doesn’t. The old prudish feminist script just doesn’t work anymore. This is the age of fourth wave sex and internet positive feminism. Time to embrace it and stop kidding ourselves.

  155. Cane Caldo says:

    @Anon72 and Dalrock

    All I know is that I’m very disappointed when I see “SOG” and it’s not something about specwar or knives.

  156. Guilty As Charged says:

    Faith-Based Romance ‘Old Fashioned’ Battles ’50 Shades of Grey’ on Valentine’s Day

    No whips. No chains. No problem.

    Hollywood is betting that the release of 50 Shades of Grey, the film adaptation of the sexually tawdry book of the same name, will be a hit with movie-going couples on Valentine’s Day weekend.

    One indie film begs to differ.

    Old Fashioned, a faith-based film presenting a more “Godly” view of romance, will open that same weekend but on far fewer screens. The team behind the project is willing to give movie goers a kinder alternative to Grey.

    “I wanted to tell a love story that takes the idea of Godly romance seriously,” Rik Swartzwelder, the film’s award-winning writer-director and lead actor, said in a statement. “A story that, without apology, explores the possibility of a higher standard in relationships; yet, is also fully aware of just how fragile we all are and doesn’t seek to heap guilt upon those of us that have made mistakes.”

    The film follows a former frat boy and an adventurous woman trying to commit to an “old fashioned” brand of courtship in modern America. The studio behind the project, Freestyle Releasing, recently gave us the surprise hit God’s Not Dead.

    Old Fashioned stars Swartzwelder as Clay and Elizabeth Ann Roberts (Heroes, House, Black Knight) as Amber. The film was shot on location in rural northeastern Ohio.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/07/28/faith-based-romance-opens-50-shades

  157. theshadowedknight says:

    Sexual molestation of a twenty one year old woman? Wanting purity as pedophilia? Abuse, abuse, abuse, to have inequality in a relationship? Feminist ranting points, all.

    She mentions that without his money, the story has less appeal. Take away her innocence and it would lose it, as well. The point of having the characters as they are is two very attractive people: a powerful, wealthy man and an innocent, beautiful woman. The characters are wish fulfillment, fantasies of each sex.

    She works in CPS, which means she is also part of one of the most evil organizations that lurks within the Cathedral. If I had to choose between the NSA and CPS, I would keep the NSA any day, and I do not even have children. She is a monster that preys on the family, a demon. Any word she speaks is poison; she seeks only to destroy.

    The Shadowed Knight

  158. GK Chesterton says:

    @Opus,
    Oh come on: this is just the sort of book women love; in no essential way different from a Jane Austen, a Bronte or the entire Gothic boom of the late eighteenth century – and its many later incarnations . As for the delusions of Dr Reisman; the woman is clearly missing out on her true vocation of witch-hunter.

    One day I will understand why people lump Austin in with Bronte. Austin is the closest thing to red-pill of the era. “Pride and Prejudice” is about the _female_ lead’s _pride_. It also includes a dressing down of the slut sister. It also was widely read by _men_.

  159. Guilty As Charged says:

    “She mentions that without his money, the story has less appeal. Take away her innocence and it would lose it, as well. The point of having the characters as they are is two very attractive people: a powerful, wealthy man and an innocent, beautiful woman. The characters are wish fulfillment, fantasies of each sex.”

    Except the character of Anastasia is not the physically beautiful one, Grey is. Anastasia is more of an average looking girl. That’s a key element in an average woman’s fantasy,a better looking than she is man. Someone she can swoon over just by looking at. That is made purposefully clear in the book and in the movie. Like I said, clueless pubescent and adolescent girls, as well as young women in their early twenties are going to walk out of hundreds of thousands of movie theaters across the world and think that young, tall, handsome and smart men of means are prolific in the BDSM scene. They will search the internet for BDSM groups in their zip codes and be sorely disappointed when they meet the talent. It might turn them off whips and feathers for life.

  160. Random Angeleno says:

    @Guilty: what could be worse is guys sign up for BDSM groups only to find out they don’t want single men and even if he gets in anyway, there ain’t no Anastasia types around. No one there who hasn’t been poked and prodded before.

    The pedophilia angle is one I hadn’t seen before. Vile is all I can say without reading the book. Which I definitely won’t do now. I don’t intend to see the movie either.

