-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
These kinda books are generally marketed towards women. In a Christian perspective, I think its a good idea to have the conversation that even though lewd, hyper-sexual pornography is done in a well written and imaginative book with no images, it is still pornography with the intention of selling based on sex. It doesnt make pornography any more safer or different than pornographic imagery. A Christian should avoid such things in the world.
And I learned everything about bondage from basic cable television. I knew quite a bit too. Its not a secret in anyway :/ We dont live in a world where people try to avoid evil things, we live in a world where the majority of people want these things to be a part of their everyday life. The end times will be like the days of Noah, people will constantly have evil on their minds.
And I learned everything about bondage from basic cable television. I knew quite a bit too. Its not a secret in anyway :/ We dont live in a world where people try to avoid evil things, we live in a world where the majority of people want these things to be a part of their everyday life. The end times will be like the days of Noah, people will constantly have evil on their minds.
K
Wow! I can't believe this thread is still going on. But If you have to be graphic please post no visual aids. Thank you. 
No one will post anything visual.You'd be banned.But you dont have to take part in the discussion if this offends you.The book is graphic and I think we're all being pretty clean considering.
AS I'e already mentioned, a woman being utterly subservient and dependent emotionally, physically and psychological on a man (as per the premise of the chracter story in 50 Shades) is not liberating, nor something I agree with. I also mentioned that the ways the book is liberating are in its purely sexual progressiveness, in that it openly talks about bondage, sexual techniques and the way that many women desire a man to ''take them'', when it comes to bedroom antics.
This is a proven thing; sex toy sales went up, millions of UK women have read the book, and women who have read it are more willingly to openly admit what excites them in the bedroom. Now, 50 shades does romanticize forms of abuse, and it takes the sexual urge of many women to be dominated physically to a level wherein that domination's consensuality is questionable. But you need to realize that what the fiction portrays is an exaggeration of the reality of many women's socially repressed sexual desires, not a verbatim account of exactly what these women want.
Many women do like adventurous, flirtatios sex. They do like to be wined and dined. They do like a man to take lead, and they do like a man to be dominating sexually. We can exaggerate that in many ways, as the book does, but then we could say that about any art form or media form that portrays vulgarity or socially offensive things and shines a Hollywood glitter on them.
My point about college cases was that KaylaGirl said the book encourages college men to gang rape college girls without any thought. That simply is not true. I have no vendetta against fake college rape statistics, but I do have an aversion to this social idea nowadays (which KaylGirl seem to be an advcate of) that men are by default abusers, women by default victims, that men are stupid enough to get their ideals on romantic relationships from a book they've probably never read, that 50 Shades makes college boys rape women, and that women cannot be responsible agents of their own free will after a couple of drinks.
Lot's of books have romanticized what we might consider overt pursuance or obsessive love. Women's novels have been doing it for years. ''The woman who thinks about nothing else except her man''. Goodness me, Western society in its entireity seems to bring up girls, particularly in Christian places, to think of little other long term life goal than ''be a man's servant'' or ''find a husband''.
So, it does make me laugh a little bit when Christian women, whose book says 'submit to your husbands' and 'you shall have no authority over men', talk about how a fictional prose is so vile that it encourages young men to go out and physically, emotionally, psychologically and sexually subdue young women.
What utter nonsense.
This is a proven thing; sex toy sales went up, millions of UK women have read the book, and women who have read it are more willingly to openly admit what excites them in the bedroom. Now, 50 shades does romanticize forms of abuse, and it takes the sexual urge of many women to be dominated physically to a level wherein that domination's consensuality is questionable. But you need to realize that what the fiction portrays is an exaggeration of the reality of many women's socially repressed sexual desires, not a verbatim account of exactly what these women want.
Many women do like adventurous, flirtatios sex. They do like to be wined and dined. They do like a man to take lead, and they do like a man to be dominating sexually. We can exaggerate that in many ways, as the book does, but then we could say that about any art form or media form that portrays vulgarity or socially offensive things and shines a Hollywood glitter on them.
My point about college cases was that KaylaGirl said the book encourages college men to gang rape college girls without any thought. That simply is not true. I have no vendetta against fake college rape statistics, but I do have an aversion to this social idea nowadays (which KaylGirl seem to be an advcate of) that men are by default abusers, women by default victims, that men are stupid enough to get their ideals on romantic relationships from a book they've probably never read, that 50 Shades makes college boys rape women, and that women cannot be responsible agents of their own free will after a couple of drinks.
