The Fifty Shades Fad.

[Josh]

I'm sensing another band-wagon thread...

Personally, though, I've never read the book, and I'm never going to. It's purpose is not the be well written, but to arose women who can't be pleasured sexually and I can't really comment on how well that does that. I can, however, question how everyone can be so certain that the book is bad, having only read small snippets of it.

You only have to read a small portion of it to understand where it gets this reputation. Read just on chapter, then you'll get the picture

It's repetitive, very unrealistic, and glorifies abusive relationships and taking advantage of someone's innocence. If this film adaptation stays close to the book, then it will be panned by critics because the dialogue is absolute drivel...

 

[Sam]

A summary of the first post in this topic.

I've read the first one. It was OK, nothing great, nothing terrible either. If you don't want to see them in newsagents, you have to be in favour of not selling The Sun either, or FHM, or many other magazines.

 

[TheMan]

Actually this is getting read by kids far too young to read it because it has been so popularised, I am very liberally minded but that takes it way, way too far. No excuse.

I went into WHSmiths and found a big section right at the front of the store with it, and other "erotic fiction" - when you are in there with kids, I don't give a toss about faux liberalism, that is wrong. It is another example of the erosion of the innocence of childhood and something as a society should be universally condemned.

I am not stupid, also the book was crap, I read a snippets of it and found it dull as anything in a literary context, but as main stream in your face everywhere it is disgusting. You want to sell that, put it somewhere appropriate! It is no different to the "literature" in porno mags (so I hear ;D ) so I have no idea how this became so universally accepted.

Read it by all means, sell it, all credit to the writers for making such crap so big - BUT, there is a big difference to enjoying a freedom, and ramming that freedom in the faces of everyone, including kids. Not on.

Also, 50 Sheds of Grey is way better.

" 'Give it to me hard and give it to me now!' she begged. 'Alright,' I said, 'But I still think a Viennetta's better when it's defrosted.' "

"She leant over the kitchen table. 'Smack that bottom,' she squealed, 'Smack it hard!' 'I am,' I said, 'But the ketchup just won't come out.' "

;D

 

[Sam]

Yes, W.H. Smiths are clearly responsible for parenting your children, and making sure that they don't see any books that if they read, could be unsuitable for them in any way.

Better take Ulysses off the shelf (masturbation scene), Lolita (paedophilia themes) and Clockwork Orange (rape, murder). Or actually, as long as their isn't explicit material on the actual cover, let bookstores stock what they want and let parents control their kids...?

 

[Meat Pie]

It does always amuse me that extreme violence, murder, genocide, or whatever nasty subject of your choice, can be featured in art without being considered controversial. In fact, it is not uncommon for art that covers those subjects to be considered great or important. But if you explore sex and sexuality, something which without none of us would actually exist, its all a big moral panic! I hate to break it to you... but your parents had sex... and your grandparents... and your great grandparents... and they all probably enjoyed it...

That said, I do think it is socially damaging to have the sort of material that casually reduces people to purely sexual objects like that you find in The Sun newspaper or FHM magazines on display in shops. Not because of some kind of squeamishness, but more to do with the fact that they perpetuate a misogynist culture.

However, just to make it clear... I haven't read 50 Shades of Grey, but from what I have heard, it sounds poorly written and worthless.

 

[TheMan]

Yes, W.H. Smiths are clearly responsible for parenting your children, and making sure that they don't see any books that if they read, could be unsuitable for them in any way.

Better take Ulysses off the shelf (masturbation scene), Lolita (paedophilia themes) and Clockwork Orange (rape, murder). Or actually, as long as their isn't explicit material on the actual cover, let bookstores stock what they want and let parents control their kids...?

There is no need to advertise it at the very front of bookshops in the fashion that they do. What do you suggest that parents do exactly? Shield their eyes as they walk into a FAMILY bookstore? Don't be so ridiculous.

There is liberalism, of which I am a stout and firm believer, and there is damaging levels of desensitisation and in your face marketing which is totally unwarranted. I can chose to not walk down the adult sections isle, what I am talking about here is as soon you walk through the door plastered everywhere marketing.

This isn't even debate worthy, it is cut and shut wrong.

Kids should be allowed to be kids without situations like this occurring, those who know me would find your allusion (Meat Pie) to me being some kind of prude hysterically amusing. But this is not about that. This is about children in the world being non-sexualised or desensitised to sex, violence, whatever it may be, at such a young age as happens now.

