Fifty shades of Grey

[lord_khaine]

A subculture where violence against women is considered normal as long as you follow some rules (or claim to follow them, or claim to certainly want to remember them next time ...) is such a paradise for rapists, it would be a miracle if there weren't any.
And indeed, I have read some reports by women who were attacked by exactly that sort of rapist. Many who even say that Christian Grey strongly resembles the man who abused them.

This part is very, very wrong. Firstly there isnt any part of said subculture where violence is considered normal. Any more than rape is considered normal in the subculture that goes and drink their brains out each friday.
And since its also a culture that has very strong rules about drinking, and is rather tightly knit. Then it is likely to be more safe than most other places.

Also its not only womens there are on the recieving end. Its an equal opportunity culture.

[Vinyadan]

@Themrys, sexual fantasies involving rape are very frequent among women. Those books probably play on this fact. Why exactly so many women have fantasies about something they actually don't want to experience in real life is something of an open question, but it's possible that it depends on how women are under intense scrutiny when it comes to choices regarding sex: in a rape fantasy, they are free of responsibility and don't have to answer for it, which might be the actual fantasy.

[AMFV]

While I usually disagree with certain poster's viewpoints. I will say this:

BDSM is not some magic safeguard against abuse. There are probably plenty of BDSM folks who are *******s, the same as in the general populace. I would imagine that it's probably not more prevalent, but I have no information about that. The idea that 50 Shades is a poor representation of BDSM because the dude is an ******* is really bizarre, yes, Christian is not acting in good faith with the philosophy of BDSM, but that doesn't necessarily make him "unrealistic" because BDSM is not a perfect philosophy that all practitioners can force themselves perfectly into.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

While I usually disagree with certain poster's viewpoints. I will say this:

BDSM is not some magic safeguard against abuse. There are probably plenty of BDSM folks who are *******s, the same as in the general populace. I would imagine that it's probably not more prevalent, but I have no information about that. The idea that 50 Shades is a poor representation of BDSM because the dude is an ******* is really bizarre, yes, Christian is not acting in good faith with the philosophy of BDSM, but that doesn't necessarily make him "unrealistic" because BDSM is not a perfect philosophy that all practitioners can force themselves perfectly into.

It goes well beyond that, unfortunately. It's not that he's 'not good', it's not even that he's a terrible Dom who would be labeled as 'does not play well with others' in ANY social group featuring BDSM. It goes about twenty leagues beyond that. We're talking he hit every single 'don't do this' button that I can think of. Every. Single. One. He broke EVERY rule. Not just one or two, every single one of them. Shattered them and left them behind and didn't even care. I mean, he ignored a Safe Word for crying out loud.

Unfortunately, he was also portrayed within the scene as a 'the best', which is the crux of the matter. You see, he WAS portrayed as 'acting in good faith with the philosophy of BDSM', even though nothing further could be the truth.

I could've handled something like this if he had been called out as someone outside the normal BDSM community, if someone had warned her about him acting badly in the past, if there was disapproval of his actions found somewhere, if it was called out as a negative example. There wasn't. There was zero hint that his actions were not how things are done, and everything in the series indicated that he was seen as a man above his peers in the field. Which is... asinine. It's actually worse than that, but words have failed me to be able to describe how ridiculous the very concept is, how antithetical it is to the very fundamental concepts and underpinnings of the practice.

The problem isn't just that he practices cruelty and abuse, not BDSM. The problem is that he does so... and this is portrayed as the norm for the community. That's what gets so many people's dander up. In real life, the community would have reported the abuse, if for no other reason than to avoid having his actions stain vanilla reactions to them, and Grey would have been in cuffs within twenty four hours of having ignored a safe word.

[AMFV]

It goes well beyond that, unfortunately. It's not that he's 'not good', it's not even that he's a terrible Dom who would be labeled as 'does not play well with others' in ANY social group featuring BDSM. It goes about twenty leagues beyond that. We're talking he hit every single 'don't do this' button that I can think of. Every. Single. One. He broke EVERY rule. Not just one or two, every single one of them. Shattered them and left them behind and didn't even care. I mean, he ignored a Safe Word for crying out loud.