Lot's of books have romanticized what we might consider overt pursuance or obsessive love. Women's novels have been doing it for years. ''The woman who thinks about nothing else except her man''. Goodness me, Western society in its entireity seems to bring up girls, particularly in Christian places, to think of little other long term life goal than ''be a man's servant'' or ''find a husband''.
So, it does make me laugh a little bit when Christian women, whose book says 'submit to your husbands' and 'you shall have no authority over men', talk about how a fictional prose is so vile that it encourages young men to go out and physically, emotionally, psychologically and sexually subdue young women.
What utter nonsense.
As I've already mentioned, this "book" does not openly talk about bondage or sexual techniques. This "book" has absolutely nothing to do with real BDSM, as so many BDSM practitioners and experts have said over and over again. This "book" is about an abusive relationship. Not BDSM. It's not BDSM. It isn't BDSM. It is not ... BDSM.
Furthermore, I absolutely DO NOT want to be "taken" by a man the way Christian takes Ana. Any man who tries will find himself in an alligator's stomach. And we should not condone this behavior because it's rape.
What you need to realize is that it isn't an exaggeration of reality. Yeah, the Fiction 500 element is pure fantasy. But the stalking and abuse are not. Like I already mentioned, the excuse that Grey uses after he rapes his girlfriend is that same excuse that real rapists use. And people actually believe it to be true. Again, this isn't fantasy. This "book" perpetuates these horrible beliefs that actually affect real people.
Sure, but when you portray a rape scene as totally romantic, and when you heavily imply that the victim can fix the rapist by just loving him more and being more submissive, you best be ready for some criticism.
You see ... The difference between an effective non-consent fantasy and romanticized abuse is that we, as the reader, should be aware that rape is wrong. We can be aroused by something which we know is wrong, and I'm not complaining about that. Again, I've written stuff like that. But this "book" fails in making the distinction clear. So many fans either didn't even think that Christian's behavior was morally wrong or they tried to justify it. 50 Shades doesn't just seek to explore fantasies. It condones and romanticizes abusive behavior, and that's where it crosses the line.
I'm with the Christians on this one. You can have a Dom/sub relationship (and even a Master/slave) without demeaning or abusing the sub. I am personally against the sub role. But at least I realize that there's a world of difference between a consensual, respectful relationship that involves a power dynamic and the blatant abuse that is romanticized in 50 Shades. This "book" is not about a Dom/sub relationship. It's about a man controlling and demeaning a woman who he considers to be a glorified doll.
Furthermore, I absolutely DO NOT want to be "taken" by a man the way Christian takes Ana. Any man who tries will find himself in an alligator's stomach. And we should not condone this behavior because it's rape.
What you need to realize is that it isn't an exaggeration of reality. Yeah, the Fiction 500 element is pure fantasy. But the stalking and abuse are not. Like I already mentioned, the excuse that Grey uses after he rapes his girlfriend is that same excuse that real rapists use. And people actually believe it to be true. Again, this isn't fantasy. This "book" perpetuates these horrible beliefs that actually affect real people.
Sure, but when you portray a rape scene as totally romantic, and when you heavily imply that the victim can fix the rapist by just loving him more and being more submissive, you best be ready for some criticism.
You see ... The difference between an effective non-consent fantasy and romanticized abuse is that we, as the reader, should be aware that rape is wrong. We can be aroused by something which we know is wrong, and I'm not complaining about that. Again, I've written stuff like that. But this "book" fails in making the distinction clear. So many fans either didn't even think that Christian's behavior was morally wrong or they tried to justify it. 50 Shades doesn't just seek to explore fantasies. It condones and romanticizes abusive behavior, and that's where it crosses the line.
I'm with the Christians on this one. You can have a Dom/sub relationship (and even a Master/slave) without demeaning or abusing the sub. I am personally against the sub role. But at least I realize that there's a world of difference between a consensual, respectful relationship that involves a power dynamic and the blatant abuse that is romanticized in 50 Shades. This "book" is not about a Dom/sub relationship. It's about a man controlling and demeaning a woman who he considers to be a glorified doll.
Last edited:
You can't have a sub/dom relationship if one party isn't willing, and the book has given lots of women stones to admit they'd like it. That's my only point, really. That's it. I'm not condoning, and haven't condoned, the psychological abuse or obsessive pursuance or one-willed relationship in the book. I simply haven't.