Your comments also seem to suggest that I a somehow think it is OK in other areas? I do not. What is more, with the way this is being rammed in everyone's face now, the kids are actually learning bad examples. An open culture of discussion, education, and responsibility is fine with me, and most certainly at age appropriate times. Until such times, family shops/advertising should remain respectful and sensible for all ages.

I know for a fact, that young children have got hold of this book after having seen all the fuss about it, and it being very openly advertised everywhere - and it was the enticement of the advertising everywhere that drew them to it.

Also, my parenting is fine thank you, a few members on here have met my daughter & know her to be a kind, sensitive, well balanced individual. That does not preclude me from pointing out the glaringly obvious.

For clarity, I am not saying don't advertise it, don't read it, don't write it, don't buy it etc - I am saying, let's use a bit of common sense about how that is done.

I get very, very protective over this issue, because I have seen way too often how media portrayal, aggressive marketing, and totally inappropriate subject matters is leading to kids being forced to feel they have to grow up to fast. It isn't just about crappy trashy books, it is about violence, body image etc too. It's gotten way out of hand now.

Apologies if the post comes across sharp, it's an issue I feel very, very strongly about.

 

[Sam]

Whether it is a good book or not is a different question as to whether it should be displayed in bookshops.

The title and cover are not inappropriate at all.

There is no need to advertise it at the very front of bookshops in the fashion that they do. What do you suggest that parents do exactly? Shield their eyes as they walk into a FAMILY bookstore? Don't be so ridiculous.

Last time I walked into W. H. Smiths or Waterstones, neither advertised themselves as 'FAMILY bookstores', whatever that means. Both sell works such as Mein Kampf, and Alan Hollinghurst's The Line of Beauty, both of which contain far more violence, hatred and sex respectively than 50 Shades.

So parents don't shield their kids eyes and they see what...? The entirely meaningless-not-in-context words 50 Shades of Grey and a blurry photo of a tie? Scandalous stuff.

TheMan, you're sounding like a swivel-eyed Daily Mail columnist. It's the 21st century granddad, the days of banning books and obscenity trials are over. :

 

[Plastic Person]

Yes, W.H. Smiths are clearly responsible for parenting your children, and making sure that they don't see any books that if they read, could be unsuitable for them in any way.

Better take Ulysses off the shelf (masturbation scene), Lolita (paedophilia themes) and Clockwork Orange (rape, murder). Or actually, as long as their isn't explicit material on the actual cover, let bookstores stock what they want and let parents control their kids...?

For clarity, I am not saying don't advertise it, don't read it, don't write it, don't buy it etc - I am saying, let's use a bit of common sense about how that is done.

I get very, very protective over this issue, because I have seen way too often how media portrayal, aggressive marketing, and totally inappropriate subject matters is leading to kids being forced to feel they have to grow up to fast. It isn't just about crappy trashy books, it is about violence, body image etc too. It's gotten way out of hand now.

Apologies if the post comes across sharp, it's an issue I feel very, very strongly about.

I have to go with Sam on this one TheMan, there's absolutely nothing inappropriate about the marketing, cover design or title of Fifty Shades of Grey, which is resolutely not aimed at children anyway.

 

[BarryZola]

The main thing that gets on my nerves about this book is the fact that women acted as sheep and just followed other women who had read this crap and felt that they should read it because their sheepy mates had read it. Then they all either enjoyed the porn (which had been freely available in previous decades) or pretended to, in the usual effort to keep up with the expectations of their mates.

I wouldn't respect any woman who really likes these books.

 

[James]

Not that I want to get involved with this debate, since I'm a little out of my depth here.

Unless a child picks up the book and reads through it (you need to control your child) then it will do them no harm. If they ask what "erotic fiction" is then as a parent you would say the usual "it's a book for grown-ups". If your child knows what "erotic" means then they are either an older child or know bits about sex. Lets face it, children are exposed to sex right from birth this day and age. A book that shows a mask on the cover is the lesser of many evils that bombard mainstream media.

 

[TheMan]

This is really not hard to grasp. The marketing I am discussing was over the top, and of course WHSmith is a family bookstore. Really what a nonsense thing to say.

