Tell that to your girlfriend/wife/sister/writing partner, who started name-calling out of the blue. This is a unique logical approach! You claim someone is a sexist, and when asked to supply proof, your response is "now YOU have to prove that they are not a sexist! That's not the way logic works. I don't have to prove anything. You're the one that made the outrageous claim, and has to back it up. How about I make the statement "TTrian is an awful racist who hates blacks, Asians, and Hispanics"? By your logic, I don't need to supply any evidence for this, and the onus is on you to prove me wrong. Correct. So are most men, in fact, but it extends to both genders. Is Fitzgerald a sexist for writing a female character that suffers from these traits? Or rather, because beating up on a silly strawman that no one made is far easier than actually engaging people on the arguments they did.
I do have relatives there, at least half-a-hundred in fact. Oslo was where I visited mostly, but we drove around the country a lot. As for whaling, I don't really blame them. I can't see the difference between most whales and cows. Dolphins, you could argue, are highly intelligent tough. Anyway, this is off-topic.
[MENTION=39851]E. C. Scrubb[/MENTION]: I'm quite well versed in judging the validity of various medical research, and I can tell you straight away that the MRI data does not automatically mean what you think it means. The 'facts' you extrapolated aren't actually valid at all. Brain imaging studies are notoriously misleading that is to say, the causal relationship isn't as straightforward precisely because of the brain complexity, and many different interactions. Also, the brain is incredible at taking over the functions of another part, so the fact different areas light up in young brains doesn't mean a function is actually lacking. It may just mean it's being carried out elsewhere at this moment. Any doctor worth their salt will confirm this, because we are trained to critically appraise papers in order to be able to distinguish between fact and 'fact'. As you can imagine, in a wild jungle of medical research, this is really important. However, brain research is sensational by nature, so there are thousands if studies that try to prove causal links for fame and glory, and that's how we get medical professionals to make outlandish claims. They can't be disproven, because they are speculating, but they can't exactly prove it either. So it goes in the pile of 'better luck next time'. And maybe, eventually, it will be proven as a fact, but we need to wait until then before we embrace it and start acting accordingly. From experience, the best way to assess competence in anyone is through cognitive assessement and conversation. This is why brain imaging is usually rejected in criminal courts as well (as evidence of propensity to violence and similar). Brains vary, people vary, behaviours are sufficiently complex to need multiple variables to explain them. Such as when a researcher discovers a psychopathic brain scan pattern, and does years of work to prove the causality, and then does his own brain for comparison and finds that he has the same pattern. Even though he's never been violent and is actually reasonably empathic, even if quite narcissistic (true story). We are stumbling in the dark on brain research, maybe we have a tiny candle burning, but we are far from being illuminated about it yet.
Right now to me it looks like this sex issue isn't so much about brain development as it is about other factors, such as education, upbringing, and life experiences of an individual. I know we should guide youngsters, but we shouldn't underestimate them or go big brother on them. If they are taught about the life long effects, they know how to take that into consideration (though, of course, some may choose not to). By the way, young or old, people sometimes get carried away when between the sheets. They know they might catch something, they know there's the danger of unplanned offspring, but sometimes it goes like this: 'goddammit I'm so horny I promise I'm clean yeah ok baby I'll take the morning after pill let's just do this!' And you don't have to be 16 to end up blundering like this. Some are able to handle the responsibility, some end up doing things they'll later regret. Sometimes impulses take the best of us, sometimes we manage to control them. I had the good sense to turn down certain dubious invitations that included free booze and two 20-something fellas even though I was 15, a raging bag of hormones, and somewhat under the influence at the time. You can just smell it that a combo like that is not going to turn out right -- even with underdeveloped brain. On the other hand, I do understand that life is not all rainbows and butterflies and that even in a by-the-book relationship with that cute classmate mistakes can happen and things aren't always thought through, but still the notion of telling them to wait and not enjoy their youth rubs me the wrong way. Hmmm... okay, I apologize, I was clearly out of line; just woken up and coffee-depraved. I wasn't able to control my impulses... :redface:
This is very true. I think most people have good instincts if they're willing to pay attention to them regardless of age. Some people are more in tune with it than others I've noticed. This reminded me of something that happened to my sister and I when we were younger. I believe I was about ten and she was seven. We were out riding our bikes and I had this feeling we shouldn't go down this particular street. Something about it just gave me a weird feeling. So we went on down another way and told my mom about it and a week later find out a child molester lived down that way. Unfortunately he was not prosecuted because all of the victims were too afraid to come forward but can you blame them? I've lost count of how many times a person, place, or situation gave me a strange feeling. I've avoided people before who gave me a weird feeling only to later find out they were into some pretty bad stuff. Another example was this kid that was hanging around at my church. On the surface he seemed pretty nice but I kept getting this weird feeling about him as did a couple of other people I knew. Later we find out he stabbed himself in an effort to frame his uncle for assault. If you feel strange about any person or situation you should always pay attention to that. I think we're taught to dull down our senses because we're told it's being rude or paranoid. Sometimes being "rude" will save you from a lot of trouble.