Unfortunately, he was also portrayed within the scene as a 'the best', which is the crux of the matter. You see, he WAS portrayed as 'acting in good faith with the philosophy of BDSM', even though nothing further could be the truth.

I don't recall him as being portrayed as 'the best', except for by those in his circle of friends. Who would obviously have no reason to want to stay on the good side of somebody who buys out entire companies just to find out about a girl he barely knows and to prevent her from dating other people.

[Devonix]

I don't recall him as being portrayed as 'the best', except for by those in his circle of friends. Who would obviously have no reason to want to stay on the good side of somebody who buys out entire companies just to find out about a girl he barely knows and to prevent her from dating other people.

Judging by the theme of the story, and the fact that he doesn't get called out on it. It's quite obvious that the film and book expect the audience and readers to treat him as an expert in the field.

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't recall him as being portrayed as 'the best', except for by those in his circle of friends. Who would obviously have no reason to want to stay on the good side of somebody who buys out entire companies just to find out about a girl he barely knows and to prevent her from dating other people.

Abusive inside and outside the playroom? Why am I supposed to find this man attractive again?

[Saintheart]

The most abusive thing about this awful book was the manner in which it was written, and the most satisfying thing about it was the meaty thud the book made when it hit my opposite wall.

[Eldan]

Abusive inside and outside the playroom? Why am I supposed to find this man attractive again?

Because he's filthy rich and very good looking, duh!

Also, he only stalks and abuses her because he loves her.

[Bohandas]

I prefer the works of De Sade

[Anonymouswizard]

Because he's filthy rich and very good looking, duh!

Also, he only stalks and abuses her because he loves her.

I mean, there's millions of very good looking men out there, can't I find one who doesn't want to abuse me?

I mean, I suppose that the filthy rich but it's harder, but when did money buy happiness? Plus what if I don't like the expensive car he buys me?

Now in all honesty, I get the 'rich handsome man' fantasy. Can't say I haven't had it myself. But even then there's a difference between fun, honest mistakes, and abuse (although as I've personally experienced honest mistakes can very easily lead to abuse, never again will I forget to discuss boundaries with my partner).

[AMFV]

Judging by the theme of the story, and the fact that he doesn't get called out on it. It's quite obvious that the film and book expect the audience and readers to treat him as an expert in the field.

Not being "called out" doesn't make a person a de facto "expert" in the field, in real life, why would it do so in literature. There are plenty of posers in all fields, not all of whom are publicly confronted. In Christian's case, he forces all people who are involved with them to sign a really scare NDA which should stop people from doing that with the threat of legal action against them.

Furthermore, BDSM isn't a "field" and doesn't have degrees of expertise in any real sense. It has a lot of internal snobbery though, which I suspect would be the real reason why people would want this book not associated with it. I mean there are bad doms and bad subs, and horrible in BDSM, just like in any community.

Abusive inside and outside the playroom? Why am I supposed to find this man attractive again?

You probably aren't the target audience. Why are the jerks in Bodice Rippers found to be attractive? I suspect the reason why is that you can have the positive qualities of that kind of relationship without the actual real life things. "He cares enough about me to follow me around and then save me when I get drunk" but without the parts of that that are awful. I mean you get somebody controlling your life for you, that's certainly got an appeal, there are even real examples of a select few people in BDSM that actually want that.

And you're not really supposed to find him attractive as he is. It's the fact that he changes himself completely for love that's the real kicker in these type of stories. But again, as trashy romance leads go, he's not bad. He doesn't rape her, he doesn't imprison her, which are not uncommon themes in that genre.

I'm not saying the books are well written I am saying that perhaps the commentary on them is not entirely appropriate considering that they are in, and the conventions of that genre.

[Kish]

He doesn't rape her,

Yes, he does.

[AMFV]

Yes, he does.

