Are you going to go and see Fifty Shades of Grey?

[shouldbeinbed]

no

 

[Slioch]

Can't say I'd be able to whip up enough enthusiasm to go and see it.

 

[rich p]

she didn't want to lend commercial support to a film that promulgates the view that BDSM relationships are inherently abusive.

Very enlightened!!!!!
I assumed she'd have thought that such relationships were inherently abusive.

 

[jefmcg]

I'm not going to. But I'd sooner see it than read the book: 560 pages (according to Amazon) of turgid prose and apparently only 3 sex scenes. Seriously??

 

[andyfraser]

[QUOTE 3526416, member: 45"]Do they do pause at the pictures these days?[/QUOTE]
If it's a digital projector then anyone with access to said projector can pause it.

I'd much rather watch Secretary or even Nymphomaniac than 50 Shades.

 

[jefmcg]

Ridiculous merchandising

Fifty Shades of Grey® Bear with Red Velvet Gift Packaging

Dominate Valentine’s Day this year. Give the one you want something that will obsess and possess them. With all of the trappings of a memorable gift – daring, passion, exciting next-to-skin touch - she’ll be desperate to get close. Bear seduces her with silky, smoky Grey fur; smoldering Grey eyes; a handsome grey suit and silver tie. He even comes with a mask and handcuffs. She can’t help but submit to loving him. Available exclusively at Vermont Teddy Bear. Complete the package by sending the Bear in premium Red Velvet Packaging with matching eye mask for her.

 

[andyfraser]

Ridiculous merchandising

That's just wrong.

 

[Accy cyclist]

I haven't been to the pictures since 1991 so i don't think i'll be going.

 

[bianchi1]

Lego movie out soon?


View: http://youtu.be/S7AvZPTT4kU

 

[AndyRM]

I once heard the books described as 'mummy porn', which is possibly the grimmest description going. I've managed to avoid the books and have no interest in the film, though the soundtrack looks quality.

The books were originally self published works of Twilight fan fiction. Their popularity is a cultural travesty.

 

[Yellow Fang]

I asked my daughter (just turned 18) if she was and she said no, because she didn't want to lend commercial support to a film that promulgates the view that BDSM relationships are inherently abusive.

Sometimes I allow myself to think we didn't do too bad a job of bringing up that girl after all.

What, she doesn't agree that BDSM relationships are inherently abusive? Surely it is abusive by definition. The term BDSM does have sadism in it. If I were to cane her lovely, taut, 18-year-old buttocks, surely that would qualify as abuse.

 

[AndyRM]

What, she doesn't agree that BDSM relationships are inherently abusive? Surely it is abusive by definition. The term BDSM does have sadism in it. If I were to cane her lovely, taut, 18-year-old buttocks, surely that would qualify as abuse.

His daughter is right, they aren't. Such relationships are complex and generally misunderstood.

 

[slowmotion]

Can't say I'd be able to whip up enough enthusiasm to go and see it.

I'm not prepared to lash out a tenner on the cinema ticket either....

{sorry...}

 

[Dan B]

What, she doesn't agree that BDSM relationships are inherently abusive? Surely it is abusive by definition. The term BDSM does have sadism in it. If I were to cane her lovely, taut, 18-year-old buttocks, surely that would qualify as abuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe,_sane_and_consensual
or some prefer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-aware_consensual_kink

 

[AndyRM]

What, she doesn't agree that BDSM relationships are inherently abusive? Surely it is abusive by definition. The term BDSM does have sadism in it. If I were to cane her lovely, taut, 18-year-old buttocks, surely that would qualify as abuse.

Your last sentence there is f*cking weird by the way.