The general decline in standards today

[Flicka]

There's been a backlash attitude from metrosexuality that says men ought to be more dominating - and women ought to go along with it.

Then again, what goes on in and outside the bedroom are two very different things.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The trend in the Era was, contrary to myth, very much toward the "equal partnership" model -- the idea being that a couple, ideally, acted as a unit rather than as two individuals with conflicting agendas or as two individuals with a master/subordinate relationship. The "I'm the king of the castle" attitude had already become a national joke by the time Ralph Kramden came along, which is why it was funny.

 

[Noirblack]

Although I haven't read it (and have no plans to) many people have commented that the relationship portrayed is abusive and manipulative; and that is portrayed as a good and desirable thing. I have heard the same about the twilight series in general. I think the fact that abusive relationships are portrayed in a positive light, and gobbled up by tons of people (and mainly teens, some of whom are accompanied by their mothers in being fans), suggests if not a decline in standards, at least poor standards at best.

I wonder if the people who read the book aren't a somewhat disappointed about the abusive nature of the relationship portrayed. Short of asking all the readers, there is no way to know. It is one thing to sell lots of copies of a book (over 30 million apparently!), another thing for them all to be read, and yet another thing for each reader to like or approve of the book.

The whole S&M thing isn't part of my world, but I have heard it said that the power in the relationship lies with the person who is submissive. That is the person who decides how far the kinky stuff will go. So perhaps the young woman in the book is in charge rather than the man.

 

[Undertow]

I think a ship runs well with a captain and a first mate. Sometimes the captain needs the first mate to pull him/her aside and say, "Hey cap, boats on fire, cannons fell into the sea, riggins is slack, are you sure you wanna full speed ahead?" Doesn't matter who the captain is, just as long as there aren't two captains fighting it out to the death.

I grew up in a working-class matriarchy. As I was raised, I find it easier to be the leader. So I guess that would make my family a patriarchy? [huh] I think some people are raised to look at other people as people, while some people are raised to see other people as "others".

When you treat people like people, you don't send/receive as much static.

*note: life is alot easier when the two individuals know how to work together, as Lizzie mentioned. When one is always indecisive, or the other is domineering, no one wins.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Is being dominant always acting as pigs, does it always lead to abuse?

Is there no such thing as head of the household or is it always a social contract amongst equals?

In many relationships there often is a lead person an initiator. Male headship is not always the eqivilant to mysogeny.

First answer...no
Second answer...umm I'd go with a head of the household
Third answer....exactly

...and I do think it is tremendously important(in many ways) just who the head of the household is.
HD

 

[Undertow]

...I have heard it said that the power in the relationship lies with the person who is submissive. That is the person who decides how far the kinky stuff will go. So perhaps the young woman in the book is in charge rather than the man.

In a healthy relationship, yes. There are boundaries and the Dominant (Dom) person would respect those because they love and care for the Submissive (Sub).

However, as human nature would have it, the Dom may stray into "boundary pushing" as he/she decides the usual old isn't good enough anymore. The Sub feels trapped in, what they hope isn't, a spiraling relationship that becomes one sided. Perhaps communication is lacking, perhaps the Dom is a selfish person.

The end is usually like any relationship, some last in misery, others communicate their way back into shape, and others just break up.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I really don't think it's a backlash from metrosexuality as much as idiots who have always felt this way (that men should dominate and abuse women) and use backlashing as an excuse for openly acting like pigs.

It ties back in with the whole discussion of "raunch culture." If you give pigs mud, they'll wallow in it, and then they'll say "but that's what you *want* us to do!"

 

[sheeplady]

Is being dominant always acting as pigs, does it always lead to abuse?

Is there no such thing as head of the household or is it always a social contract amongst equals?

In many relationships there often is a lead person an initiator. Male headship is not always the eqivilant to mysogeny.

