Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

50 Shades of Grey

What REALLY bothers you most about 50SoG?

  • Total voters


Jan 11, 2009
With that, I suppose - I shall take my leave of this thread. Since I am not sure what other things could be contributed to the conversation. If I do find other articles pertaining to the actions of which I spoke, and you asked links, I will of course drop them off so you have a chance to go over them.

I suppose a lot of the misconceptions were formed about me years ago, when I was easily influenced by the people I interacted with. Once I began changing me, it changed how I acted online as well. So yes, I'm aware it'll probably take a long time to change the way people view me here. The best I can do is keep being me, and just move forward with my life the best i can.

I will say it was a very enjoyable discussion, even if a bit frustrating. If it wasn't for the fact you have me on ignore, I would actually try to have PM discussions with you to try to understand each other better as well. But I will step back for now, and just let others have the floor. I'll return of course, if others have specific questions to relate to '50 Shades' and something I said... but there isn't much more I can do in this specific setting, the conversation between us, as it seems to have come to an end.
Jul 14, 2015
Rudolph Quin said:
A lot of times, people who do not read very well also do not write very well. I think that having this idealized standard for writing can be damaging for people trying to get into reading and writing something themselves. When I was in school, the classics were Henry David Thoreau, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, Mark Twain, etc. I fucking hated Grapes of Wrath and the Great Gatsby, and Thoreau is so fucking contemplative, it makes me have fits.
Don't want to tangent *too* much, but I wonder if sometimes the standards for good writing just... change as the eras go by. I know some classics that are like... some of the great works of literature and well deserve their place in the hall of fame... but have lots of problems by the ideas of good writing you find today. I notice, for instance, a lot of old writers have a massive problem just getting to the point and I wonder if that figures into why people find them so boring nowadays.

TheDarkerMe said:
If nobody likes your shit, then they're not gonna pay for it. You deserve nothing more or less than what other people think you're worth, and as capitalism goes, demand sets the standard for that. You aren't owed notoriety or promotion. Sorry, but no.
I mean, it sucks to live in a world where stuff you don't like gets super popular. You just have to kind of get over it, and make the best of finding people who do share your tastes.

TheDarkerMe said:
But '50 Shades of Grey' and the resulting novels, never ONCE makes it clear that they do not support this kind of relationship. In fact it does the exact opposite. It promotes that kind of relationship, and is putting the wrong idea into peoples mind.
The only point I'd raise at this is... is it the responsibility for the novels to support a certain thing?
I mean, maybe it would be the responsibility of the author to know what they're talking about, sure...
And the responsibility of curious fans to know what they're getting into...
But if the book is a fantasy, then why does it need to be a realistic portrait of a healthy BDSM relationship?

I mean, say if someone in reality likes to play out rape scenes with their partner... and they do it right, they have safewords and everything... and this person likes to write about their fantasies too... it would make sense if they write out their fantasy, not a reflection of the actual relationship they have with their partner in real life.

I mean, you could say that kind of fantasy itself is just messed up, but that kind of changes the topic.

I mean, I get why people can get enraged, if a lot of dumbasses who don't bother understanding things come along and think "oh BDSM you're just like 50 shades!!", but I think that's on them, and it might be fine to be annoyed at a work, but you can't just condemn it for it's followers... 50 Shades might be a piece of trash and deserve it, but it's a dangerous mindset to get into.

Since you could get a beautifully well-written work about abusive relationships and if got popular, people could still take it the wrong way.

I'm pretty sure the definition of rape is all about consent, actually. If she liked the sex and wanted it to happen, you cannot tell someone that they weren't really consenting. What would you define in those scenes as specific examples of rape? Can you give me page numbers and we'll look at it together; I just want to make sure we're on the same page(literally) and I can understand where you're coming from.
Presuming if she didn't actually say, "Yes, let's have sex" or perhaps at any time said, "No" or "Stop", then that's not consent and it is rape. Even if you "enjoy" it, or orgasm a bunch of times, it is still rape.
Really, even if she DID actually want it to happen, if the guy didn't actually bother to ask for consent, he's still committing a rape from his standpoint.

Rudolph Quin

Mistaken for some sort of scoundrel
Aug 2, 2009
This was posted on Tumblr by user akairiot and it sums up my viewpoints on this subject perfectly. It is okay to dislike 50 Shades of Grey or any other work of art or media or fiction. It is not okay to tell me what I should be allowed to do because you think you know better or you wish to protect me.