And I'm only saying that your point is not sufficient to defend this "book." If the pros and cons of this "book" were two people on a see-saw, the pros would be pre-mature infant and the cons would be Andre the Giant.
Additionally, if you want to spread the good word about BDSM, pick any one of the thousands of books that don't get it completely wrong and portray it as abuse.
Lastly, to say that terribly-written Twilight porn is "liberating women's sexuality" and it's "what women really want but wouldn't admit previously" is just insulting. It'd be like saying that a knock-off of the worst Michael Bay film is profoundly inspirational to so many men. It'd be like saying that White Chicks is a staple of African American culture.
We can do better. If we can't, and 50 Shades is liberating to women, you can just call Charon up and get me on the ferry to Hell now.
Additionally, if you want to spread the good word about BDSM, pick any one of the thousands of books that don't get it completely wrong and portray it as abuse.
Lastly, to say that terribly-written Twilight porn is "liberating women's sexuality" and it's "what women really want but wouldn't admit previously" is just insulting. It'd be like saying that a knock-off of the worst Michael Bay film is profoundly inspirational to so many men. It'd be like saying that White Chicks is a staple of African American culture.
We can do better. If we can't, and 50 Shades is liberating to women, you can just call Charon up and get me on the ferry to Hell now.
The fact that you intensely dislike it, that you think it shouldn't be culturally important, and that you and I agree it portrays and romanticizes an abusive relationship( as is the author's right, by the way) doesn't take away from the fact that for thousand of women reading it, it has given them inspiration to pursue better sex lives.
I can make any point sufficient to 'defend the book', if that's what I'm doing, but it isn't. What I'm really saying is, to the thousands of women who've made it a platform to get their husband's to spice things up -- ''good for you!!'
In my opinion it's about time women (and men) in modern relationships recognized that dull sex lives are one of the most detrimental types in a marriage, next to abusive sex lives and non-existent sex lives. If you want marriages to last longer, you gotta be willing to discover what fulfills your partner, safely, consensually and openly. If it's BDSM, then I'm all for them. Some women don't like it; they don't have to participate. And while the book does, as I've said several times, portray in its non-sexual relationship dynamic a man who has complete psychological authority over a woman, that just exaggerates the sexual dynamic of domination. Yes, of course, it might make people think ''abuse is okay'', but not one person on this thread has relayed such a view, yet all of us are aware of, or have read, the book. Perhaps that tells you people aren't as stupid as you think they are.
A loving, committed adult relationship is about what works for two people, not what a fictional book romanticizes. There's no checklist of what makes a good marriage, just like there's no checklist of what makes a good sex life, everybody's different. That said, BDSM seems to be on the modern agenda (for which Fifty Shades has done much), yet abuse is most definitely not. Nobody, man or woman, wants to be on the end of an abusive partner, and I certainly don't think two committed partners, one of whom reads fifty shades and asks her husband to get some handcuffs and chains, are about to embark on rape, physical abuse and psychological oppression. They love one another, and they would try different things out of a desire to try them; that requires trust and respect to begin with.
Exaggeration of domination in a fictional book is not a blueprint for an exciting sex life or a good relationship. It is however, considering its sales and responses from many, many women -- my friends, aunts, friends' girlfriends, sex experts -- evidence that a lot of women find sexual adventurousness arousing.
Please refer to context. You're making huge, universal statements out of what I have written in context. I said the sexual experimentation within the book, and the social acceptance of the book, have enabled many women to be more honest about their sexual desires, where before they may have been too shy, timid or afraid of the taboo nature of some of them. You turned that into ''Twilight porn is liberating women's sexuality', and ''it's what women want but wouldn't previously''. I would think women have always wanted adventurous sex lives, but male oppression, social taboo and fear of rejection have coerced many women into suppressing that desire.
Fifty Shades of Grey has given many women justification to stop suppressing it.
I can make any point sufficient to 'defend the book', if that's what I'm doing, but it isn't. What I'm really saying is, to the thousands of women who've made it a platform to get their husband's to spice things up -- ''good for you!!'