I'm going to say the following:
-A BDSM relationship is not abusive just by it's existence. I have no problem with consensual submissive or dominant behavior. Lots of people have it as their kink.
-Being the dominant is not abusive in a BDSM; being a submissive is not being a doormat in a consensual relationship.
-Most BDSM relationships have consent and boundaries as their cornerstone; it would be really hard to have a BDSM relationship without a serious trust level.
-A male being dominant doesn't mean that they are abusive. Neither does a female being dominant.
-Non-consensual sex is abuse, in fact, it's rape.
-Manipulating someone who is unwilling or does not want to perform a sex act into doing it is abusive. If you don't have consent, you don't have consent. Anything but an enthusiastic "Yes!" means you don't have consent. No person gets to bully, lie, or manipulate a person into doing something they don't want to in the bedroom.
-I would feel the same about a female that manipulated or coerced a man into doing something sexual he was unwilling or uncomfortable with as I would a man. Women can and do rape and sexually abuse men.

ETA: In some BDSM relationships, the man is the submissive. Let's not just pretend that women are always the submissive ones.


I can say a lot more, but I don't like books that portray men or women being manipulated into sexual activity. It has nothing to do with men being heads of households, but a lot to do with our society's twisted views on sex. Does that clear it up?

 

[MissMittens]

Society, especially American society, still likes to portray the 50's model of sexuality, despite having been kinkier than most Europeans, it's culturally denied. It's important to remember that pre-code movies used to portray EVERYTHING from mild BDSM, cross-dressing, lesbian and gay portrayals, and even transgender. The "moral majority" set this country back to Victorian times when the Hayes Code was instituted....and further did so during the communist witch-hunts under McCarthy. In short, some people in America have a huge problem with people who don't "tow the line" of what they think is normal or acceptible. Thankfully, these modern puritans are literally dying out.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I couldn't care less what two consenting adults do in their bedroom. I just don't want to hear about it.

 

[jamespowers]

I couldn't care less what two consenting adults do in their bedroom. I just don't want to hear about it.

Or see it.

 

[MissMittens]

I couldn't care less what two consenting adults do in their bedroom. I just don't want to hear about it.

Amen!

 

[Edward]

Yeah, gettin' older ain't exactly all fun and games, is it? It's mostly good, but it's hard to sync the brain - which thinks it's 25 - with the body, that's not.

I've had the mind of a grumpy seventy-seven year old since I was about three.

Media does a great disservice to readers with articles like this. They take what is a minority or abnormality in a given group and report it as "the newest thing". Readers who tend to trust anything they read online, "if they reported it it has to be true.." react accordingly.
Most reporting strikes me as nothing more than manipulative guerilla marketing.
It reminds me of they marketing hype they created for the latest bit of "mommy porn" 50 Shades of Grey. I was reading In trade journals how this book was "the hottest thing in the US" as the book hit the shelves. Marketing b.s.

But hey, on the plus side it gives us an excuse to look down on the moderns and make out how superior we all are, amiright???

I couldn't care less what two consenting adults do in their bedroom. I just don't want to hear about it.

Zactly. And anyone who is genuinely into That Sort Of Thing doesn't feel the need to shout about it either. Those who do are typically Mr and Mrs suburban who think they're jusr depraved because they looked at some porn once - "My, Herm, aren't we so daring??". Invariably they are very, very tedious.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I've heard nothing (no reviews, firsthand or in papers) that suggest the book being discussed suggests the relationship between the characters is good, bad, or indifferent. It is simply presented as a thing that exists, and the desires/fantasies/motivations of the parties involved. Don't read too much into the motivations of the author from what the characters think. They are not real. They are mere figments.

The reviews I have read/heard, however, uniformly deride the book as a throwaway piece of trash (in terms of writerly merit - plot: bad, writing: bad, likelihood of "bad sex award": high - move over Philip Roth). The last time I saw such hype for a book with absolutely no merit, was for Da Vinci Code. God, and I actually read that one. The Baroness told me I wouldn't get through the first page, maybe even the first paragraph - without bursting out laughing at the ridiculously bad writing … and she was right! I hear the same thing about 50 Shades of Grey.

bk

 

[Flicka]

I've only heard bad things about 50 Shades, including from people who read (and write) erotic stuff.

