50 Shades of Grey
HeelsAndBoxingGloves
Posts: 916 Member
Good morning! So I saw a clip on the news this morning that some libraries are banning these books for being "too hot and racy". I haven't read them yet but I don't believe that any book should be banned from a public library... has anyone in here read them? Opinions?
0
Replies
-
a friend of mine was just telling me about this book. She said it is extremely graphic and racy. I don't think anything should be banned from the public library but they should definitely have an adult section. Some books are definitely not appropriate for children, like any classic from the Marquis de Sade.0
-
Yeah I've heard it's pretty graphic but that there are worse and similar books that aren't being banned because they're not receiving all the publicity this one is. I guess I haven't been to many libraries but the one where I grew up had all the kids, tweens, and teen books downstairs and all the adult reading level books upstairs. The romance novels and books like this didn't have their own section but they were in the "adult" area. It always just blows my mind how people decide that something is "too racy" or too this or that for them so they think no one should have access to it.0
-
No books should be banned. Either all controversy is all okay or none of it is okay.
You can just restrict books to certain ages, require parental permission, slap a label on it, etc. I'd rather have none of that, because some people think Catcher in the Rye of all books should be banned, but there are definitely books that require a more mature reader. I loved the fantasy genre as a kid, but I don't think it would have been appropriate for me to read GRRM's A Song of Ice and Fire series back then. Salty language and controversial ideas shouldn't warrant getting put into the grown-up's section, but maybe murder and rape does is what I guess I'm trying to say.0 -
It's porn, right? Not just "racy", but actual pornographic/erotic writing, amiright?
IMHO, adult material should not be available to children, so no schools should have this in their libraries.
Also, imho, I don't want taxpayer dollars funding the purchase of porn, so public libraries shouldn't have these kinds of materials either.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with porn.
But I think some things in life are "luxuries" and shouldn't be paid for with tax dollars. I don't think anyone "deserves" to have their porno tastes paid for by others. You want to read a book? I'm WAY cool paying for that, but if you just want to get your rocks off, that ought to be on your dime.0 -
It's porn, right? Not just "racy", but actual pornographic/erotic writing, amiright?
IMHO, adult material should not be available to children, so no schools should have this in their libraries.
Also, imho, I don't want taxpayer dollars funding the purchase of porn, so public libraries shouldn't have these kinds of materials either.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with porn.
But I think some things in life are "luxuries" and shouldn't be paid for with tax dollars. I don't think anyone "deserves" to have their porno tastes paid for by others. You want to read a book? I'm WAY cool paying for that, but if you just want to get your rocks off, that ought to be on your dime.
Here's where we start to see problems.
It's not porn. It's tittilation for bored housewives. My girlfriend has been bored to tears by how tame and dull it is. So everyone has different standards. It's why you can't just label something "porn" and be done with it.
Going by your argument I can't see why we'd even have public libraries. No one should be judging what is and is not acceptable for others to read. Yes it's tax payer funded, but that's why they are libraries. They should have as many books as they can hold and as much variety as possible. If we start picking out what kinds of books are acceptable and what kind of books shouldn't be read we may as well just shut the doors of libraries now.0 -
It's porn, right? Not just "racy", but actual pornographic/erotic writing, amiright?
IMHO, adult material should not be available to children, so no schools should have this in their libraries.
Also, imho, I don't want taxpayer dollars funding the purchase of porn, so public libraries shouldn't have these kinds of materials either.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with porn.
But I think some things in life are "luxuries" and shouldn't be paid for with tax dollars. I don't think anyone "deserves" to have their porno tastes paid for by others. You want to read a book? I'm WAY cool paying for that, but if you just want to get your rocks off, that ought to be on your dime.
Here's where we start to see problems.
It's not porn. It's tittilation for bored housewives. My girlfriend has been bored to tears by how tame and dull it is. So everyone has different standards. It's why you can't just label something "porn" and be done with it.