I agree with this. The fear of being rude has sometimes gotten people mugged or hurt, unfortunately. This is not to say we shouldn't help a lost tourist, but we can learn to recognize some signs of possible trouble and brace ourselves for it (keep your eyes open and bag close). Okay, I may come off a total lunatic when I'm on a jog in the evening, some guy approaches me asking for light, and I sprint the hell out of there without a word, but seriously, who carries a lighter on a jog anyway? Sorry, this was too OT, but just wanted to respond to what Terra said.
No, it definitely isn't, but to reiterate, I don't advocate pressuring anyone into doing anything they don't want to do, regardless of age, sex, whatever, and telling someone they should do something is, in my book, tantamount to pressuring them into doing it. However, I believe discouraging is also a form of pressuring and also should be avoided. What I do believe is that we should provide as much information as possible to teens so they could make educated choices on the matter themselves without pressure into either direction. Wife. And I did, or, rather, suggested it, but you appear to have missed the part in parenthesis "(and this goes for everyone)". Although it's not my place to tell her to do anything, she did apologize a couple of posts above this one. Sarcastic remarks aside, I actually didn't make that claim, KaTrian did, and provided an example from the book, but you appear to have chosen to disregard it. That isn't the way logical argumentation works either. The only reason I asked for you to provide other evidence to support your claim was because ignoring someone's evidence/example against your argument usually implies you have evidence to the contrary and would present it. But seeing as how I don't know the book in question that well, this is as far as I'll participate in the conversation regarding its contents. From what I've observed, Fitzgerald tends to portray a larger percentage of his female characters as petty and jealous as he does in the case of male characters. That would make him a sexist. Of course pettiness isn't a constant and due to the subjective nature of literary analysis, it's impossible to find a definite answer, so if both parties of the argument hold on to their views and neither is able to convince the other to change their opinion, we arrive at a stalemate. Well, here it would be probably the most productive to agree to disagree. I believe it's in the nature of discourse to bring up new issues regarding the subject even if they are only partly related to what the other party is saying. Since there are quite a few people (in the world) who do believe people under 18 shouldn't do this or that (in the context of this discussion, have sex), as long as we are discussing the proper age to start one's sex life, I brought it up so we can consider that viewpoint and its validity, or lack thereof, in this discussion. But naturally you are free to agree or disagree. I would also like to point out that contrary to what you claim here, I have and do engage people on the arguments they did. I agree 100%. Furthermore, I believe teaching kids that they should always be polite is downright criminal if the advice isn't given proper context. We should teach kids to be polite and friendly, but also explain when and why it's okay to be rude.
