Unsatisfied customer sues Fifty Shades of Grey's E.L. James over lubricant

Just stick to cocaine applied topically.

Never understood how women can get all wet over this book yet complain about abusive men. Guess as long as they're rich it's OK.

Uhhh, Might have something to do with consensual playing that does not injure versus "teaching her a lesson weather he likes it or not."

That's like saying 'I don't understand how women can like playing doctor in the bedroom then get upset if their GP rapes them!'

Or playing naughty teacher then saying 'I don't understand why she's upset her kid got molested by her teacher since the mother enjoys the scene in bed."

Call up John Gemshi (or however you spell it) and talk to him about the difference. Assuming, of course, he's not guilty.

Guess I should have included more of the quote where the CDC found the behavior depicted in the book definitely described abuse, not consensual BDSM.

I actually don't know what the CDC is though or where you referenced that. The study numbers etc. Only CDC I know is the Centre for Disease Control.

I'll have to ask my wife. She read the first book and part of the second then got tired of the poor writing of what she described as mediocre author.

As to the quote, if it needs addressing, how do they know what came first? The book or their problems? Did they test and check the women's relations etc before they read the books? Maybe they had all these problems before? I'm assuming it was also an insignificant sample considering it sounds like a really lame study in the first place.

BDSM and Dominance fantasies have been around much longer than this book. Funny no one after all these years has linked playing it to eating disorders etc.

I am interested though if you have a link as I deal with domesticators and sexual deviants.

BTW after reading it I can tell you my wife does not fit they test group results. I'm certainly not in charge.

cdc = center for disease control - all info from wikki.

Which is what I thought.

I don't do Wikipedia as a primary source. So much like my profs said. Citing Wiki is a good as no reference at all.

If you want to be silly about it and not actually post a link (which is what the presenter of 'evidence' should do as opposed to saying go find it yourself) I'll go find it myself. In future though if you cite a specific study and don't provide a link when asked I'll just assume you are making it up.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/13 ... e-20130812



So the studies own authors agree with my first statement about consent.

It was also not a CDC study but a Michigan State University and Ohio State University which used the CDC definition of intimate partner abuse. (This is why citing Wikki sucks, you end up citing the wrong crap)

Further


They also only studied women within a 6 year age range and within a certain demographic (those attending university) and there is no supporting study. IT also says people who read the book are only 25% more likely to suffer any of the things you mentioned. That's not a lot for such a narrow study group which never tested the women before hand to see if these problems were there before reading the book.

I'll still try to take a look at it though.

As far as defending the book I'll concede there considering I've never read it. Its just the first I've heard of it glorifying anything beyond a kinky relationship.

We should work on fighting the unconsensual misogyny in media before tackling a poorly written book which I suspect will also be a poor movie. Lets just say "my inner angel" is not exactly doing "flips" about seeing it.

We can do both. we can also be supportive of women who are abused and the media circus that overplays the situation. For instance, in ghomeshi's case he's convicted before the trial. (nothing new there) but there were also calls for relaxing the rules of evidence in court for sexual assault, which is a very bad idea. We can ask women to report abuse and to leave the abuser, because exactly how, otherwise, are we supposed to protect them? We don't have to make excuses for why they can't report or leave, yet still blame society for not doing anything. And so on.

Globe and Mail just has a focus piece on why abusers do it. (haven't read it all, doubt they come up with a definitive answer.) In it an abuser says the first time he hit his partner, she told him she was cheating on him, then when he did nothing, asked him if he wasn't going to hit her. Lots of crazy women out there who only know abuse, will push every button to try to make it happen. We can expect women to cut that out. When women kill their partners for cheating on them, we can give them the same sentence as a man would get. Can you imagine if a man was given parole for stabbing his partner to death in a drunken jealous rage, then was given 3 years parole because he was FN, had was in recovery and expressed remorse? How about a man stabbing his partner and watching her bleed out getting 2 years house arrest because he was unlikely to do it again?

Big complicated questions.

As for citing sources, this is casual conversation. Feel free to assume I'm making it up - it's not important.

WTF? The whole point of a relationship the abuse! That's the point!!!

It's not deemed abuse if it's consensual and doesn't cross a certain line. You know, sort of like spanking your children.

Results may vary...

numb-numbs

Some people are into 'consensual non-consent' meaning they do things without a so-called 'safety word'.

I frankly see little difference between that and getting on an airplane these days. Once the door closes you have absolutely no say in what happens next.