Going by your argument I can't see why we'd even have public libraries. No one should be judging what is and is not acceptable for others to read. Yes it's tax payer funded, but that's why they are libraries. They should have as many books as they can hold and as much variety as possible. If we start picking out what kinds of books are acceptable and what kind of books shouldn't be read we may as well just shut the doors of libraries now.
Along those same lines *and mentioning again I haven't read them yet* but I have heard that compared to even some "normal" romance novels these books are pretty tame. I do agree that school libraries should not have these kind of books, but then again they're not meant for little kids so I wouldn't think that they would have them anyway. I remember my elementary and middle school libraries only carried age appropriate reading. If we're going to start pulling books off the shelves based on if they have any "porn" or "racy" parts in them they better just get rid of the entire romance section.0 -
I don't consider them porn, nor consider there to be any censoring it's availability in the library. They aren't "tame" but they aren't porn either... IMO, of course.
What they are is poorly written mommy porn. *shrug* If it gets people into a library and reading it simply because there is a riding crop, handcuffs, spankings, and she bites her lip every two seconds... well, so be it.
And yes, I've read all three.0 -
If it should be banned at all it should be banned for being a huge stinking pile of crap:laugh:0
-
I haven't read them, so I am assuming that the descriptions I heard were accurate. I realize raciness/tameness level is subjective. If they are just "romance novel" level stuff, then I have no objection. I was told it was as graphic as the "Sleeping Beauty" porn books.
Brett, I am simply aguing that some things don't need to be provided (paid for) by the government. I do believe in paying for libraries, but I don't think that means every and any kind of written entertainment should be available there. I think libraries should have a good variety of selections, but they should back away from more objectionable stuff. There is no way to make sure a kid doesn't get ahold of it. Simply putting in an "adult" section does nothing, unless we have someone carding kids to access it.
Libraries lend out movies, too, but they don't lend out pornographic movies. That's crossing the line, imho.
My original contention stands: if you want access to porn, YOU should have to seek it out and pay for it yourself. Public/school libraries should not be in that business.
I am NOT in favor of banning books. Pretty much ever. HOWEVER there's a BIG distinction between banning a book and simply choosing other materials for the taxpayer to provide.0 -
OK, Then where do you draw the line on Horror books? Is it because the topic is sex? Fifty is being made into a movie - a mainstream, R rated film. I would argue that I'd rather this be available than a graphic Horror novel. Who gets to decide what to censor?0
-
I haven't read them, so I am assuming that the descriptions I heard were accurate. I realize raciness/tameness level is subjective. If they are just "romance novel" level stuff, then I have no objection. I was told it was as graphic as the "Sleeping Beauty" porn books.
Brett, I am simply aguing that some things don't need to be provided (paid for) by the government. I do believe in paying for libraries, but I don't think that means every and any kind of written entertainment should be available there. I think libraries should have a good variety of selections, but they should back away from more objectionable stuff. There is no way to make sure a kid doesn't get ahold of it. Simply putting in an "adult" section does nothing, unless we have someone carding kids to access it.
Libraries lend out movies, too, but they don't lend out pornographic movies. That's crossing the line, imho.
My original contention stands: if you want access to porn, YOU should have to seek it out and pay for it yourself. Public/school libraries should not be in that business.
I am NOT in favor of banning books. Pretty much ever. HOWEVER there's a BIG distinction between banning a book and simply choosing other materials for the taxpayer to provide.
Where are these libraries that stock porn?0 -
OK, who said this book was porn in the first place? Having sex scenes in it does NOT make it porn.
I haven't read this book but from what I understand it is about BDSM. I've read my fair share of BDSM fiction. It's deeper than just porn or sex. It's emotional, challenging and uses more of your mind than watching any present day reality show.
To me, porn is visual imagery of sexual acts...A book telling a tale about a person living the BDSM "lifestyle" and all the challenges, taboo and accomplishment that can come with it is not the same.0 -
OK, who said this book was porn in the first place? Having sex scenes in it does NOT make it porn.
