Sexual Relationships 
Sexual Health 
Ok... So, that book. Yeah, THAT one.
First, let's reprise 4 things we DO know about ... that book.
1)
It's really bad. (In fact, it's so bad that I genuinely thought it was intended as a burlesque, or a lampoon, when I first read it.)
2)
The title character is a fucked-up creepy psycho stalker with mommy issues. There's nothing authentically dominant about him whatsoever. He has a troubling attraction to helplessness and naïveté, and the story sure as hell doesn't help equally naïve readers distinguish between dominance and abuse.
3)
The story certainly doesn't do BDSM or its cognoscenti any favors, either. (The title character is said to have first become submissive, as the result of, essentially, statutory rape -- and then somehow evolved into this faux-dominant poser. There are so many things wrong with this portrayal that I don't even know where to start counting -- or where to stop facepalming.)
4)
But... it's a cultural sensation nonetheless.
Its effects have spilled over into the public consciousness, the incidence rate of STI's among the post-menopausal crowd, and even the inventory turnover of hardware stores.
Yep.
__
OK, that's the background.
Now, let's talk about a MORE insidious effect of That Book -- about which I haven't heard as much chatter, either in real life or on the internet.
Thanks to that book... For a lot of people, fuckin' can't just be fuckin' anymore.
THAT.
The most pernicious effect of this whole 50 Shades phenomenon, as I see it, is that many of the book's devotees have started to view EVERY sex act through the lens of "domination" and/or "submission".
EVERY SINGLE THING.
For these unfortunates... fuckin' has lost its ability to just be fuckin'. Sex can't just be sex anymore -- it HAS to be power games, all the time.
Don't get me wrong here -- I LOVE sexual power games. Deep in mah darkest deepest heart of hearts (yes, I actually have a heart), I'm one of the most sexually submissive creatures that ever rolled off the machines of God's North American manufacturing works. I had lurid fantasies at age 11 that would make post-apocalyptic warlords blush. I can have blinding orgasms just from being slapped across the face -- by the man I love -- with the perfect verbal lashing to accompany it... let alone more intense things. #fuckyeahmarriedlife
...AND STILL.
Still.
Even for a degenerate like me... MOST fuckin' is just fuckin'. MOST sex is NEITHER "dominant" NOR "submissive" -- but MOST sex includes a healthy complement of making sweet hot intense emotionally invested luuuuvvv.
...And THAT's the biggest problem this 50 Shades phenomenon has caused -- ALL THAT has been lost, for many of the book's biggest aficionados.
For far too many 50 Shades fans... BDSM limits, rather than enriches, their sexuality.
I've seen and heard discussions -- not only on the internet (where every imaginable manner of weird discussion prevails), but even in real life -- about things like whether it's "inherently submissive" to go down on a woman.
Sweet hell, I even heard a serious conversation once between a couple of thirtyish guys -- in the real, live, living breathing world -- about whether it was "submissive" to KISS a woman.
I SWEAR.
Yeah, they were a little tipsy... but... SRSLY?
Worst case scenario, there's going to be a whole army of disaffected women whose faux-"dominant" boyfriends are afraid to go down on them. Or even KISS them.
And however many thousands of men AND women with, essentially, stunted sexual growth. Unable to just make sweet love.
NO sex act is inherently "dominant" or "submissive".
Not a single one.
As an analogy, consider the word "bitch". "Bitch" is a word.
Think of all the different ways a man could say "Bitch" to a woman.
• He could be sniveling and butthurt, and it'll just make him seem even more pathetic.
• If she's afraid that she's rubbed someone the wrong way, he could say it sarcastically, and -- ironically -- comfort her.
• He could glower at her with fire and anger -- and passion -- in his eyes, and scream it at her because he loves her so much and hates her so much... all at once.
• He could say it while he fucks her into sweet orgasmic bliss -- to let her know in no uncertain terms that she's his bitch.