Not in the version I've read. It's possible that it happens in one of the later books though, I could barely stomach the first one and only read it as a favor to my significant other at the time. Mostly cause it was bad, but I've read other bad novels like that, and it's not especially bad.

I mean their first sexual encounter is definitely one that she wants and one that she essentially initiates. He winds up deciding to actually scale things back from what he would normally do when he discovers that she is not sexually experienced. Which does seem to be at least inconsistent with his characterization, but he's a wish fulfillment person for the author (and probably many of the readers) so consistency is not as important as the fulfillment of the wishy bit.

Edit: Actually the only scene that I can think of where he takes advantage of her in a physical way is the makeout scene in the elevator. The rest are mostly her idea. Even the "spanking" scene where she realizes that she can never really be in his world because she's not that way, and that he has to change himself to be with her rather than the other way around, is initiated by her, she demands to experience the actual BDSM stuff he talks about.

[Rater202]

The scene in the book where they're doing things, she says the safe word, and he doesn't stop.

That's freaky sex 101: Saying the safe word means you're done. Break character, stop what you're doing, the submissive has revoked concent for whatever you're doing.

The second he didn't stop when she said the safe word, it turned into a rape.

Also, IIRC there's a scene where she says no, she doesn't want to be with him anymore and he gets her back by breaking into her apartment and having his way with her, which is pretty clear cut rape.

[AMFV]

The scene in the book where they're doing things, she says the safe word, and he doesn't stop.

Fair enough, it's possible I missed that section given that I was kind of glossing over the whole thing at this point, since the sex scenes were so badly written (and the rest of it).

Also:

http://50shadesofregret.com/post/110...es-50-shades-a

Apparently that doesn't actually happen in the book. Not that what he does isn't awful, as is described in the rest of that blog post. But he doesn't actually ignore the Safe Word

That's freaky sex 101: Saying the safe word means you're done. Break character, stop what you're doing, the submissive has revoked concent for whatever you're doing.

True, and if that scene was actually in the book it would count as rape. But it's worth noting that bodice ripper characters often physically and violently rape the ladies in their books, and are still presented heroically or anti-heroically. And as others have pointed out there are women who have this particular sort of fantasy, at least the ones who read bodice rippers probably do. Although they might not enjoy it in real life they enjoy the fictional version of it.

The second he didn't stop when she said the safe word, it turned into a rape.

But that scene isn't in the book, at least not in any of the material I've found.

Also, IIRC there's a scene where she says no, she doesn't want to be with him anymore and he gets her back by breaking into her apartment and having his way with her, which is pretty clear cut rape.

That's pretty clear cut breaking and entering, yes. That's pretty clear cut shady behavior (coercing someone to stay in a relationship by sex is pretty shady). But rape... no it's really not clear cut rape unless she objected to the actual sexual encounter. Also she had given him keys to her apartment and had previously allowed him entry, so I'm not even sure that you'd get clear cut breaking and entering.

The whole thing is a muddle, but breakups are complicated even in real life when you aren't dealing with manipulative jerks like Christian. Also could you point out where this scene actually takes place, it's just that you've previously described a scene that didn't happen in the books and therefore I am not sure that I am willing to take you at your word for it, and doing the amount of research I'm doing on this awful book is really not a lot of fun.

[Anonymouswizard]

At this point I get conflicted. It is completely fine for a book to have morally grey heroes and bad morals, and I don't want to say that Fifty Shades doesn't deserve them because I'm not a fan of it's genre and as such can't judge it by those standards.

But there's a point where I start to think 'woman, you're not going to change him that much, just dump him and find a less abusive man who'll let you have that control you want'. And Fifty Shades hits that point for me. Then again, I find the idea of 'I can fix him' problematic, and would rather have that theme gone from literature entirely.


I'm not getting into the rape discussion because I refuse to read the books enough to find out if it does happen. I've also heard everything from 'it does' to 'it doesn't', to 'it technically doesn't, but easily could have because whole the sexual act was wanted actual consent was never established'.

