The Fifty Shades Fad.

[Plastic Person]

But children should be allowed to be children, I had to grow up very fast after my mum passed away, and I miss the childhood I should have had.

I completely agree and I'm sorry to hear about your loss, but I simply feel using this admittedly crap piece of fiction and it's (already faded) impact on pop culture as a whipping horse is unjustified. Not wanting to create endless 'what if' arguments, but this is a forum dedicated to a theme park, largely beloved and attended by children, whose members are often barely of legal age, and even we have a sub-forum almost dedicated to crass, kinky sex gags!

To quote myself from earlier in this spiralling topic, I often wonder if concerned members of the society are protecting children's right to a childhood, or upholding it for themselves? I'd rather 13 year olds avoided 50 Shades, but human sexuality in all it's awkward, stark truth is universal, where as greed, rampant individualism and violence (not spanking!) needn't be.

 

[Harv]

In what world was this marketed at kids?

For any normal six year old, Lego City > picture of a dark book with a tie on. Like, please, tell me in what way this cover is aimed at a six year old?

Genuinely can't think of a cover that kids are less likely to pick up.

 

[TheMan]

In what world was this marketed at kids?

For any normal six year old, Lego City > picture of a dark book with a tie on. Like, please, tell me in what way this cover is aimed at a six year old?

Genuinely can't think of a cover that kids are less likely to pick up.

I really don't want to continue in this debate, but clearly the whole discussion centred around the front cover of the book. : - That is the first time I have ever felt the need on this forum to use that smiley.

 

[Meat Pie]

I'd prefer it if adolescents didn't have to feel that sexual desire and curiosity is something to be ashamed of. I'd prefer it if we allowed young people to embrace their whole selves, not fall victim to self-loathing created by such backwards conservative attitudes to sexuality.

 

[Harv]

In what world was this marketed at kids?

For any normal six year old, Lego City > picture of a dark book with a tie on. Like, please, tell me in what way this cover is aimed at a six year old?

Genuinely can't think of a cover that kids are less likely to pick up.

I really don't want to continue in this debate, but clearly the whole discussion centred around the front cover of the book. : - That is the first time I have ever felt the need on this forum to use that smiley.

Oooh, I am honoured. You said the book was marketed at kids, but seem to be dodging the explanation of "how".

 

[Sam]

I can tell you one thing, those other kids may have sneaked off to read fifty shades, but they have not got the depth of world knowledge, politics, religion, self investigation and openness that my daughter has got[

Sounds fun growing up in your household...

 

[TheMan]

I can tell you one thing, those other kids may have sneaked off to read fifty shades, but they have not got the depth of world knowledge, politics, religion, self investigation and openness that my daughter has got[

Sounds fun growing up in your household...

I know yeah, dragging her off to Alton Towers regularly is just one way I ensure her life is boring.

Others include music, animals, gaming, sports, martial arts.

You seem to have just juxtaposed your own point, mine which you seem to have washed over was that kids should be allowed to be kids - that means NOT brainwashing them, letting them have fun, teaching them how crap the world can be (appropriately) to give them even more incentive to enjoy childhood and not be in a rush to grow up too quickly.

It would be kind of ironic wouldn't you agree, if I then chose a Victorian style of parenting to highlight this point?

It is your job as a parent, to teach a kid responsibility, to understand and relate to the world around them, but also to insulate them from it appropriately so they can enjoy what should be the best years of their lives.

So yes, we sit down and discuss serious matters about the world around her, to not would be wholly irresponsible, but that should never negate kids being allowed to just be kids.

 

[Meat Pie]

It doesn't sound like you just want kids to be 'allowed' to be kids. It sounds like you want to force all young people into suppressing sexual curiosity to satisfy your own bitter hang ups about 'growing up'.

 

[TheMan]

It doesn't sound like you just want kids to be 'allowed' to be kids. It sounds like you want to force all young people into suppressing sexual curiosity to satisfy your own bitter hang ups about 'growing up'.

I love how I entered a debate about a book, and wider attitudes to childhood, and you insist on continuing to make unsubstantiated personal slurs without any factual basis or evidence whatsoever Meat.

