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.
There's been a backlash attitude from metrosexuality that says men ought to be more dominating - and women ought to go along with it.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 couldn't care less what two consenting adults do in their bedroom. I just don't want to hear about it.
I couldn't care less what two consenting adults do in their bedroom. I just don't want to hear about it.
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.
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.
I couldn't care less what two consenting adults do in their bedroom. I just don't want to hear about it.
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
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?
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.
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.
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."
That is very true.-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.