[lord_khaine]

Furthermore, BDSM isn't a "field" and doesn't have degrees of expertise in any real sense. It has a lot of internal snobbery though, which I suspect would be the real reason why people would want this book not associated with it. I mean there are bad doms and bad subs, and horrible in BDSM, just like in any community.

So.. you would also say that there isnt degrees of expertise in for example.. psychology?
And dont know about the snobbery. Never spottet it myself. But it can be cultural difference.

[AMFV]

At this point I get conflicted. It is completely fine for a book to have morally grey heroes and bad morals, and I don't want to say that Fifty Shades doesn't deserve them because I'm not a fan of it's genre and as such can't judge it by those standards.

Well I'm not a fan of the genre either, just aware of it's conventions. I think that the problem is that the genre itself has a lot of weird stuff that isn't stuff that the women who read it actually want, and interpreting it that way is a big issue.

But there's a point where I start to think 'woman, you're not going to change him that much, just dump him and find a less abusive man who'll let you have that control you want'. And Fifty Shades hits that point for me. Then again, I find the idea of 'I can fix him' problematic, and would rather have that theme gone from literature entirely.

But you aren't the target audience. All you can do is complain and not buy the books. But it has been a part of the literary world for a very long time, and I doubt it's going away. You even see that in some Gothic literature. And yes, in real life your advice would be good. But real life isn't fiction and treating it is as though all fiction is intended to model good behavior is pretty silly.

If my family is held hostage by gangsters, getting a 240 and going to their base and murdering all of them is a really bad plan. But we see it in fiction fairly frequently. And this kind of fiction is all about experiencing a thing that you don't get in real life. For men, it's typically getting to be the powerful vigilante the one who rights the wrongs. For ladies (at least in the case of bodice rippers) it's about getting the guy who is a confident jerk and having him morph into a "nice guy" for her, because she is so amazing. Now I don't like even the idea of phrasing it that way, but I think that's the best explanation for it.

So.. you would also say that there isnt degrees of expertise in for example.. psychology?

Psychology is a field of study with specific and clearcut degrees of expertise bud. Like an LCSW is a specific title. Dom is at best self-appointed. And there are no specific qualifications required.

And dont know about the snobbery. Never spottet it myself. But it can be cultural difference.

You've never heard people say things like "Dom should always be capitalized whereas sub should always be lowercase, because that reflects the power structure?" That's a pretty snobby thing to say, and people complaining when that is not the case. There are other examples, but that's the one I've seen most that shows that the "scene" at least when you start getting into the social aspect gets pretty snobby.

And their response to the book and later films was one of snobbery. "Well it doesn't depict us correctly" is a snobby reaction, not one of concern. Because the concern was that people would think bad things about the BDSM community rather than that the book might lead people in the BDSM community into bad directions (because that could never happen, at least in their minds).

[Vinyadan]

Was the safe word "banana"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJBgzX2HMe8

[Anonymouswizard]

But you aren't the target audience.

True, at least until Fifty Shades of Gay is a thing.

But that's why I'm conflicted. I want to tell these things and tell people to stay away, bit the genre isn't for me. I want to tell this stuff, but I can't really judge the book by the merits of it's peers. I don't want impressionable young women to get the wrong is, but I also have the feeling that most impressionable young women won't want to read it.

[lord_khaine]

Psychology is a field of study with specific and clearcut degrees of expertise bud. Like an LCSW is a specific title. Dom is at best self-appointed. And there are no specific qualifications required.

Hmm.. a couple of things here.
A) Im not your buddy.
B) We were not talking about titles. We were talking about expertise. Anyone can indeed call themselves a dom. The same way that anyone can likely take a few classes at afrikan university and call themselves a Psychologist. That does not mean there cant be a massive difference in skill between those people, and someone who have spend a decade on different sorts of studies.

You've never heard people say things like "Dom should always be capitalized whereas sub should always be lowercase, because that reflects the power structure?" That's a pretty snobby thing to say, and people complaining when that is not the case. There are other examples, but that's the one I've seen most that shows that the "scene" at least when you start getting into the social aspect gets pretty snobby.