Yes, that was very considerate and mature on her part. Too generous, even; I don't think an apology was required. Hardly. I responded directly to her example. Again, when someone makes a bold claim ("Fitzgerald was sexist!"), the onus is on them to prove it. The only thing I have to do is disprove their logic. Nothing more. That's the way logic works. Care to be more specific from whence these observations come from? You admitted above to not being familiar with one of his most famous characters (Josephine Perry) and series of stories. As for myself, having read every novel and short story Fitzgerald ever penned, I couldn't disagree more. I see no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. Ah, so by this argument, every writer/thinker can credibly be called a racist, sexist, and homophobe! Then, when pressed for details, mention being unfamiliar with their writings, and declare that it's a "stalemate"!
[MENTION=54840]IronPalm[/MENTION]: By the way, the reason why I haven't continued conversing whether Fitzgerald (or more accurately, his writing) was sexist or not with you is because it has even less to do with the topic of this thread than the discussion about teenagers and sex. Perhaps a separate thread should be started e.g in the book discussion room.
I said "from what I've observed," which leaves room for misinterpretations. Since it's been a while since I read anything by Fitzgerald, I can't comment on whether my observation, made a long time ago, holds water or doesn't. I just mentioned the general impression I'd gotten. Sorry I can't be more specific at this time. If I get back to his works, I'll return to the topic. As far as argumentation and logic go, when discussing a work, if someone gives examples of why a book seems sexist, it takes more from a good rebuttal than "no it isn't." An explanation of why it isn't sexist would be logical when someone has given an example of why it is. All the evidence in contrary to KT's claims you gave was " In my opinion, his female characters are excellent and realistic in that book." Then again, since I'm not that interested in Fitzgerald's works, let's agree that you're right, whatever the reason might be. Or start a new thread on the subject if anyone cares to discuss this OT further. No need to get upset. I merely said that what looks sexist, racist, homophobic etc. to some, may not look so to someone else. Am I wrong? And if, for instance, one side of the argument holds that a character in a book is petty while the other doesn't, and neither has sufficient evidence to convince the other, since there are no referees here, the end result is a stalemate, like it or not. For instance, you could read my writing in the Writing Workshop and claim that I'm e.g. a misogynist. I would, of course, argue against it and provide all the evidence I can, but if that evidence is inconclusive, i.e. cannot be substantiated (especially if the argument regards something intangible such as an attitude supposedly represented in a work of fiction), and the evidence is insufficient to convince you that I am not a misogynist, where does that leave us if not in a stalemate? Especially since this meta discussion is way OT, so this is my last post regarding the subject. If that's not good enough for you, well, that's not my problem.
Well, several pretty diverse topics have come up here since I last checked... 1) Whaling makes me cry. (Maybe makes me wail? Whaling produces wailing for me?) Anyway, very sad and large topic that is very related to the animal emotion topic that was just recently discussed here on another thread. 2) That whole 'sixth sense' thing is very valid. I think much of it comes from social cues/body language from a person, without even realizing it, and often without the person interpreting those clues even realizing they are doing so -- they just know that something is off. Maybe it's not enough eye contact, or too much eye contact, or inappropriate staring, or a sense of distraction, or a number of other things. People are told all the time to trust their gut. Although sometimes we may be wrong due to paranoia or some kind of other distraction or overactive imagination, it is true that you are better off safe than sorry. We take in so much information each day, and we are only consciously aware of a very small percentage of it (another very interesting area of brain research). But that information does reach us, so we can 'know' a lot of things that we don't realize we know, or maybe haven't consciously processed. I think that's a big part of this 'gut feeling' that something isn't right. We may have received clues, but at the time they were disregarded as not relevant or not as important to something else we were taking in at the time. 3) As far as: I don't think we're really all that far off. The whole issue of encouraging/discouraging something takes place on a continuum. On one end, there's pressure, or outright rewards for doing something. The pressure or reward-giving could be constant or intermittent. The levels of both of these vary based on who is giving the pressure or reward. Similarly, there is pressure not to do something, or punishments for doing so. Beyond just saying something is not a good idea, one could go beyond the natural consequences of whatever action is being discouraged, and go directly to some sort of external punishments. As related to sex, two pretty large discouraging punishments are along the lines of divine retribution -- i.e., you'll burn in Hell for all eternity if you have sex, and maybe for good measure, "if I ever find out you did it, you'll be kicked out of the house and disowned and I'll never speak to you again." Those are some pretty steep discouragements. There's also the sort of threat of I won't be your boyfriend anymore if you're not willing to have sex sort of pressure. Or the related, if