  161. Opus says:

    @G.K.Chesterton

    If Austen is Red Pill, then, I ask rhetorically, why is it so popular with women (as are the Brontes). The only men I come across who read the blessed Jane are teachers of Eng. Lit.. I cannot claim to have read her entire works, indeed I have only read Persuasion, the last of her six novels. Her template for Persuasion is Cinderella. Anne Eliot the heroine asks us to believe that she has remained enamoured of Captain Wentworth for ten years, yet she never (perhaps wisely) makes any move on the man even when and without explanation he reappears in her life, and just hangs around – and apparently is considering marrying one or other of two sisters ten years younger than Anne – note the jealousy of Wentworth’s ability to attract young women. Meanwhile Anne Eliot mocks poor Captain Benwick (who is neither as tall or as handsome as the Captain she rejected) and with vast amounts of female mis-direction or at least nonsense about Literature patronises Benwick – and this from a woman who is about to crash through the wall. Benwick will not do as a potential husband either, on the grounds of wealth, physique, or because he is suffering from the premature death some four months earlier of his fiancée. Anne’s sister Mary who at least has some real troubles in her life (sick children) is also belittled and Anne is about as miserable as she can be even though she goes off to Bath (a Spa town and as up-market as one could then get) – so if you can’t enjoy yourself there you won’t anywhere. In the end of course *spoiler alert* ‘reader she married him’ and his money. Did I mention that in the ensuing ten years he had acquired great wealth. Austen is incapable of writing convincing male characters, and Wentworth is entirely unbelievable, and a cardboard character.

    ‘Never marry a sailor’ is what my maternal grandmother used to say and she should know as she did just that. She too liked being married to a Captain, spent his salary but then complained she was alone all the time – as surely would Anne Eliot. Marrying a sailor also ensured that becoming a widow was a considerable probability (though the Admiralty provided a Widow’s pension as it did for my Great Grand Mother on the death whilst on active service of her Captain husband).

    For Red Pill one must turn to an infinitely better writer – someone like, say, Lorenzo da Ponte.

  162. Guilty As Charged says:

    “what could be worse is guys sign up for BDSM groups only to find out they don’t want single men and even if he gets in anyway, there ain’t no Anastasia types around. ”

    That happened to a friend about ten years ago. It was difficult to crack the first rung of entry as they try to screen for the insincere as well sociopaths, and once he got through it he never went back. Most of the people were middle aged, overweight and unattractive and if you scour through the kink blogs and forums you can see for yourself that this is the demographic mostly represented. He was basically looking for an easy place to pick up hot chicks who were dtf with an edge and figured a BDSM group was his best bet. Boy was he ever wrong.

  163. Opus says:

    For anyone wanting to read a real Red Pill libretto from Da Ponte (who provided Libretti for Italian Salieri, Spaniard Soler, Englishman Storace and Austrian Mozart amongst others) I recommend Cosi Fan Tutte, which translates into English as A.W.A.L.T., and Don Giovanni which is about a P.U.A..

    Cosi Fan Tutte in particular was considered so scandalous (in its depiction female sexuality and fickleness) that its first Covent Garden performance was as late as 1968!!! Don Giovanni is so difficult to get right that female producers in particular are only too keen to use the Overture to mime Rape – thus totally defeating the point of the opera.

    Da Ponte was at the time of his death in 1838 an American citizen.

  164. Guilty, if it is as you say, and I will take your word for it, then it still makes sense in the context of the book. Women want their men to be better than them. Hard to get much better than a billionaire with a dark secret. This Dr. Reisman is a professional in a field that excels in finding trouble where none exists, and appears to be a feminist, as well. A source as troubled as this is no source at all. FSoG has legitimate criticisms, but Reisman’s is not among them.

    Random Angeleno, the accusation comes from the belief that any inequality is a sign of abuse, and desiring innocence in a woman is a signal of pedophilia. In other words, wanting to marry a woman who has not yet been ruined is as bad as having sex with children. That is as simple as can be, and is a lot more questionable once you expose the core conceit.

    The Shadowed Knight

  165. Guilty As Charged says:

    I went to Reisman’s blog and she is highly sexually conservative. She has a whole campaign going on against The Kinsey Institute. I’m not writing her off completely, but reading her with one eye open and one eye closed, like I do everyone else.

  166. S. Chan says:

    There is a difference between how women respond to porn for men and how men respond to porn for women. Perhaps it is easier to see this difference by using an analogy with video games.

    Consider how a guy responds to seeing an idealized man (muscular, hyper-masculine, etc.) in a video game: the guy will tend to see the idealized man as a guide to who he might like to be. Now consider how a girl responds to seeing an idealized woman (buxom, hyper-feminine, etc.) in a video game: the girl will tend to see the idealized woman as a reminder of who she is not.

    Similarly with porn. Men do not really feel threatened, or made inadequate, by most porn for women. Women, however, do tend to feel threatened, or made inadequate, by most porn for men. This is the underlying reason that so many women are opposed to porn. Those women’s appeal to morality is usually just misdirection.

  167. Pingback: Romancing The Personal Jesus | The Society of Phineas

  168. seventiesjason says:

    At the end of 1986, or early 1987 there was a movie called ‘Fatal Attraction’ and it was denounced as porn. Graphic. Sexually explicit (for that time) and it evidently incited “violence” and hatred towards women. It was a huge box-office smash. College sociology professors hated it. Feminists hated it. Churches hated it. Women hated it. Glenn Closes’ character was chilling, striking and you just didn’t “like her” even though what Michael Douglas’s character did was totally wrong, and inappropriate or acceptable on any level.

    Around that same time, another movie called “Nine And A half Weeks” came out.