I have actually newer seen that myself. Nor heard of anywhere it was practiced.

And their response to the book and later films was one of snobbery. "Well it doesn't depict us correctly" is a snobby reaction, not one of concern. Because the concern was that people would think bad things about the BDSM community rather than that the book might lead people in the BDSM community into bad directions (because that could never happen, at least in their minds).

And thats certainly not snobbery. I think your allowed to be just a bit upset when something misrepresent you in a genuinly negative way.
Also.. the last bit? no, how on earth are the book going to do that, when its a laughtingstock for getting just about everything wrong?

[AMFV]

True, at least until Fifty Shades of Gay is a thing.

But that's why I'm conflicted. I want to tell these things and tell people to stay away, bit the genre isn't for me. I want to tell this stuff, but I can't really judge the book by the merits of it's peers. I don't want impressionable young women to get the wrong is, but I also have the feeling that most impressionable young women won't want to read it.

I have a suspicion that the gay community has their own brand of trashy stuff that they partake in and enjoy. I'm probably not familiar enough with it to know about it off-hand. But most communities have things like that. Things that are not positive but are enjoyed by the community.

I think that if you are impressionable in a way that 50 shades could really have a negative impact on your life, that even if you avoid 50 Shades, you're probably going to find something else that will have a negative impact in the same way.

Hmm.. a couple of things here.
A) Im not your buddy.

I'm not your guy.

B) We were not talking about titles. We were talking about expertise. Anyone can indeed call themselves a dom. The same way that anyone can likely take a few classes at afrikan university and call themselves a Psychologist. That does not mean there cant be a massive difference in skill between those people, and someone who have spend a decade on different sorts of studies.

My point was that you CAN'T call yourself a psychologist, without the relevant credentials. It's a field where you can learn things and have to actually apply those things to be called a psychologist. You can't just take a psych course and call yourself a psychologist.

Also what constitutes expertise? Human tastes being hw

I have actually newer seen that myself. Nor heard of anywhere it was practiced.

Then you must not have been around the BDSM community that I've seen. Because I've certainly seen that mentioned on forums and what-not. I mean I personally think it's ridiculous but there's also a very good bit of snobbery there. As well as the fact that you're implying that you can be "better" at being a dom. Which is not strictly speaking true, it's not about a skill you can improve, it's about being what your partner wants. So what one dom may do may be a complete turn-off for most people.

Even the implication that one person is better at something that is essentially interpersonal relationships is a snobby attitude to have. There's a lot of belief that things can only be done one way. I mean for years you had people who believed that to be a good dom you had to be a submissive first. Which is pretty categorically not the case. And there are people to this day who insist that people take on a role they aren't good at and don't enjoy to do something that isn't not related in terms of skillset, that's a kind of snobbery, no?

And thats certainly not snobbery. I think your allowed to be just a bit upset when something misrepresent you in a genuinly negative way.

Yes, you are.

But 50 Shades of Grey isn't a documentary. It's not "representing" the BDSM community, it's not showing people the real BDSM community any more than a bodice ripper is showing people how real nobles or pirates or bandits behave. It's a trashy novel. And most people from what I can tell didn't really associate it with the real BDSM community, with a few notable exceptions.

Also.. the last bit? no, how on earth are the book going to do that, when its a laughtingstock for getting just about everything wrong?

Remember how I said I read the book as a favor for a significant other? She was a lady in that community who recommended the book for me as a source for 'inspiration' in that area. So maybe off the high horse a little bit, because I have met people who were into BDSM who liked the book, and people who were influenced by it.

In fact the fact that you are acting as though that is somehow impossible, suggests to me that you're influenced by a little bit of that sort of snobbery. I mean, it's just a trashy novel. It's not a documentary, it's not a hit piece. It's a trashy novel. It's only as bad as others in that same field.