you really loved me and cared about me, you'd have sex with me. Or it would make me so happy if you'd have sex with me, or I'll buy you an engagement ring if you have sex with me, or all kinds of things along those lines. So we're talking about different kinds of pressure and incentives. From the potential partner, from parents or religious or societal institutions, and also from peers. When this sub-topic came up, T, you made a statement (at this point it's so far back that I can't easily scroll to it, so I'm relying on memory), along the lines of that it was a good idea for teens to have sex, because it will give them more experience with it, make them more comfortable with it, and even more open about it by the time they're older and maybe meet their potential spouse. I don't think that the reasons supporting your position are completely invalid, and I think they make a lot of sense as far as they are applied to premarital sex overall, or the specific issue of needing to wait until one is married to have sex. There are certain issues that arise with doing that, and I personally don't think it's always the best plan to hold to that policy, especially if one doesn't get married until he or she is thirty or older. But that's not what we were discussing -- we were specifically discussing teens. My issue with your position is very specifically with the idea of encouraging teens to have sex. This has an implication of suggesting it as a good idea, or even saying, "You should really go out and have sex. You need to get some practice in, it will be really good for you. You'll be glad you did." The problems I have with any sort of active encouragement are that: A) once that biological urge takes over, reason and rational thought take a back seat. No additional encouragement is necessary. B) Active encouragement could make someone seek to have sex and then have it when they're not really ready for it. C) Active encouragement could serve as a type of 'reward' in that if some trusted older person encouraged it, that kind of places an additional weight on the scale, in that the person could follow the advice at least in part to please that person. That sort of consideration is really not desirable in the decision of whether to engage sex. It really should be based solely on the needs, goals and motivations of the two people involved. Now, when we're dealing with teenagers, they're just about all considering having sex if presented with the opportunity. (Probably the biggest barrier to most of them is a lack of opportunity, although they could certainly seek out ways to create those opportunities.) There are up-sides and down-sides to the issue of sex. Many are relationship-based. As I said before, teen relationships are fragile. Teen decision-making is not as well-developed as adult decision making. Relationship issues loom particularly large, and there is not the same ability to isolate one's self from another person should that be necessary or desirable, and since both parties don't have the life experience and maturity to deal optimally with many of these issues, the possibility of psychological turmoil is particularly acute. Add into the mix the potential practical problems that arise and the answer to the question, "Is it a good idea for me to have sex," when applied to a teen is no. The downsides outweigh the upsides. So, we don't need additional encouragement weighing the scale on the side of having sex as a teen. The reality is that when you are not having sex, there are a lot of things that you don't have to worry about at all. When you're a teen, there is enough stress as it is, so in the abstract, it is better to minimize those stresses. Of course, sex doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's rarely the result of a well-thought out, reasoned decision (although it can be). Even if a teen has considered the issue, and arrived at a steadfast decision not to have sex, it still happens. It's going to happen whether we encourage it or discourage it. As I said, we don't need additional encouragement for it to occur. How active the discouragement has been, though, also has significant psychological effects. There is a huge difference between, "I better not ever find out you've had sex, or you're no longer my child," versus "I don't think it's a good idea, because you could possibly get pregnant/impregnate someone or contract a disease. And your partner might not feel the same way about it as you do." I don't think the former position does anyone any good. My position is more the latter. Our disagreement stems from the idea of active encouragement. Not encouraging something is not the same as discouraging. Although in this case, mild discouragement and not encouraging can mean similar things, neither of them is the same as intense discouragement, or the use of shame and punishment. Not encouraging something can also mean the same thing as neutrality, although it this case, I'm not actually neutral. I just want to point out the potential for that position as well. My stance on this issue is simply one of discouragement without resorting to shame and punishment, and mild discouragement at that. This is also complicated by the idea that giving information about sex and sexual issues is tantamount to encouragement. This is actually an argument frequently used by those who engage in strong discouragement against sex education programs -- they believe that giving information will lead to teens having sex. I don't believe that this is true. Teens can be fully informed and decide not to have sex. I don't see the dispensing of information -- any information, as active encouragement. Plus it can be prefaced with the idea of, "if you decide to do it, these are the risks and this is what you need to know about minimizing those risks. But the risks are always there and you need to be prepared."