There’s a certain attitude that scares the shit out of me – let’s call it destructive sensitivity. It’s the philosophy that, if an idea is uncomfortable, it needs to go away. If an image upsets you, or reminds you of a bad experience you had, then not only should you not have to look at it, no one should be allowed to look at it. And if you can’t eradicate it completely, it should at least be buried so deep that a casual viewer would never stumble upon it. This kind of censorship is nothing new, but I feel like it’s becoming more and more common. So, why do I think it’s a problem?


An important question we need to ask ourselves first is, what is the purpose of media, and particularly of fiction? Why do we read, why do we look at artwork, why do we watch movies? To only see happy things? As escapism? That’s certainly a valid interpretation, but it’s not the only one.

For the artist or creator, fiction can be a way to communicate the inner self to the outer world, through the use of symbols. It’s a means of expression. What they express might be deep, might be simple, might be beautiful or disgusting, might be for a niche audience or the whole world, but in the end, it is the artist taking pieces of their own experience and creating something new.

For the viewer, fiction is a way to understand things that are outside their experience, and a way to expand their experience safely. Fiction allows us to go places and do things that we can’t or wouldn’t in our own lives, without risk, without physical harm, and without causing harm to others. Fiction can teach us what we fear, what we love, what we’re missing. It can show us how others live, how others see us, how we see ourselves, and we’re free to engage with it as shallowly or as deeply as we want.

But fiction is not equal to reality. Watching Friday the 13th doesn’t make you a murderer, and it doesn’t kill you. Reading Lolita doesn’t make you a pedophile. Writing a story where a character is raped is not the same as committing rape, and reading that story is not the same as being raped. Thought is not crime.


Censorship is a way to force your interpretation of material on others, to reduce or destroy another’s experience by prejudging it as harmful to them. But part of becoming a well-rounded human being is accepting that not everyone has the same sensibilities, and not every experience needs to be positive.

What you find offensive, some might find enjoyable. What you find traumatic, some might see as an exercise in empathy, or a means of catharsis. Sad songs can be beautiful. Horror stories can be fun. When you decide to silence the things you don’t like, you’re cutting off others from that same experience. You’re making decisions for others, and you’re essentially saying that your feelings (and the feelings of people who agree with you) are more valid than anyone else’s. I find this darkly ironic, because the audience that holds these particular sensitivities also tends to be the first to champion acceptance and non-traditional viewpoints, while organizing witch hunts for those they feel disrespect them.

So, why is this important to me? Why does it scare me? Well, as an artist, the complaint of one sensitive viewer can erase my work in an instant. When complaints are made, content is removed first and questions are asked later. Artists are guilty by default, and viewers are treated as victims. No content host wants to be the one to stand up for freedom of expression at the risk of being seen as supporting offensive material. Most alarming of all, this is all seen as totally acceptable, or even justified. When an artist’s work is taken down, I see comments like, “Well, that’s the risk you take when you post stuff like that. Can’t be helped.” Even the people who disagree with censorship just shrug their shoulders.


To those who are sensitive, I’m not trying to say, “just get over it”. Emotional hurt is real, traumatic experiences are real. I would never belittle someone else’s pain. But you have to realize as well that your experience is not the be-all, end-all of the world. Not all content is made with you in mind. It is inevitable, if we want to exist in a world with other people in it, that we’ll be exposed to things we don’t enjoy. The answer is not to destroy or degrade those things, but to try to understand them – and if that fails, at the very least, we can allow them to exist on equal terms. It is that frightening desire to homogenize the world, to eliminate that which we fail to understand or which causes us emotional distress, that can lead as to real prejudice, to real violence and real crime. Please understand that allowing content you dislike to exist is not the same as advocating it.


What I would love to see is a perspective shift. I want to see a world where responsibility is on the viewer, not the creator or the content host. If you have a problem with something, it’s up to you to not see it, not for the artist to hide it for you, or add unavoidable warnings that prejudge a work. I want a world where, rather than censorship by default, censorship is a conscious choice for those who want it. No work is hidden until a user hides it themselves. Artists are not punished for merely posting content that some find offensive, only for not tagging it correctly. Freedom of expression and variety of content is seen as more important than protecting viewers from fiction, from discomfort, from viewpoints that don’t mesh with their own.

Accept others. Take responsibility for yourself (and only yourself). Understand that not all content is meant for you. Understand that fiction is not crime, and fiction does not equate to real-world harm. That’s all I’m asking.

Mr Quixotic

The Lowest Form Of Wit
Dec 14, 2012
Love that Tumblr post, Rudolph. I don't think my own thoughts could have been expressed more perfectly either.


Aug 30, 2014
I haven't read it or watched it. I keep hearing it is bad, so it's not really tempting...
Top Bottom