[Bohandas]

Everyone saying how unrealistically over the top this is needs to bear in mind that it is significantly less extreme than the Armin Meiwes/Bernd Jürgen Armando Brandes incident (the one where the guy volunteered to be killed)

[AvatarVecna]

I'm fairly certain the reason 50 Shades gets a lot of flak from the kink community that other bodice-ripper questionable-consent sadistic love interest style books/movies get, isn't because 50 Shades does it worse, but because 50 Shades does it bad on a much bigger scale. The first movie grossed 500 billion dollars worldwide, just by itself. All three books seem to have been published in 2012, and by 2015 the first book of the trilogy had sold 125 million copies worldwide. Presuming that 90% of people didn't make it to book 2, while the remaining 10% read both 2 and 3, we can maybe call that 150 million copies total worldwide; presuming 20 dollars a book for a new copy of a hotselling book (probably reasonable?) that's ~3 billion dollars in 3 years. To put it in perspective, the overall "romance book" genre makes about 1.1 billion dollars a year, meaning that if my assumptions up there are even close to reasonable, the book series made about as much money in those three years as the rest of the freaking book genre combined.

That's why people give it flak for being bad representation; whatever else the series did, it did something right enough to become an international phenomenon, and that means the flaws it has - flaws it shares with a good portion of the genre, in fairness - are less tolerable, and more problematic, because they're reaching a wider audience, and by virtue of their runaway success, are apparently viewed as less problematic by society as a whole. As far as a good deal of the world is concerned, 50 Shades Of Grey is the face of BDSM, and Christian Grey and Anastasia Steele are a typical BDSM relationship. It's the Duning-Kruger effect in action, except that people who 1) spot the consent issues, creepy actions, and the ultimately very negative light the books portray the lifestyle in, and 2) aren't familiar with the lifestyle outside of 50 Shades, might very well assume these problems are a decent representation of the community, which is a problem for the community as a whole.

[lord_khaine]

I'm not your guy.

Yes.... thats what i said. And likely why you should not adress me with bud.

My point was that you CAN'T call yourself a psychologist, without the relevant credentials. It's a field where you can learn things and have to actually apply those things to be called a psychologist. You can't just take a psych course and call yourself a psychologist.

Also what constitutes expertise? Human tastes being hw

And my POINT was that titles dont have anything to do with expertise.

As for what constitutes expertise. Well it of course depends on what branch you move down. But both Shibari and impact play has some very clear markers for skill.
And the ability to read your partner is universal.

Then you must not have been around the BDSM community that I've seen. Because I've certainly seen that mentioned on forums and what-not. I mean I personally think it's ridiculous but there's also a very good bit of snobbery there. As well as the fact that you're implying that you can be "better" at being a dom. Which is not strictly speaking true, it's not about a skill you can improve, it's about being what your partner wants. So what one dom may do may be a complete turn-off for most people.

Well.. i live in a small country with less than 10 million inhabitants. So no it is unlikely we have seen the same communities.
And no. I am not implying something. I am straight out -saying- that you can be better at being a dominant. And that it -is- a skill.
I mean, look at something simular like cooking, where taste is also extremely subjective. Are you going to argue a trained chef isnt a better cook than someone else because a customer prefer the home style cooking her husband makes?

Even the implication that one person is better at something that is essentially interpersonal relationships is a snobby attitude to have. There's a lot of belief that things can only be done one way. I mean for years you had people who believed that to be a good dom you had to be a submissive first. Which is pretty categorically not the case. And there are people to this day who insist that people take on a role they aren't good at and don't enjoy to do something that isn't not related in terms of skillset, that's a kind of snobbery, no?

And its not snobby if its not interpersonal relationship, it isnt by the way. Not everyone is in closed relationships.
For that matter neither of those beliefs are being snobby either. The first is perhaps narrowminded, and the second likely come from it actually helping a lot to get into the bottoms mindset.

Remember how I said I read the book as a favor for a significant other? She was a lady in that community who recommended the book for me as a source for 'inspiration' in that area. So maybe off the high horse a little bit, because I have met people who were into BDSM who liked the book, and people who were influenced by it.