I am not talking about a book, on a shelf, in an adult section that people can quite freely choose to wander down and buy. I am talking in your face marketing, as soon as you walk through the door, that was not simply book on shelf for adults to know.

This kind of marketing of this book has enticed children to read it who were far too young. Daily Mail? Do me a favour. Kids have a right to be kids without being constantly bombarded by sexual images, it is a real issue nowadays far away from Daily Mail fear mongering, clearly Sam, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Or perhaps you think I am a gay hating racist too? No, you don't have a child, clearly haven't researched this, and are offering an opinion (which I do respect) but that is lacking in either experience, or wisdom.

Children have a right to be children and being protected from an adult world that forces too much pressure upon them, in the same way gay people have a right to marry, and be in love publicly. This is about the freedom of children to be children. I see it as no different. That is true liberalism.

 

[Plastic Person]

I am not talking about a book, on a shelf, in an adult section that people can quite freely choose to wander down and buy. I am talking in your face marketing, as soon as you walk through the door, that was not simply book on shelf for adults to know.

This kind of marketing of this book has enticed children to read it who were far too young. Daily Mail? Do me a favour. Kids have a right to be kids without being constantly bombarded by sexual images, it is a real issue nowadays far away from Daily Mail fear mongering, clearly Sam, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Can you clarify what marketing you were talking about? I've worked opposite a WHSmith for the past two years, and I've never seen anything inappropriate or even particularly sexual advertising Fifty Shades of Grey. There's long been an A2 poster advertising a few of it's rip-offs, but it's subtle as anything.

 

[TheMan]

The store I walked into it was right at the front, shelves stacked full with big signs for erotic fiction etc. It's akin to walking into a newsagents, and the shelves right in front of you packed with lads mags etc.

It was quite ridiculous. That is the only thing I have against this, is when it is that damn obvious. And as I say, I know for an absolute fact that the marketing behind this book create interest in groups of very young girls, who then read this book.

Kids will always be kids and curious of course, but that is too far. Because it became so popularised everywhere, it took away any kind of sensibility surrounding it or moderate decorum. It was waved around everywhere, and became "normal". You couldn't get away from the damn book.

I want adults to have the freedom to practice whatever they wish, so long as it is consensual and doesn't affect anyone else, why should someone else poke their noses in? State, police, neighbours whoever. It is a fundamental human right.

The irony is, we don't have that, it's all back to front, you have people defending the wrong things, distracted by this popularised rubbish whilst real issues are totally ignored - different topic that though.

 

[Plastic Person]

The store I walked into it was right at the front, shelves stacked full with big signs for erotic fiction etc. It's akin to walking into a newsagents, and the shelves right in front of you packed with lads mags etc.

It was quite ridiculous. That is the only thing I have against this, is when it is that damn obvious. And as I say, I know for an absolute fact that the marketing behind this book create interest in groups of very young girls, who then read this book.

Kids will always be kids and curious of course, but that is too far. Because it became so popularised everywhere, it took away any kind of sensibility surrounding it or moderate decorum. It was waved around everywhere, and became "normal". You couldn't get away from the damn book.

The irony is, we don't have that, it's all back to front, you have people defending the wrong things, distracted by this popularised rubbish whilst real issues are totally ignored - different topic that though.

I still don't know what you're issue is, to be honest. The 50 Shades books are predominantly, and discreetly marketed at older women. Their covers and advertising prevalent as they are, are nonetheless completely discreet. 'Big signs for Erotic Fiction'? I'd be much more worried about the lads mags if I were you. Unless incredibly inquisitive children are naturally curious about why certain books are in larger quantities than others, I can't see any potential danger.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I'm not sure why this of all thing has you in such a tizzy. There are indeed, 'real issues', as you highlight yourself!

 

[Andrew]

I have no issue with people reading the books (even though I personally believe that they are very poorly written) as long as they don't talk about it loudly next to you or shove it in your face expecting you to read.

In the case of WH Smiths, I have seen plenty of adverts for erotic fiction in the front windows of their stores. I, personally, would like some sort of censorship on them like they have with so called 'lad's mags' where they are on the top shelf, often covered, and there are no advertisements around the store for them. If someone wants to read it then they can go and find it.

 

[Plastic Person]

In the case of WH Smiths, I have seen plenty of adverts for erotic fiction in the front windows of their stores. I, personally, would like some sort of censorship on them like they have with so called 'lad's mags' where they are on the top shelf, often covered, and there are no advertisements around the store for them. If someone wants to read it then they can go and find it.