The last time I saw such hype for a book with absolutely no merit, was for Da Vinci Code. God, and I actually read that one. The Baroness told me I wouldn't get through the first page, maybe even the first paragraph - without bursting out laughing at the ridiculously bad writing … and she was right! I hear the same thing about 50 Shades of Grey.

bk

My friends said "You won't be able to put it down!" Riiiiight... I had to put it down twice every page and laugh at the terrible writing & cardboard characters, not to mention gnaw my teeth at the factual mistakes that grated on my historic nerves. Now my sister and I have "Harvard Symbologist Robert Langdon!" as a code word for wooden characters who are merely placeholders for middle-aged male wish-fulfillment.

My life is too short to waste it on bad books.

 

[herringbonekid]

So what is the outlook on 50 Shades of Grey? Is it that the existence and popularity of one badly written erotic book is to be taken as evidence of the general decline in standards today? One book can hardly be taken as evidence of a general decline. Can anyone think of some good works of literature that have been written recently to help balance out the discussion?

-sadistic erotica has a long history going back hundreds of years. examples include '120 days of Sodom' 1791 (by the Marquis de Sade who 'sadism' is named after), 'Venus in Furs' 1870, 'The Torture Garden' 1899, 'Story of O' 1954 to name a few. they would however have remained very much 'underground' or 'cult' books for most of their lives, and not sold 20 million in 3 months. i don't think that's down to the decline of civilisation. it's down to the internet.

-there is lots of good literature being written. it just doesn't go off the scale. the stuff that goes nuts / viral etc. always seems to be rubbish.

The whole S&M thing isn't part of my world, but I have heard it said that the power in the relationship lies with the person who is submissive. That is the person who decides how far the kinky stuff will go. So perhaps the young woman in the book is in charge rather than the man.

that would seem to be the case with this book. from a Guardian reader's comment:

"For the most part, these women like everything about the book other than the BDSM bits - in other words, the vanilla relationship between two archetypes of romance fiction.

Furthermore, all these pseudo-intellectual debates and articles on whether women like to be controlled miss the very salient point about the books - that in the end, he does not control her, sexually or otherwise. She's essentially the one calling all the shots and she ends up controlling him in ways unimaginable in your average relationship. She never really goes the whole hog with the BDSM bits either, and refuses to let him cane her, suspend her, whip her with a belt and so forth. The BDSM bits she consents to for the most part involve innocuous sex toys which cause next to no pain.

The moral of the story after all is said and done is that women like powerful, wealthy alpha-males to worship the ground they walk on, which allows them to derive a vicarious sense of power. The master of the universe at their beck and call, submitting to their every whim. It's not the sex per se, though I suppose it doesn't hurt that the man isn't rubbish in bed, but the romantic fantasy of being THE most important thing in the life of a man who's got everything one could wish for - and the concomitant sense that the woman is more important than all the wealth and power in the world."


makes more sense now.

 

[Edward]

My friends said "You won't be able to put it down!" Riiiiight... I had to put it down twice every page and laugh at the terrible writing & cardboard characters, not to mention gnaw my teeth at the factual mistakes that grated on my historic nerves. Now my sister and I have "Harvard Symbologist Robert Langdon!" as a code word for wooden characters who are merely placeholders for middle-aged male wish-fulfillment.

I read it largely because I was worn down into it - as I'm sure yo're well aware yourself, when you are religious everyone expects you to have a viewpoint on this sort of thing. Cracking yarn, I thought, but very poorly written. Reminiscent of showing Casablanca to a six year old child and asking them to write the story down. It's a pretty pass indeed whena a Ron Howard movie version manages a better narrative flow than the original book...

 

[LizzieMaine]

that would seem to be the case with this book. from a Guardian reader's comment:

...The moral of the story after all is said and done is that women like powerful, wealthy alpha-males to worship the ground they walk on, which allows them to derive a vicarious sense of power. The master of the universe at their beck and call, submitting to their every whim. It's not the sex per se, though I suppose it doesn't hurt that the man isn't rubbish in bed, but the romantic fantasy of being THE most important thing in the life of a man who's got everything one could wish for - and the concomitant sense that the woman is more important than all the wealth and power in the world."

"We've come so far."

 

[Feraud]

-there is lots of good literature being written. it just doesn't go off the scale. the stuff that goes nuts / viral etc. always seems to be rubbish.

That is very true.

 

[Metatron]

Same goes for most forms of art.