In fact the fact that you are acting as though that is somehow impossible, suggests to me that you're influenced by a little bit of that sort of snobbery. I mean, it's just a trashy novel. It's not a documentary, it's not a hit piece. It's a trashy novel. It's only as bad as others in that same field.

You seems to be sitting quite comfortably on your own though. But it then goes against your own concern about why people in the community should be concerned about the book leading people to bad practice. Since some as your ladyfriend apperently like it, so she should not be concerned about people learning from it. And everyone else i have ever actually meet think its flaming garbage. So they dont think its possible people learning from it.

In fact the fact that you are acting as though that is somehow impossible, suggests to me that you're influenced by a little bit of that sort of snobbery. I mean, it's just a trashy novel. It's not a documentary, it's not a hit piece. It's a trashy novel. It's only as bad as others in that same field.

It also seems like you generally just use snobbery whenever you encounter something you dislike. Being it ideas, behavior or actions. But im not certain it means what you think it does.
Here, a Wikipedia link Snob

[War_lord]

If Fifty Shades had stayed an obscure romance novel, I doubt the BDSM community (which, I will point out for the sake of clarity, is not my thing) would care about it, because after all its problematic elements exist in almost every trashy romance novel aimed at repressed housewives. What makes Fifty Shades a problem, is that the book became wildly popular among the repressed housewife demographic. Much in the same way Twilight went mainstream for lonely teenage girls. In fact they both share a lot in common, they're both trashy romance, with all the tropes that entails. Which yes, are problematic, but I think most of the intended audience, or at least frequent readers knows that. It's a fantasy, so of course the actual logistics don't come into it.

They both transcended the limits of the genre by achieving seeming ubiquitous presence in the target demographic. And they're both extremely problematic when you realize that there's a danger of inexperienced members of the target demographic treating them as instruction manuals and ending up in an abusive situation. Maybe some have forgotten, but at the apex of the Fifty Shades craze, the media was very much encouraging the idea of it as an instruction manual, not in the literal sense but in the "book as introduction" sense. Or at least that's how it seemed in my country.

[Scarlet Knight]

Does anyone know if "The Story of O" had the same problems in it's day? Can we use it to predict the effect of "50 Shades" among the general population?

[Anymage]

Moral panic, Story of O had it worse. A quick peek at wikipedia shows that there were obscenity charges filed.

Long term impact, for all the discussion here the truth is that Fifty Shades has largely run its course. Maybe a few more bored housewives tried googling BDSM, and a few more horny people tried hopping onto the bandwagon thinking that it'd get them laid easier. But the existence of the internet means that anybody with the least amount of curiosity can find way more information than they've ever dreamed possible. The curious can find local communities, and see whether or not the reality is for them. (There'll always be some people who want the fantasy without the humdrum reality bits that keep it from becoming dangerous, but as mentioned above trashy bodice rippers have always existed to feed those sensibilities. And predators have always been around to take advantage of them.)

This far down the line, though, everybody who might have been intrigued by it has already heard about the book. It's mockworthy since it's literally bad fanfiction with the serial numbers filed off, otherwise it's old news.

[Anonymouswizard]

Much in the same way Twilight went mainstream for lonely teenage girls.

While I'm struggling to think of one off the top of my head, there are other examples of a book exploding into popularity because it hits something with a very particular audience for one reason or another.

(While I'll sometimes claim this is true of Harry Potter, I believe the BBC gave it a larger initial media presence and it's appeal seems to be quite a bit more spread across a few audiences.)

At least in the case of Twilight, I can see some value in the imitators making up the (modern?) paranormal romance genre. I like the idea of fantasy stories that focus on romance instead of epic, even if I have trouble liking them myself. I'm not certain I can say the same for Fifty Shades, at least partially because erotica seems to be an established genre, with both kinky and nonkinky versions. I think the real question that springs to my mind is, are these books getting people to read other books, or are they just read Twilight/Fifty Shades?

If they are reading other books, no matter the quality, then these series have done at least one worthwhile thing. If not, then I'm not really sure I can see enough merit over a world where the series don't exist.