Close Please enter your Username and Password
Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Cancel
Reset Link Sent
Password reset link sent to
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
Close
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service

AC_Wright 58F
83 posts
8/22/2014 10:20 pm
Re


Notes to “Fifty Shades of BS Fifty Shades of BS

MasterNYS posts a blog entry quoting a piece in the New York Daily News which has some really unfortunate statistical observations about women who read Fifty Shades of Grey. He is surprised not by the findings but by someone’s wasting “time, energy and money to research this.”

It doesn’t surprise me at all.

In terms of the conclusions that women who’ve read the books are more likely to have done or become susceptible to everything from fad diets to stalkers is interesting but it raises a question:”Does it mean anything and, if so, what?”

The woman (note, the *woman*) who led the study whose conclusions stated that women who read all three books were more likely to binge drink and have five or more sexual partners than women who hadn’t read any of it. This, too raises the “What does it mean?” question.

The woman whose associates compiled the study is quoted as saying that she wouldn't call for women to stop reading the books or for them to be banned but for them to be aware. and went on to say that t”here are (significant) associations with reading ‘FIfty Shades’ and those health behaviors.”

Let’s paraphrase wildly here on the side of truth.

“Reading the Fifty Shades of Gray will turn you into an abused diet faddist AND a drunken .”

This, it not surprising. What is surprising is a professional academic missing the basic fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc,” in a work that was expected to be seen by her peers.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, is Latin for “after this, therefore because of this.” Saying that something is the cause of something with no evidence but the sequence of events. Of course, seeing how stupid this is doesn’t really require Latin or years of college. It needs a simple illustration.

All women drink beverages out of containers throughout their lives, many women end up contracting some form of cancer; therefore, using cups and glasses to drink from causes cancer.

Of course, that isn’t enough *BAD* for the study MasterNYS quotes. The real, big bad of it is that the study appears to have been pointed at women not who read Fifty Shades of Grey and then became abused, drunken sluts but at women who *had* read it and then saying that there was a causative relationship in other words, “FSOG was read by abused drunken sluts. If you read FSOG, there is a chance that you will become an abused drunken slut—whether or not anything else might have made you an ADS is irrelevant.”

I hate reading things like this because they do for the social sciences what FSOG did for literature.

Men and the women who go along with them have implanted BS into the female psyche since time out of mind and they did it through culture. Culture creates the kind of thinking that finds unhappy, dissatisfied, abused, sexually frustrated women who read a badly written narrative involving LAME sexual fantasy and calls it a reason for all their problems.

It does *not* say, “hmmmm…women are so frustrated and lonely and desperate—so filled with photoshop-powered body-image—that some of them give up, get drunk, and take more than the acceptable number of sexual partners for a spin. It doesn’t ever say, “the world is such shit it makes books like FSOG palatable.”

The study’s real message is “Don’t read about all that nasty fantasex that you’re going to reject in the end (yes, FSOG is says that). It says, “put the book down so you can straighten up, fly right, and find the version of prince charming who will missionary-position you into acceptability.”

Schrille Schlampen aller Länder, vereinigt euch! Ihr habt nichts zu verlieren als euren Kontakt mit Versagern!


IAmMichaelURKnot 62M
14380 posts
8/22/2014 10:55 pm

"The researchers can't know for sure which came first — health problems or an interest in Christian and Anastasia's steamy romps — but they said either could have. In other words, reading the books could lead to risky behavior, or women partaking in such behavior may turn to the books."

I remember now.


AC_Wright 58F
323 posts
8/23/2014 2:17 am

Everyone who works in the brain-field has an agenda that no one talks about. Carreer business people need their projects to work for them to advance. Carreer military people need their fighting and leadership (and at the upper levels, managerial) skills to be known. With academics, the process is analogous: they have to have prove to the world that they know enough to deserve the attention of other academics or, better still, the world at large.

You may notice just how prominent even prominent academics are in society by your inability to name five of them quickly.

Like other careerists, Academics seek real, real-world results, but in truth, in all fields of human endeavor, the semblance of a result is often every bit as good as the result itself and this can produce distortions in the quality of the information.

From what I saw in the quotes, the problems can be said to involve base cultural assumptions ("five or more sexual partners [between 18 and 24]"), the susceptibilities it notes ("abusers, stalkers" "dietary aids") and how it tries to drop these things on E.L. James's doorstep.

The woman really doesn't know what to say but notes a statistical correlation (really? How much of one?) and skirts the toxic issue of recommending not that the books be banned (go ahead, try that) but that women be aware of the books—presumably so they can use common sense to avoid sliding down the binge-drinking slut-chute.

All in all, from what I have, I see a paper quoted in the second-best Newspaper in NYC that gains column inches. It starts with fog and ends with "maybe."

It is the intellectual bird-cage liner—fluff and not even very good *as* fluff.

Schrille Schlampen aller Länder, vereinigt euch! Ihr habt nichts zu verlieren als euren Kontakt mit Versagern!


elustslave0099 51F
1707 posts
8/23/2014 6:48 am

I am not an intellectual research type but in my humble opinion, there has already been way too much attention directed at this series. It was a great money maker for the author and good for her. However, I'm not going to pretend it has a lot of substance to it.

I think we live in a very knee jerk society to begin with and women are just as guilty. People aren't supposed to be organized and grouped in perfect system. Not in my world anyway. The more rules women try to make for me just because we both have vaginas, the more I try to break them. I have no problems telling them where they can shove their research.


AC_Wright 58F
323 posts
8/23/2014 8:47 am

    Quoting elustslave0099:
    I am not an intellectual research type but in my humble opinion, there has already been way too much attention directed at this series. It was a great money maker for the author and good for her. However, I'm not going to pretend it has a lot of substance to it.

    I think we live in a very knee jerk society to begin with and women are just as guilty. People aren't supposed to be organized and grouped in perfect system. Not in my world anyway. The more rules women try to make for me just because we both have vaginas, the more I try to break them. I have no problems telling them where they can shove their research.
That's the thing that's particularly galling, or part of it.

The sexual revolution brought about a lot of things that the right finds uncomfortable including the collapse of the classic subordinate role of women in Abrahamic religions where men want women but where women are stoned to death for adultery.

That situation has been replaced in the modern west with a world that combines the young woman who visited me and called my futon couch/bed a "flip and fuck" and the strange phenomenon of the female anti-abortion protester the right trots out in front of cameras whose belief-system implies a desire to return to the good old days of quiet chastity—the good old days that books like the Decameron and the Canterbury tales suggest were never really all that good.

Their latest research is an old story and an old lie.

Schrille Schlampen aller Länder, vereinigt euch! Ihr habt nichts zu verlieren als euren Kontakt mit Versagern!



Become a member to comment on this blog