Etc.
You get me.
With ANY sex act, it's the same.
The THINGS you do in bed are like words. They can communicate absolutely anything you want them to communicate. If you read something as "inherently submissive", then that's your fault, for having such a limited point of view.
With the right lover, ANY sex act can be "submissive"... or "dominant"... or loving... or degrading... or maybe all of the above, all at once.
Or none of the above. Because sometimes, fuckin' is just fuckin'.
#BATTLEROYALE #TeamRJ
What Girls & Guys Said
18 32I don't slut around...
Okay... Nothing in this take is necessarily about "slutting around". The same issues can -- and do -- affect sex within relationships, too.
I kinda disagree with "No sex act is inherently "dominant" or "submissive"...";
I'm naturally dominant and always on top.
You're saying that woman-on-top is ALWAYS "dominant"? (Or that being on the bottom is ALWAYS "submissive", and that's why you avoid it?) Oh dear... Sweetheart. Honestly I feel sorry for you -- limiting yr sexuality so severely, for basically no reason at all. Just do some thought experiments. Pick random combinations of dom/sub/neutral and sex acts, and use yr imagination to make them work together. For instance, if you're on top, but the man is just lying back and making you *perform* for him... who's "dominant"? If you lie back, spread yr legs, give that come-hither look and say "You BETTER please me, boy..." -- then who's in control there? Yeahhh...
Nobody is making me perform, I do it because it turns me on ;)
I didn't like that book either. It was really cheap reading. So fake and shallow, and repetitive and artless. Is "holy shit" even a word? And the whole thing is materialistic, without so much as a decent story to it. An idiot dreaming about everything you can buy in a store in a boring materialistic order.
(The only useful idea in it was the relationship contract. It makes sense. Do things in the right order. First know what you want, then find out if what you want is what the other person wants too or is at least able to agree to - in writing. Then make love, fall for each other, get married and have babies. We are doing it the other way around these days. First people get pregnant, then they decide to be in a relationship because of the baby, then they get married, then they find out that they are falling in love. But shortly after they discover what they want, and that they are not able to give each other what the other person needs. And finally they get divorced.) And even that idea was so mechanically implemented that a 2 year old could tell the author was trying to sugar coat that idea and feed it to the audience.
I'm so sorry that this sort of junk even has a market. How low our society has fallen... what a pity.
Try reading "Cashelmara" by Susan howatch. You will see what a work of art it is.
"How low our society has fallen" ^^ Easy to toss out complaints like this one, but WWII-era dime novels weren't any deeper lol. And neither were the Canterbury Tales, tbh... Cheap entertainment has always been a thing. It isn't the junk factor that concerns me; it's the distortion of certain ideas. And the notion that it's ok for a guy to be a stalker if he's rich enough, and the not-so-subtle pro-ana subtext... and and and. I'm not a fan of how they did the whole relationship contract thing, either. First, it was unilateral -- I hope I don't need to point out the problem there. Second, it didn't have much to do with an actual *relationship*; it was mostly just minutiae. Third, if you have to make yr "sub" sign contracts, I guess you aren't so "dominant" after all, now, are you. (:
Right! :-)
Funny take. I guess people overthink. Love the gifs, they are good.
Care to check out my take? www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a30526-why-are-women-only-sexual-with-guys-who-aren-t-long-term-material
Well?