Hence the problem with labeling something as "pornography". We all know (or should know) the famous quote by Supreme Court Justice Brett Can'tremembernames, "I can't say what pornography is, but I know it when I see it." Well that's great, but you can't legislate that. You can't arbitrarily label things as porn and then decide if they belong in the public arena or not. Because we all have different standards and tastes. One persons art house film is another persons "Harold the world has gone to hell."0 -
And to further complicate things, I submit to you that what would be considered over the top/shocking/unacceptable in Bakersfield (to use a community I know as an example of a mostly conservative place) would be considered tame in San Francisco (the polar opposite).
I'm not pretending that legislating this would be easy, and perhaps it doesn't need to be legislated.
I'd just like to believe that librarians are trying to be good stewards of our tax dollars, and would hopefully choose library materials which would be of benefit to the most people, rather than spending their budget on material which is for a very select crowd, and has huge potential for offense.
(once more, I have only been told about this particular book, 50 shades. Without reading it myself I can't say how tame/racy it really is, but can only speculate based on what I have heard. Therefore all the opinions I offered on this subject are generic, and based on the assessment that the book is pornographic)0 -
You can't arbitrarily label things as porn and then decide if they belong in the public arena or not. Because we all have different standards and tastes. One persons art house film is another persons "Harold the world has gone to hell."
I'm only suggesting what things should be paid for by public funds, rather than be funded by private money. I've never suggested that this kind of book should be banned, or not be in the public arena, I'm only suggesting that if you want to read such a book (not 50 shades, specifically, but pornographic books), you should pay for it.
To try to sum up my position, taxpayer funds should be used more cautiously/conservatively. Libraries should spend their budgets on higher quality materials. Education should be the primary goal of a library, then entertainment. Libraries should not be obligated to carry every and any kind of material. That's what book stores are for. Or adult stores, as the case may be.
Odus, to address your question, I feel pretty much the exact same towards reading materials whose contant may be objectionable on the basis of violence/horror/gore. I read some stuff that is super gory/shocking, and while I like it, I would feel it inappropriate to be in a public library.0 -
You can't arbitrarily label things as porn and then decide if they belong in the public arena or not. Because we all have different standards and tastes. One persons art house film is another persons "Harold the world has gone to hell."
I'm only suggesting what things should be paid for by public funds, rather than be funded by private money. I've never suggested that this kind of book should be banned, or not be in the public arena, I'm only suggesting that if you want to read such a book (not 50 shades, specifically, but pornographic books), you should pay for it.
To try to sum up my position, taxpayer funds should be used more cautiously/conservatively. Libraries should spend their budgets on higher quality materials. Education should be the primary goal of a library, then entertainment. Libraries should not be obligated to carry every and any kind of material. That's what book stores are for. Or adult stores, as the case may be.
Odus, to address your question, I feel pretty much the exact same towards reading materials whose contant may be objectionable on the basis of violence/horror/gore. I read some stuff that is super gory/shocking, and while I like it, I would feel it inappropriate to be in a public library.
But you keep circling back to the same point--who gets to decide? None of has exclusive say over "public money", so to me that argument is kind of an empty one.
I consider the public library to be one of our countries greatest treasures. I want my libraries to be brimming with the widest range of ideas, topics and subjects. I want them to not only contain resources of the highest intellectual caliber, but to reflect popular culture as well.
And for the most part, I think the people who run the libraries do a great job of selecting the appropriate offerings for their communities. That's where the decisions are best made. I don't go to the library as much as I used to (thanks to Kindle), but I have never seen anything remotely resembling pornography being offered at any library I have ever visited. I think this is coming close to a strawman argument.0 -
The problem with banning these books, or restricting their purchase with tax dollars, is that they are no more graphic or erotic than many other books that we consider to be 'classics' that no-one (I hope!) in the present day would consider banning/restricting. Hardy, D.H.Lawrence, Victor Hugo - all mainstream 'greats' whose works contain material of a similar sort, before we even consider writers such as De Sade, Laclos et al. If one were to insist on removing/not purchasing all material that might afford one or other group some physical or intellectual 'stimulation', one would be left with very, very little to read. Even sections of the Bible can be read as profoundly erotic.
