Am I the only one who think the 50 shades boycott is absurd?

[Anonymous]

Claiming that 50 shades is "abusive" and glorifies abusive relationships. I mean there is a huge line between bdsm and abuse. It's one thing to smack your wife, but when a couple is into that sort of thing... It seems like a non issue.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read the book or seen the movie, but I do think people are over-reacting. But perhaps I'd feel differently if I bothered to read/watch. Not sure.

[Anonymous]

I totally agree. While I haven't seen the movie (and don't plan to), what was depicted in the book was not abuse.

[Anonymous]

I am "boycotting" because it was a horrible book. The abuse stuff is between two consenting adults, even if one of them is brainless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the book or seen the movie, but I do think people are over-reacting. But perhaps I'd feel differently if I bothered to read/watch. Not sure.

Never read or plan to watch either. There's a boycott?

[Anonymous]

Totally agree with you. I haven't read the book, and don't plan to see the movie. I don't know why the boycotters think they're going to change anyone's mind. All they're doing is drawing attention to something they oppose.

[Anonymous]

Several people from the bdsm scene came forward and described the relationship as abusive and humiliating. I saw several articles on it after the book came out.

I started reading the book but didn't like it and never finished it.

[Anonymous]

Hmm, they should read Marquis de Sade then. The term was coined from his name. Not in the same league.

Agree that boycotters are just marketing the book and movie at this point - maybe it's a ploy?

[Anonymous]

The issue is not that BDSM = abuse. The issue is that the "BDSM" being performed in the book/movie is not healthy, nor a good example for people wanting to explore this side of their sex life.

From what I understand, those who are most vocal about boycotting the movie are those involved in the BDSM community. They don't want people equating the movie with their culture, nor attempting things done in the movie and ending up with a traumatized/injured/mistrustful partner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Hmm, they should read Marquis de Sade then. The term was coined from his name. Not in the same league.

Agree that boycotters are just marketing the book and movie at this point - maybe it's a ploy?

Good point. That sort of hype worked well for The Interview.

[Anonymous]

More people should have boycotted that book. What awful writing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue is not that BDSM = abuse. The issue is that the "BDSM" being performed in the book/movie is not healthy, nor a good example for people wanting to explore this side of their sex life.

From what I understand, those who are most vocal about boycotting the movie are those involved in the BDSM community. They don't want people equating the movie with their culture, nor attempting things done in the movie and ending up with a traumatized/injured/mistrustful partner.

This is my understanding of it as well.

[Anonymous]

I think the boycott is stupid and this is coming from a guy whose ex-wife cheated on him shortly after reading the book. Call me boring, but the stuff she wanted me to do would've landed me in jail if things went awry.

I think that anyone boycotting on a moral level should have better things to do with their time. I think the BDSM community should just do a PSA or something online and call it a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue is not that BDSM = abuse. The issue is that the "BDSM" being performed in the book/movie is not healthy, nor a good example for people wanting to explore this side of their sex life.

From what I understand, those who are most vocal about boycotting the movie are those involved in the BDSM community. They don't want people equating the movie with their culture, nor attempting things done in the movie and ending up with a traumatized/injured/mistrustful partner.

This. The complaint is that the book depicts very unhealthy BDSM. I have no intention of seeing it anyway--I couldn't get more than three pages into the book, because the writing is so bad. I didn't like Twilight's depiction of relationships, and I'm not going to pay for Twilight fanfic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is not that BDSM = abuse. The issue is that the "BDSM" being performed in the book/movie is not healthy, nor a good example for people wanting to explore this side of their sex life.

From what I understand, those who are most vocal about boycotting the movie are those involved in the BDSM community. They don't want people equating the movie with their culture, nor attempting things done in the movie and ending up with a traumatized/injured/mistrustful partner.

This. The complaint is that the book depicts very unhealthy BDSM. I have no intention of seeing it anyway--I couldn't get more than three pages into the book, because the writing is so bad. I didn't like Twilight's depiction of relationships, and I'm not going to pay for Twilight fanfic.

I talked to someone in the BDSM community about this book. They both said it is a poor depiction. The safe word/action is IT. When that happens things stop, immediately. Apparently at times in the book that doesn't happen. He is a manipulative control freak, it is not an equal relationship at all.

I'm with you on Twilight, and I couldn't get into 50 Shades at all either.