Just posted my Week 42 of 52 (and have 5 lbs to lose for goal before my year is up). This week I talk about strong women and the newest best seller out there: Fifty Shades of Grey. I'll be interested to hear others thoughts on this popular book.

Written from the island of Kauai this week......thanks for following my Sundayy posts and hope everyone has a good week.

I read excerpts of it and found it so boring. I'm a very loyal Zane fan though so I may be biased.

I think that there are a lot of previously "kinky" ways of being that are breaking into the mainstream. Now that being gay is no longer forbidden or naughty' date=' other shades of sex are the new "hot topic."

I'm polyamorous -- my girlfriend and I both enjoy other lovers, despite having been together for almost ten years. We disagree with the notion that love and sexuality are something that gets "used up" and so can only be shared with one person; our experience has been that the more people we love (in all meanings of that term), the more we're capable of love (including with each other -- our relationship is stronger than it's ever been). Up until recently I had thought that I was in a teeny, tiny minority. Society tells us that the only acceptable sexuality is one man, one woman, missionary position, lights off, to make babies. Imagine my surprise when we finally went to a polyamorous potluck dinner, and it was FILLED with nice, attractive, interesting, NORMAL people like us. No slavering deviants, no serious mental illnesses, just normal people who like (safe) sex and enjoy it with multiple partners. Wow! We're not kinky or deviant, after all; we're definitely in the sexual minority, but that's okay -- we're not broken or mentally ill or morally defective, we're just in the minority. And that's okay!

Moral of the story? Most things that most people think are "naughty" or "kinky," aren't, really. And I think that the 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon isn't really about BDSM suddenly becoming acceptable (it always WAS acceptable), but rather because society is suddenly deciding that it's perfectly okay to talk about "non mainstream" flavors of sexuality.

It's okay to be who you are, people -- gay, straight, monogamous, polyamorous, swingers, single, coupled, in a "clan," a furry, into BDSM, a Dom/sub, into ropes, fire, whatever. Just make sure everyone is consenting adults and having a good time (and please, folks, practice safe sex!) and just remember:

It's okay to be who you are. Sexually, too. It's really okay.[/quote']

I agree to a point, and like your post. But while the "taboo" is becoming mainstream and ok to talk about, I don't believe it is truly accepted as normal by the majorities. Its ok for a woman to be a sexual being in polite conversation. But still earns a not so nice title if she indulges. Im a lesbian, and while it is now ok for a woman to be intimate with another woman, it is not acceptable to love her atleast not to the exclusion of men. Otherwise, marriage would not be the controversy that it is. Handcuffs are ok IN the bedside table but not visible ON the table. So to speak. Lol

I personally have no desire to read about a weak minded submissive woman as I would quickly lose all respect for the female character. That' date=' and well, being feminist I don't think I could read a male sexually dominant character and get into it. [/quote']

I find this so judgmental. Being sexually submissive does not equate to being weak minded nor does it mean unworthy of respect. Being sexually submissive and being feminist are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to be both. Broad sweeping generalisations like the ones you have made are in fact anti feminist, and are potentially damaging to those who are trying to understand their sexual identity.

Your comments are the equivalent of someone saying "lesbians were abused" or "gay men are weak".

I think that there are a lot of previously "kinky" ways of being that are breaking into the mainstream. Now that being gay is no longer forbidden or naughty' date=' other shades of sex are the new "hot topic."

I'm polyamorous -- my girlfriend and I both enjoy other lovers, despite having been together for almost ten years. We disagree with the notion that love and sexuality are something that gets "used up" and so can only be shared with one person; our experience has been that the more people we love (in all meanings of that term), the more we're capable of love (including with each other -- our relationship is stronger than it's ever been). Up until recently I had thought that I was in a teeny, tiny minority. Society tells us that the only acceptable sexuality is one man, one woman, missionary position, lights off, to make babies. Imagine my surprise when we finally went to a polyamorous potluck dinner, and it was FILLED with nice, attractive, interesting, NORMAL people like us. No slavering deviants, no serious mental illnesses, just normal people who like (safe) sex and enjoy it with multiple partners. Wow! We're not kinky or deviant, after all; we're definitely in the sexual minority, but that's okay -- we're not broken or mentally ill or morally defective, we're just in the minority. And that's okay!

Moral of the story? Most things that most people think are "naughty" or "kinky," aren't, really. And I think that the 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon isn't really about BDSM suddenly becoming acceptable (it always WAS acceptable), but rather because society is suddenly deciding that it's perfectly okay to talk about "non mainstream" flavors of sexuality.