As a prolific and highly-precocious reader, my local library was a source of all kinds of education, some of which was perhaps age-inappropriate (Tess of the D'Urbervilles, Uncle Tom's Cabin and Les Miserables aged 7-ish all lead to some awkward moments for my mother :laugh: ). Yet, what I remember being most disturbed by was the historical fact I found in biographies and historical works - educational material, without doubt: the force-feeding of sufragettes, the horrors of Civil War, both in the USA and UK, the torturous deaths of Edward the 2nd and Guy Fawkes, the outrages and atrocities of POW and concentration camps... not the realities and variations of physical congress, which I understood the mechanics of, but remained essentially uninterested in at that time. Frankly, the omnipresent sexual images found in advertising, film, television and especially music videos are of far more concern to me than sexually-explicit books, in terms of their potential effects on the minds of children, should they get their hands on them. Of course the 50 Shades books do not belong in school libraries, but I see no reason why they should not be available to the general public in a general library. The only grounds I can see for choosing not to buy them for a library would be the low quality of the writing, and/or awareness of one's market - not much point in buying them to sit un-borrowed in an ultra-conservative community. Libraries have to justify their existence and the costs of running them in today's world, and if 50 Shades gets people through the door and borrowing, then more power to it!
Jean M Auel is a classic 'teen' author, whose books in my opinion contain far more disturbing sexual content, including the graphic rape of a minor, than the 50 Shades series, where the participants are informed, consenting adults, yet one rarely hears calls for her books to be removed from the shelves - indeed, more often than not these books are found in the 'teen' section of libraries. My impression is that the 'outrage' surrounding the 50 Shades books in certain sections of the community has less to do with their actual content, which is relatively mild, and more to do with the fact that they are, in essence, the first books in recent years to gain enormous public success whilst openly dealing with a BDSM relationship ie. a relationship outside the socially-comfortable accepted 'norms'
Interestingly, there seems to be far less of an issue (or even a non-issue - no-one cares) in the UK and Europe than in the - forgive me - sexually-puritanical USA, where I suspect certain groups would like to reintroduce legislature that limited allowable intercourse to the missionary position, once a week, solely for procreation, and where alternative lifestyles, sexual pleasure, and a little 'kinky' still seem to be the subject of a certain amount of shame and/or prurient curiosity. Harlequin et al have been quietly publishing far more graphic material, freely available in most libraries, for decades, but none of their offerings have made it to the best-seller lists. 50 Shades is, in many ways, a victim of its' own success.0 -
I have not (nor will ever) read this book, but there was a local news story on last night here in Houston about it, too. From all I've heard about the book, the majority of people call it "mom porn" or "soft porn". I suppose if you're into "hard core porn", you'd find this book boring, but for people who do not read nor view porn at all, it is considered pretty bad.
I agree with Lucky; public libraries should not carry pornography, books nor movies. I disagree with Brett; I believe one can absolutely label something as pornographic.0 -
I have not (nor will ever) read this book, but there was a local news story on last night here in Houston about it, too. From all I've heard about the book, the majority of people call it "mom porn" or "soft porn". I suppose if you're into "hard core porn", you'd find this book boring, but for people who do not read nor view porn at all, it is considered pretty bad.
I agree with Lucky; public libraries should not carry pornography, books nor movies. I disagree with Brett; I believe one can absolutely label something as pornographic.
Ok Patti. Let's test that theory.
I label the bible as pornography. In it men have sex with their children and multiple wives and all sorts of nasty business. It's disgusting and shouldn't be available to read in public institutions.
Your move.0 -
I purposefully left out my moral reasons for not reading or watching pornography. No matter how I answer from my Christian viewpoint, the bible or Christianity will be attacked.Ok Patti. Let's test that theory.
I label the bible as pornography. In it men have sex with their children and multiple wives and all sorts of nasty business. It's disgusting and shouldn't be available to read in public institutions.Your move.
Let's not fool ourselves here. We all know what pornography is. Again, I haven't read this book, but from many reviews I've seen, it's considered soft porn. Call it what it is.0