In my opinion it's about time women (and men) in modern relationships recognized that dull sex lives are one of the most detrimental types in a marriage, next to abusive sex lives and non-existent sex lives. If you want marriages to last longer, you gotta be willing to discover what fulfills your partner, safely, consensually and openly. If it's BDSM, then I'm all for them. Some women don't like it; they don't have to participate. And while the book does, as I've said several times, portray in its non-sexual relationship dynamic a man who has complete psychological authority over a woman, that just exaggerates the sexual dynamic of domination. Yes, of course, it might make people think ''abuse is okay'', but not one person on this thread has relayed such a view, yet all of us are aware of, or have read, the book. Perhaps that tells you people aren't as stupid as you think they are.
A loving, committed adult relationship is about what works for two people, not what a fictional book romanticizes. There's no checklist of what makes a good marriage, just like there's no checklist of what makes a good sex life, everybody's different. That said, BDSM seems to be on the modern agenda (for which Fifty Shades has done much), yet abuse is most definitely not. Nobody, man or woman, wants to be on the end of an abusive partner, and I certainly don't think two committed partners, one of whom reads fifty shades and asks her husband to get some handcuffs and chains, are about to embark on rape, physical abuse and psychological oppression. They love one another, and they would try different things out of a desire to try them; that requires trust and respect to begin with.
Exaggeration of domination in a fictional book is not a blueprint for an exciting sex life or a good relationship. It is however, considering its sales and responses from many, many women -- my friends, aunts, friends' girlfriends, sex experts -- evidence that a lot of women find sexual adventurousness arousing.
Please refer to context. You're making huge, universal statements out of what I have written in context. I said the sexual experimentation within the book, and the social acceptance of the book, have enabled many women to be more honest about their sexual desires, where before they may have been too shy, timid or afraid of the taboo nature of some of them. You turned that into ''Twilight porn is liberating women's sexuality', and ''it's what women want but wouldn't previously''. I would think women have always wanted adventurous sex lives, but male oppression, social taboo and fear of rejection have coerced many women into suppressing that desire.
Fifty Shades of Grey has given many women justification to stop suppressing it.
These are questions asked after the reading. Correlation does not imply causation, in otherwords, there's no way to know that those who were abused were abused because of the book, in fact the notion seems crazy.
Also, conditionally, humans are more likely to seek out things with familiarity; abused citizens are more likely to be less well off; poorer people tend to buy cheaper books, and of course, the vast majority of readers of Fifty Shades are lower and middle class. People who live in poorer communities are more likely to be victims of violence or sexual crime. Poorer people tend to binge drink more than the wealthy, but I don't think that because more abused women pick up 50 Shades means 50 Shades led to their abuse. I think that's preposterous actually.
Also, conditionally, humans are more likely to seek out things with familiarity; abused citizens are more likely to be less well off; poorer people tend to buy cheaper books, and of course, the vast majority of readers of Fifty Shades are lower and middle class. People who live in poorer communities are more likely to be victims of violence or sexual crime. Poorer people tend to binge drink more than the wealthy, but I don't think that because more abused women pick up 50 Shades means 50 Shades led to their abuse. I think that's preposterous actually.
No one said that 50 Shades directly caused their abuse. But it and similar books are linked. "The women in Wood's study also referenced romantic stories in 'efforts to defend their partners from others' knowledge and criticism in order to shore up their own view of the relationship as a fairy tale romance,' as well as their belief that they deserved or provoked the violence or it was to be expected. Seventeen of the 20 said things like 'All of them (men) have bad spells -- that's what mama called them -- and sometimes you just have to overlook those.'" Romance novels, movies and more may influence women to tolerate abuse
Again, it's the underlying beliefs about what constitutes abusive behavior that are the third variable. The women who enjoyed 50 Shades didn't see Christian's behavior as wrong. It's likely that they didn't see a real romantic partner's behavior as wrong either. If they can't see that Christian's obvious stalking and abusive tendencies are wrong from the safety of their chair, what makes you think they would be able to see it when a much more subtle abuser is directly manipulating them?
Again, it's the underlying beliefs about what constitutes abusive behavior that are the third variable. The women who enjoyed 50 Shades didn't see Christian's behavior as wrong. It's likely that they didn't see a real romantic partner's behavior as wrong either. If they can't see that Christian's obvious stalking and abusive tendencies are wrong from the safety of their chair, what makes you think they would be able to see it when a much more subtle abuser is directly manipulating them?