It's okay to be who you are, people -- gay, straight, monogamous, polyamorous, swingers, single, coupled, in a "clan," a furry, into BDSM, a Dom/sub, into ropes, fire, whatever. Just make sure everyone is consenting adults and having a good time (and please, folks, practice safe sex!) and just remember:

It's okay to be who you are. Sexually, too. It's really okay.[/quote']

I couldn't agree with you more !

I find this so judgmental. Being sexually submissive does not equate to being weak minded nor does it mean unworthy of respect. Being sexually submissive and being feminist are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to be both. Broad sweeping generalisations like the ones you have made are in fact anti feminist' date=' and are potentially damaging to those who are trying to understand their sexual identity.

Your comments are the equivalent of someone saying "lesbians were abused" or "gay men are weak".

[/quote']

I agree I am a very strong woman and I don't put up with **** from anyone my husband included... But I do like to be Dominated in the bedroom!

I find this so judgmental. Being sexually submissive does not equate to being weak minded nor does it mean unworthy of respect. Being sexually submissive and being feminist are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to be both. Broad sweeping generalisations like the ones you have made are in fact anti feminist' date=' and are potentially damaging to those who are trying to understand their sexual identity.

Your comments are the equivalent of someone saying "lesbians were abused" or "gay men are weak".

[/quote']

Hon, I was not generalizing. I have no problems with a dom/sub relationship. Nor a real life submissive. If you read queen of crops full post on her site, and the other reviews of this book, you would see I was only speaking of the BOOK character. Not true submissives. Sorry if it came across the wrong way, but it was the young nieve character I spoke of as to what turned me away from the books. Someone who is submissive behind closed doors can still be a strong individual without...which actually is frequently the case. From what I have read in reviews, the female character was given little substance and her male dom completely manipulative.THAT is what I spoke of. Sorry again if you thought I was voicing a personal opinion of real life. But if you read back, this thread is about a book and the opinion of...

This is amazing! How did a simple post about a book and opinions of said book go into sexual orientation & preference???? Funny how that works, eh???

I agree to a point, and like your post. But while the "taboo" is becoming mainstream and ok to talk about, I don't believe it is truly accepted as normal by the majorities. Its ok for a woman to be a sexual being in polite conversation. But still earns a not so nice title if she indulges. Im a lesbian, and while it is now ok for a woman to be intimate with another woman, it is not acceptable to love her atleast not to the exclusion of men. Otherwise, marriage would not be the controversy that it is. Handcuffs are ok IN the bedside table but not visible ON the table. So to speak. Lol

Oh, I agree completely. **** shaming (and please be aware of the context of me using the word "****" here) is still terribly fashionable. God help you if you're a woman (of any orientation) with a strong libido.

I think things are changing. But maybe not fast enough...

This is amazing! How did a simple post about a book and opinions of said book go into sexual orientation & preference???? Funny how that works' date=' eh???[/quote']

Always happens when people make broad sweeping judgements!

I find this so judgmental. Being sexually submissive does not equate to being weak minded nor does it mean unworthy of respect. Being sexually submissive and being feminist are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to be both. Broad sweeping generalisations like the ones you have made are in fact anti feminist, and are potentially damaging to those who are trying to understand their sexual identity.

Your comments are the equivalent of someone saying "lesbians were abused" or "gay men are weak".

While I'm not "in" to BDSM, I do agree; most people misunderstand the sexual power dynamic. Submission doesn't always mean "weak." In fact some of the strongest women I know (in "real life") are submissives. Again, it's not "my thing," but I've learned to avoid sweeping value judgements

There are no broad sweeping statements.The "sweeping statement" you reference was no such thing. It was an opinion of a book character only. Which was twisted to be a real life statement. The book character since that is what was originally the topic. The conversation about a book that lead to societies views. An understandable breakoff since the books are of a risque nature. Shrug...

Good grief. :eyeroll:

Louise C,Where you talking to me? I said I agreed with you

Louise C' date='Where you talking to me? I said I agreed with you [/quote']

Disregard I always get confused when reading this on my phone lol

Louise C' date='Where you talking to me? I said I agreed with you [/quote']

No..she's speaking to me, but completely misunderstood my post if she were to read my reply, she may see there was a misunderstanding and no need to attack me personally. Im probabably one of the most open minded and accepting people out here...I just didn't like the way the reviews have made the submissive woman in the book seem to be a weak individual..as that is not typically the case in real life. It was a book character opinion.