Because it's about how the story is presented, and is interpreted by a large number of people. I'm not complaining about depicting unrealistic scenarios or abusive relationships. I'm objecting to the depiction of abusive relationships as an ideal, and to the despicable portrayals of mental illness and BDSM. If the story was meant to be about an abusive relationship, and was marketed, and written as such, it wouldn't get this complaint. It's the context. MacBeth is a great work in which many horrible characters treat each other abominably, however, it's meant to be about that, and at no point does the play stop for the characters to soliliquise about how good abusive people and circumstances are. FSOG could be a great satire. But it's not how it's presented.Jumwa said:
Yes. Presumably since I answered this question I can ignore the rest of the rant, since clearly someone would only be this presumptuous, rude, arrogant and dismissive if my argument would fall apart if I answered "No"? No? Ok then. The irony of you making this statement in full admission of having little knowledge of the text in question is more than a little ironic. "Have you taken a look at FSOG, and domestic violence?" would be my response, were I feeling similarly rhetorical and poorly reasoned.Have you taken a look at the romance genre?
Duh. In fact, the very site I linked has discussions of that very topic. And I'm well aware of nonconsent, and dubious consent etc. The question of consent is a good one, since Grey in the story threatens to rape her, and then tries to manipulate her into agreeing to do things she doesn't want sexually. Which is abominable. Which is then presented as a romantic ideal.It has always been full of ridiculous tales. Romance books are packed to the brim with "nonconsent" stories for centuries. i.e. A woman gets raped and ends up loving it.
Oh, you mean to compare the two? Sorry, I don't have to judge every book ever fucking written to criticise one. I'll judge them on their own merits if there's a requirement, but that's just an attempt to justify a wrong with other wrongs. Do I have to explain why that's fallacious? Because if I do, there's no point in discussing anything, it won't go anywhere.
1.) Presentation. There's a difference between depicting something and glamorising it. I'm claiming that FSOG glamorises abusive relationships.How could things get anymore irresponsible than that?
2.) Some of that stuff is abhorrent. Doesn't make this any better.
Just for the example, since you managed to make the mistake twice: Since Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Justin Bieber happened, nothing I do can be judged, because by comparison, I'm insignificant, and anyone who tried to judge me would have to give substantive criticisms of everyone else that someone was willing to bring up. Obviously, this argument is fallacious.
It does if you think that media has any effect on society. And I've no problem with fantasies. It's the presentation of this fantasy. Please aim to discuss the things I have said, rather than those you'd wished I'd said.However, it doesn't matter because it's fantasy.
So THAT'S why it was in the fiction section! NOW IT MAKES SENSE.It isn't real.
Never claimed that they were. Again, you've missed the point. Which seems to be a trend. It's entirely possible that you don't think media has any influence on society, because you don't pay attention to it. Heck, it seems you didn't pay attention to my post.And romance novels aren't meant to be instructional how-to guides.