Well what does one say about this. It was a book series that pissed off a community/subculture, misrepresented that culture, and was one of the worst things to have ever been written. The movie was awful, the trees I believed were the best part of the whole damn thing. They should win an award for best supporting scenery, because they were more believable than the wooden puppets that were supposed to be actors. First time in my life when I thought the scenery was the best part, and role in a movie before. Shame they won't land another gig, since being cast in such a terrible screen play pandering to inept people who act like EL James created BDSM when it has been around for at least a few centuries. (Pretty sure the Spanish inquisition had a little something in the way of a hand in creating the sexual practice people enjoy today). Well enough about this atrocity and it's movie.
This may be an old thread, but it's certainly the liveliest here on the subject of Fifty Shades and so I'm throwing my own opinion in. I don't read erotica or 'racy' books normally, but I have read Lady Chatterley, Girls by Nic Kelman and Lovey Childs by John O'Hara, all of which made an impression on me and I would definitely read them again. Wandering around a book show recently, I picked up Fifty Shades simply because I wanted to discover what all the hooha was about and why so many people had bought the book. I also made sure that I read the book before watching the film, which in the end proved to be neither here nor there. I think it was the second or third appearance of Ana's inner goddess that clinched it for me, not to mention laters baby and the rest of the book then felt like walking through treacle. It was a real struggle to get to the end and I really wanted to get to the end because I hate abandoning a book. But in this case I wish I had as I felt nothing at all for the main characters. In fact they were completely unlikeable. A few weeks later we watched the film. My wife fell asleep beside me a quarter of the way through, yet I concluded that the film was a slightly more bearable experience than reading the book, but only just. As others have said, good luck to the author, but it's certainly a reminder that financial success isn't always reflected in the quality of the writing, to put it mildly.
Oh dear! Although I am not a fan of the books I feel this is all a bit harsh. Reading through all the opinions on FSOG makes me think twice before wanting to post any of my work on here for people to critique. If you thought her writing was bad...I don't stand a chance. Definitely a cash cow though, without doubt, especially now that film two and three are on the way.
Bummer. ... DH for me, he is the don of sexy. Anais Nin - is quite sexy, the African chap with his big arms? As for @Tenderiser, she posted some James Joyce 'sex letters' here - on the forum. I read these to my wife. She gave me that face, kind of mid-week mischief kind of face of despair. These words were 'beyond the pale,' she said, and for me obliterates any reputation he [JJ] may have established - to date, or previously. A real dog, not manly, or seemly. ... Also - isn't BDSM kind of shit, like sex with armbands?
No, no it isn't. It can be practiced without every engaging in full on intercourse. There is plenty of information and elder practitioners that can better explain these concepts than little old me.
Trust me, I was only being to kind. I absolutely loath the 50SOG series for just how badly it is written alone, and that is before getting into the Lifestyle aspect of it that is complete and total misrepresentation of what it actually is. There is so much wrong with it I could spend the better part of a day dissecting it down in explanation.
I bet there is, but go on... give it a go or better still, maybe matwoolf will enlighten us. That version is sure to crack me up.
I don't think - never written a bondage story. ..I suppose it would be all right in a parallel universe, careful now, umm turning the screen away, darling, the sun's glare is deafening... Mother attached clamps to my nipples during those bath times. Hunched before the electric fire, she washed me, used a turkey baster held in the black rubber gloves. Then, immersed in my warm water tub, she spread her toes, tickled talc under my chubby chins, how I chortled, I was her fat baby. People now, today ask me how, why as an executive director of a top industry FTSE going forward why me, why I associate, snort cocaine, jacuzzi, bubble deep among jazz ladies, hang in chains, and why?