So, tell me, how not wanting children to be exposed to marketing of this nature - which was, in the case I mentioned, something of a more in your face nature and believing society as a whole increases the pressure on children to grow up faster, relates to me wanting to suppress the sexual curiosity of young people because of my own "bitter hang ups"?

That is one awfully giant leap in assumptions you are making there Meat Pie, and one that is beginning to rile me somewhat after your continued assertions of something that I consider to be vacuous, highly presumptuous, factually without basis and detrimental to a wider, sensible debate.

You are of course, on a public forum, entitled to your view point - but please, show me the psychological mechanism of thought that led you to that astounding conclusion? I think for such a leap, you would have more than an insipid 2 line retort to hand to give credence to your contention?

 

[BigT]

If the top shelf is good enough for nuts then its good enough for this rubbish.

Out of "interest" I had a flick though the wife's copy and it's not even that explicit but even so I wouldn't want my 7 year old reading it.
There's been good points by both sides in this debate and whilst the adverts and cover wouldn't really be of interest to my daughter I do take issue with large adverts at the entrance to book shops which get in my way more than anything else.

 

[Meat Pie]

As opposed to your water-tight arguments that didn't jump over canyons to reach your conclusions? :

I'm sorry TheMan, but when you are going to use emotive language to come to vague and meaningless conclusions like 'Children should be allowed to be children', then you are inviting people to fill in the blanks. If I have misrepresented your views, then it is only your fault.

It appears to anyone reading that you want to keep the option closed to young people accessing works of art that explore sexuality in rather harmless mediums. That can only be concluded that you want to force young people to stay as children for as long as possible, even if they themselves are more than ready to explore the world of sexuality through safe mediums. I was brought up in that sort of household. I hate to sound like a broken record, but as I have already explained, that lead to a very confused and upsetting adolescence filled with needless feelings of shame. Effectively making what was meant to be 'the best years of my life' much harder.

You talk of harmful marketing. I support the ban of marketing aimed at children because it is an unfair abuse of power. Advertising experts use complex psychological techniques to try bypass logical consumer judgements and a lot of young people do not have the cognitive capability to grasp the difference between fact and marketing drivel. However despite all of that, on which (I assume) we agree, you've completely invented this so-called child aimed marketing in relation to this book. It didn't exist. It never happened.

 

[Sam]

TheMan, I have no wish to make personal slurs.

I am merely trying to work out why you feel this way, when you seem so liberal and open-minded on other issues. And I want to stress again, that I do not want to make a personal attack or slur, but I do wonder in an entirely neutral way, if it has something to do with your own personal life? It's just that you seem to have an aversion to, shall we say, more 'experimental' sexual behaviour that is stronger than you would usually expect to find in somebody of your age. Obviously I don't wish to probe, but are you sure that there isn't something in your personal life that might have caused this, an anxiety or bad experience or something? Just wondering, please take this post in the entirely curious spirit in which it was meant.

 

[CupCakeMonster]

Probably a bad idea to join this topic, but errr, here goes nothing. I agree that the chance of young children picking this up is very low, there were things such as this when I was younger (as in the massive advertising at the front of the shop, and were 'inappropriate' books), but my parents just walked past it, and I followed. I as a child, even if I were intrigued would have been more worried about losing my parents in the shop than opening a book that I wouldn't have understood anyway.

Also, today for example on the news, there were two news stories regarding rape charges (or at least sexual attacks) for yet more male celebrities. This is something that children will surely ask questions about, like "what is rape?" especially when there are reporters repeating the victims' descriptions of the attacks. This also shows sex in a more negative light than any of these books.

 

[GAGrathea]

Reet so when I was like... 9/10? I accidentally saw a load of reaaaaally graphic gay porn online (because a site I used to frequent was hacked.), at this point I was already fully aware of sex and related things, as were all my peers, and I think I can confidently say it hasn't marred my development as a person or ruined. I didn't come away with wild orgies being my idea of a standard sex life. Any younger child would read the more explicit scenes in 50 Shades and laugh at their apparent lunacy. I thought it was bloody hilarious.

I think, very much like alcohol, the earlier a concept like sex is introduced to a child, the less of a stigma there is around it and the more likely they are to treat it sensibly as something normal.

Balls to trying to force kids to prolong this innocent carefree childhood that everyone's nostalgic for but never had.

Patronising at best and at worst just repressing.