I never said I thought they could see abuse. Most abused people come to accept the abuse as normal in some form or other. What I said was that an adult, consenting and loving couple reading Fifty Shades are hardly likely to morph their relationship into an abusive one. As for their being a link between that and other stories; again, people like to read what they can emotionally connect with in some way. That's not surprising to me, and it has virtually no bearing on this idea that 50 Shades leads to increased abuse in partnerships.
Women who have been chronically abused are likely to seek abusive partners regardless of whether they read or don't.
The book really has little to do with how they view their partner's abuse. Their upbringing, conditioning and social education have much more to do with it. In fact, their life's experiences dictate how they view the book, the book does not dictate how they view their life.
Look, I could bring you in twenty abused children and read them the book ''The Magdalene Sisters'' and I'd say most of them when asked ''Did little Bernadette deserve to be hit with the whip'' they'd say ''yea''. That doesn't mean the book affects their outlook on life, it means their outlook on life affects their interpretation of the book.
You're saying Fifity Shades reinforces the idea that abuse isn't wrong, or further deters from an abused person's ability to recognize it. That's not true. These abused women would be unable to recgonize abuse in a relationship (as they couldn't in the book) even if they'd never read it.
What's your point? Oppose any book that has abuse against women in it, incase abused women who already think abuse is normal might think abuse is normal?
Women who have been chronically abused are likely to seek abusive partners regardless of whether they read or don't.
The book really has little to do with how they view their partner's abuse. Their upbringing, conditioning and social education have much more to do with it. In fact, their life's experiences dictate how they view the book, the book does not dictate how they view their life.
Look, I could bring you in twenty abused children and read them the book ''The Magdalene Sisters'' and I'd say most of them when asked ''Did little Bernadette deserve to be hit with the whip'' they'd say ''yea''. That doesn't mean the book affects their outlook on life, it means their outlook on life affects their interpretation of the book.
You're saying Fifity Shades reinforces the idea that abuse isn't wrong, or further deters from an abused person's ability to recognize it. That's not true. These abused women would be unable to recgonize abuse in a relationship (as they couldn't in the book) even if they'd never read it.
What's your point? Oppose any book that has abuse against women in it, incase abused women who already think abuse is normal might think abuse is normal?
Last edited:
Yes. And 50 Shades normalizes it.
Couples don't read 50 Shades together. That's just silly.
I'm saying that 50 Shades and similar books are linked to abuse and normalization of abuse. We can never know whether 50 Shades would directly cause abuse, because that would be near impossible to study. But if we look at trends between two cultures - one in which abuse is regularly normalized by crap like 50 shades and one in which it isn't - the former almost always has a lot more incidents of abuse than the latter.
Books like these perpetuate and normalize these beliefs. They are a reflection of a problem with society, and they in turn feed that problem. It's cyclical ... like abuse! How can you seriously claim that literature does not influence people? That's the whole point of it. Why would I write a book if it didn't influence anyone?
But if we got more literature in which the heroine didn't justify every horrible thing the hero does, the readers might also start to realize that a man stalking them across the country is not cute or romantic.
I'm starting to think that you're deliberately misinterpreting everything I say.
I've mentioned more than once that dark romantic fantasy is okay and that I have written such things. Obviously I don't oppose it. I do oppose romanticized abuse ... in which the abuse is normalized and many readers think it's totes romantic.
Couples don't read 50 Shades together. That's just silly.
I'm saying that 50 Shades and similar books are linked to abuse and normalization of abuse. We can never know whether 50 Shades would directly cause abuse, because that would be near impossible to study. But if we look at trends between two cultures - one in which abuse is regularly normalized by crap like 50 shades and one in which it isn't - the former almost always has a lot more incidents of abuse than the latter.
Books like these perpetuate and normalize these beliefs. They are a reflection of a problem with society, and they in turn feed that problem. It's cyclical ... like abuse! How can you seriously claim that literature does not influence people? That's the whole point of it. Why would I write a book if it didn't influence anyone?
But if we got more literature in which the heroine didn't justify every horrible thing the hero does, the readers might also start to realize that a man stalking them across the country is not cute or romantic.
What's your point? Oppose any book that has abuse against women in it, incase abused women who already think abuse is normal might think abuse is normal?
I've mentioned more than once that dark romantic fantasy is okay and that I have written such things. Obviously I don't oppose it. I do oppose romanticized abuse ... in which the abuse is normalized and many readers think it's totes romantic.