    Explicit sex. A woman put into a domineered position by a rich and “good looking” (and then very young) Mickey Rourke. Oh, it had “artwork” in it also (guess that means it was ‘cultured’). Evidently it had good camera angles as well, like any high-gloss porn. The story was complicated and the heroine’s rape (Kim Basinger) leads to a very complex domineering relationship with Mickey Rourke.

    Flash-forward to 1992 when I was a junior in college, and the only man sitting in a “womens’ studies” class in Vermont; a whole lecture was spent trashing movies like “Fatal Attraction” (not that it should be trashed) and I out of curiosity raised my hand and said “What about the film ‘9 1/2 Weeks’?”

    Every head spun around. Every set of eyes fell upon me. There was an uncomfortable silence of a couple of seconds…….I knew I had opened a proverbial “can o’ worms”

    One fellow student, and president of our college’s “NOW” chapter (National Organization for Women) said:

    “That isn’t porn, it’s art”

    The room fell into a chaotic discussion like the TV show “The View” with comments flying everywhere for a minute of two.

    What was the result?

    “9 1/2 Weeks” wasn’t porn, wasn’t explicit. It wasn’t degrading to women. It wasn’t demeaning to women.”

    The reason why that was NOT admitted on ANY level was:

    Women liked it. They liked Mickey Rourke. They liked the sex scenes. Not one comment of agreement with me. No further comments from me were allowed.

    If women “like” it, it isn’t porn is what it all boils down to. The same goes for “50 SOG” I suppose

  169. Art Deco says:

    I went to Reisman’s blog and she is highly sexually conservative. She has a whole campaign going on against The Kinsey Institute.

    There were critics of Kinsey’s sampling methods at the time he was working, (Kinsey was an entomologist with no background in social research). Dr. Reisman has been since 1990 an effective critic of Kinsey’s method and of some of the peculiarly depraved methods of data collection the Indiana Institute made use of, at both conferences and in the general-audience press.

  170. LandonFogg says:

    @Opus

    You are wrong about Austen but right about Cosi I feel.
    It literally translates into AWALT in case anyone thinks he was joking.

    I’m amazed there isn’t a “Don Alfonso” blog somewhere in the manopshere actually; the coffee house “philosopher” who tells it like it is to the young bucks.

    The Glyndbourne production is easily found online and features the lovely Miah Persson.

    Nicolas Rivenq was criticised as the weakest link in this production vocally but his acting is great, I particularly like the evil grin on his face at the end.

  171. Opus says:

    @Landon Fogg

    Miah Persson . Hmmm. I raise you one Kiwi Te Kanawa – as she signed my Covent Garden programme.

    Elsewhere on the Net (and quite recently) though these things evaporate like the morning mist so I can’t remember where (possibly Anti-Feminist’s blog – or was it here) I set out a Red Pill explanation of Don Giovanni, the abstract of which is that Donna Anna is a False Rape accuser, Donne Elvira a woman who thinks that because she slept with the Don he should marry her and Zerlina (the charming little slut) unable to quite make up her mind even as she leads him on. Just a bad day in Seville and the sort of thing that can happen to any pick-up artist. The Peter Hall production of D.G. at Glyndebourne, presently up on YouTube is first rate (Stafford Dean outstanding as Leporello).

  172. Venom Froggy says:

    I read Matt Walsh’s article about 50 Shades.

    My respect for him went down by twenty-five percent after that.

    And after reading your thoughts on that article, it’s now down by thirty-five percent.

  173. Curia Regis says:

    Why is nobody talking about the fact 50 shades is essentially a big giant rape fantasy, and women are lapping it up in droves? Doesn’t that contradict the main tenant of feminism, namely the sanctity of rape culture and women’s supposed revulsion to it? It must be so frustrating for feminists, with reality never cooperating at all.

  174. bicklerain says:

    “Similarly with porn. Men do not really feel threatened, or made inadequate, by most porn for women. Women, however, do tend to feel threatened, or made inadequate, by most porn for men. This is the underlying reason that so many women are opposed to porn.”

    No. It’s that women who are less slutty inherently feel threatened by sluts, and pornwhores are the biggest sluts out there.

    Men aren’t as viscerally threatened by the men in porn for women. After all, who cares that Christian Grey wants to monopolize one woman? That’s actually a really sweet deal for the average man compared to if if he screwed around all over the place, leaving less broads for the rest of use.

  175. bicklerain says:

    “Why is nobody talking about the fact 50 shades is essentially a big giant rape fantasy…”

    It’s a big giant stalking fantasy, where the man’s pushiness is used to depict his strength and confidence (if he wasn’t a billionaire with a lot of other options it would be creepy to girls though).

    If the rich perv actually raped the girl, as opposed to waiting for her to give in to his giant creepy stalking campaign, I don’t the books would’ve been nearly as popular.

    I haven’t read the books, though, so maybe there’s a rape scene in there? Does anyone know?

  176. bicklerain says:

    “The third book in the trilogy “Fifty Shades Freed” has a scene wherein after sex with Christian, Anastasia’s baby that is in utero kicks and she says, “See! She already likes sex.”

    Yuck.

  177. Pingback: 50 SoG movie panned as too tame. | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s