First off you have your casuals, those that simply do the stereotypical tie up whipping/flogging or whatever (mainstream if you will). Not someone with a great understanding of the complexities that are involved in the inner workings. Think of it like picking up a copy of the Kama Sutra because you want to try and utilize the complex sexual positions for the carnal act itself, without understanding that it was designed for a better spiritual connection to your partner. There is quite a bit of philosophy and spirituality within the text that most simply skip in loo of trying to play contortionist with their partner. In BDSM there are similar concepts (contortion is optional ). Submissive or Sub Space, is a mental state that is achieved from either being in extended bondage, or through another means such as being flogged as one example. This state can be considered spiritual or philosophical in nature depending on the individuals ideology, and generates a sense of euphoria in the mind from the stimulus to the body. Which in turn is interpreted as being both psychological and sexual. It gives the individual a mental discipline and gratification from going through the activity being carried out, and varies widely between Submissives. One of the aspects in the dynamic is the level of trust and comfort with the Dominant that is implementing such things upon them. As well as the aftercare that is involved at the end of a session depending on it's intensity. This ensures that the mental state of both parties is healthy, and helps a Submissive with feeling well as well as making sure they are physically cared for from such activity. Most times the Dominant and Submissive have a mutual verbal arrangement, a physical contract can be drawn up. Although that will more than likely be foregone in most cases, the exception being meeting up with a professional where it is similar to a business transaction for a service. Either way there is always a meeting between both parties to discuss terms of what is to take place before hand. Safety is a major point that must be addressed, cause you can really screw up somebody mentally and physically. Also having open dialogue and checking with the Submissive regularly to make sure that it is alright to continue through out. Safewords are established as a way to let the Dominant know : "Hey I am in severe stress and need to stop now!", and there is the common red/yellow/green method to define where the Submissive is and to let the Dominant know if they are ok to proceed, ease up, or stop completely. The more intense the scene the more safety and awareness involved. Now we will be exploring things like heavy flogging/whipping, sharps play (needles, cutting, branding,stapling), electrical play, chemical play, and anything inserted or considered procedural (catheters, urethral sounds, dental apparatus and power tools, etc.). First off don't play with such things without getting a base level knowledge (or some technical application such as a course on any of the aforementioned), as well as all safety concerns and so forth. Once that degree of understanding and respect for such things has been established then you learn how to apply it to the scene. Communication should always be present in these much more complex scenes as you really can cause a lot of harm to a Submissive, as well as the Dominant. Having an established set of hand signals is a must if using things like gags, and a general knowledge of a Submissive's physical cues of distress. Immediately address these signs, or stop the scene altogether depending on the urgency of the situation and distress level. It is one thing to help a Submissive push their limits further and further, and it is out right sadistic to simply torture them. So play with caution and SCC (safe, sane, consenual). This is the best of my knowledge within the BDSM Lifestyle, and as you can plainly see is completely in contrast of 50SOG. There is so much more involved than simply 'sign this and I get to do whatever I feel like doing to you'. That is just plain dumb, and even more so for someone like Anna Steele as she has no real knowledge of what she is getting into. That and Christian Grey is just a jackass that uses his crummy childhood to act like a prick. I hope you have found this useful in getting at least a basic understanding of how BDSM works, and the dos and don'ts. As well as why 50SOG should not be used as a platform for such activity. Also why the BDSM community finds it so deplorable, and harmful to the uninitiated.
Wow! Forget FSOG more like 50 Caves of Troll. You have done your home work. I didn't realise the BDSM community found the books so deplorable, but I can understand (thanks to you) why they did. I'm sure this is not the only subject to be showcased in such a way. I bet there are other communities that have suffered the same fate.
Thanks @Crybaby That was solely based on discussions with others, what I have read in articles, and my own personal exp. Everyone has their own unique twist on it. And you are probably right that there are other communities that have been misrepresented by some 'wikipedia expertise' that has no real clue.