But they're not the same thing. Lads mags covers directly objectify women on the front cover, and in a completely different context and style. Hardly comparable to this!

 

[TheMan]

I have no issue with people reading the books (even though I personally believe that they are very poorly written) as long as they don't talk about it loudly next to you or shove it in your face expecting you to read.

In the case of WH Smiths, I have seen plenty of adverts for erotic fiction in the front windows of their stores. I, personally, would like some sort of censorship on them like they have with so called 'lad's mags' where they are on the top shelf, often covered, and there are no advertisements around the store for them. If someone wants to read it then they can go and find it.

This is exactly my point, made far more concisely than mine lol!

I do not understand the need for it to rammed in peoples faces, the high street is a family environment and should remain so. It is easy to find adult sections, the same as history sections, geography sections - whatever it may be. There should be no shame in reading the books, but there is just no need for it to be so in your face (at the time I was referring anyway).

 

[Andrew]

In the case of WH Smiths, I have seen plenty of adverts for erotic fiction in the front windows of their stores. I, personally, would like some sort of censorship on them like they have with so called 'lad's mags' where they are on the top shelf, often covered, and there are no advertisements around the store for them. If someone wants to read it then they can go and find it.

But they're not the same thing. Lads mags covers directly objectify women on the front cover, and in a completely different context and style. Hardly comparable to this!

Both are different varieties of pornographic content, no matter how different they are. 'Lad's mag's don't usually show all 'parts' of a woman whereas these erotic novels go into detail about each part, so they balance each other out in terms of how pornographic they are. It doesn't make a difference about the cover if someone just opens them up, as curious children often do.

In conclusion, I believe neither should be advertised so much and neither should be in a place accessible to those younger than the required age.

 

[Plastic Person]

In the case of WH Smiths, I have seen plenty of adverts for erotic fiction in the front windows of their stores. I, personally, would like some sort of censorship on them like they have with so called 'lad's mags' where they are on the top shelf, often covered, and there are no advertisements around the store for them. If someone wants to read it then they can go and find it.

But they're not the same thing. Lads mags covers directly objectify women on the front cover, and in a completely different context and style. Hardly comparable to this!

Both are different varieties of pornographic content, no matter how different they are. 'Lad's mag's don't usually show all 'parts' of a woman whereas these erotic novels go into detail about each part, so they balance each other out in terms of how pornographic they are. It doesn't make a difference about the cover if someone just opens them up, as curious children often do.

With all due respect, that's absolute nonsense. There's no sliding scale of explicitness; surely context is everything? A detailed description of a vagina is a completely different kettle of fish (pardon me) to a photo of some Romanian student with her legs spread. If your young, curious child is picking up Fifty Shades of Grey during a quick trip to WHSmiths, then reading and absorbing it to the level that it negatively impacts their childhood, then send them away from the high street to some sort of school for the terminally gifted.

 

[Andrew]

In the case of WH Smiths, I have seen plenty of adverts for erotic fiction in the front windows of their stores. I, personally, would like some sort of censorship on them like they have with so called 'lad's mags' where they are on the top shelf, often covered, and there are no advertisements around the store for them. If someone wants to read it then they can go and find it.

But they're not the same thing. Lads mags covers directly objectify women on the front cover, and in a completely different context and style. Hardly comparable to this!

Both are different varieties of pornographic content, no matter how different they are. 'Lad's mag's don't usually show all 'parts' of a woman whereas these erotic novels go into detail about each part, so they balance each other out in terms of how pornographic they are. It doesn't make a difference about the cover if someone just opens them up, as curious children often do.

With all due respect, that's absolute nonsense. There's no sliding scale of explicitness; surely context is everything? A detailed description of a vagina is a completely different kettle of fish (pardon me) to a photo of some Romanian student with her legs spread. If your young, curious child is picking up Fifty Shades of Grey during a quick trip to WHSmiths, then reading and absorbing it to the level that it negatively impacts their childhood, then send them away from the high street to some sort of school for the terminally gifted.

But if they know what's going on with the ''Romanian student with her legs spread'' () then they'll know what's going on in the book too, won't they? And if you think, many erotic novels contain vulgar language which shouldn't be in a child's view either. They're just as bad as each other in my opinion.