If only ever women was like you. <3
What do you mean, specifically? lol
I just find that you are like the perfect women, most certainly from the inside. Like i have seen your answers on this site and its so different to the younger girls. As a guy i feel like you have that perfect balance of "femininity" in my eyes. You just know how to make a man feel and your views on most topics are god like. Its like you are a women from a much older generation. Its beautiful to see how you carefully construct your words without letting people (especially guys) feel like you are putting them down. I don't know... but i feel you have that older feminine spark that i don't see in many women today... i must say that i enjoy "seeing" it. That real inner femininity, that makes a guy want to listen to you even if you are wrong about something. Its beautiful to see
ahah well thank you, I appreciate that. It's definitely heartfelt, and I can tell. <3 Maybe I'm actually 141 years old! Of course I'd like to know yr username (:
Its really my pleasure. I do love to see the way you right are you must be so awesome in real life. I mean... just to sit and have some coffee and chat generally... WOW. Haha, i prefer to stay anon please. Maybe i'll drop a message sometime. If i can make one tiny suggestion... please don't get offended as i really admire your writing. *talks in a soft voice..."maybe try to cut down on the curse words... please" <3 :)
ahah but I love me a good F-bomb. "Bomb" in every possible sense. Supremely effective if well-timed and well-positioned... sometimes just blows everything to bits. Lol no one's perfect, right? <3
Yea, i guess i could live with that. You are the best #redeyemindtricks :) <3
The fact that this book was so popular leads me to believe that most people are bad at sex. It's as if they forgot sex existed until they read this book.
Great take by queen of GAG, Einstein of GAG. I appreciate, like n love u dear. 😊💕
ahah tx <3
I've both read the book and seen the movie and I'd have to say, I think too many people give way too much credit to either for how it has either changed or shaped people's sexual experiences from that point forward. For example: I read tons of books where someone is murdered by some maniac killer. It's practically in every thriller, and yet, after reading such fiction and seeing such movies, my instinct is not, let me go try that because it's a fiction and life unlike fiction, has real consequences. Will you get those 5 people who do read something and do somehow decide to do it, of course, but considering on mass how many people read 50 shades or read thrillers and their lives remain exactly as they were before, I certainly don't think this book has inspired a sexual revolution. It may have wrongly informed a few million people about BDSM, but other than that, not so much.
People in the BDSM world were already in that world. Granted some nubes on the fence might have been slightly more encouraged to get into the world after reading/seeing the book/film, but they already had a certain proclivity to want to try it. I think from the male perspective, the good ones anyway, have been trained not to hurt women in anyway, even playfully, and so the idea that they are suddenly out there with whips and chains... and women are going for that in droves, strikes me as a fiction in and of itself, because they no more want to be whipped and beat up, than do their male counterparts.
No, it really *did* open up a whole new world to a bunch of people whose thoughts had never run anywhere close to it. The "n00bs on the fence" would have already known enough to know that the book is bullshit, and that its portrayal of d/s is laughable. They aren't the issue. There really WERE a whole bunch of 40-something and 50-something housewife types whose minds were suddenly blitzed with this idea that they might actually have certain tendencies of which they'd been completely unaware for their whole lives. That was absolutely a thing that happened.
People make it out to seem just like they do with school shooting and violent movies... look, the Matrix came out, so now every kid who saw it is some kind of violent maniac, when that's simply not true statistically. Do a few go that way, do a few bored housewives want to try something else, yeah, but considering your number, what was it, 10 billion people or whatever have read and/or seen the movie, it wasn't some all powerful mind bending effect on the entire population. You have a lot of people assuming that if you either read/saw the movie, that says "something" about the person you are. I read all types of stuff, not all of it cookie cutter butterflies and roses, but most people can just read something or view something for what it is.. and even beyond that, if some 40/50 years did get into BDSM, that's their business isn't it? If they want to get punished of their own free will, they are consenting adults.
But there was enough of an uptick in enough leading indicators -- like the ones I mentioned in point #4 up there (STIs in middle-aged folks, and... rope sales lol) -- to PROVE that there was a measurable cultural shift. I mean, the release of the book even affected divorce rates -- and even **birth** rates -- in statistically significant magnitude. These things are not all a giant cosmic coincidence.
An uptick is not an avalanche given again the percentage of those as a whole who did read the book/see the movie, and it had no relevant effect in their lives. I think the bigger phenomenon is the actual numbers of people who amazingly picked up an actual book to read, lol!
Hahaha