"Shades of Grey" _ Hype

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Grifter

I think one aspect that hasnt been mentioned here is that this is fan fiction based roughly on Twilight. So you get the somewhat unreachable damaged man and the innocent woman dynamic except hes a dom and they do some serious fucking. Oh it puts a positive spin on the whole dom/sub thing that makes the bored housewife feel like safe experimenting with it. Which is amazing for bored husbands out there.

Hi Grifter,

Also very very interesting! I have not known about the relation to Twilight either, but since you mentioned it , I assume it has indeed a comprehensible and significant influence on the marketing. I also agree on the positive aspects of BDSM, but otoh it is simplyfying matters... I assume once experimenting in reality bored housewives might be a bit overwhelmed and leave it be.. Like any new toys, maybe, you`re not deeply and profoundly into

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by SpinnerAllyRay

My friend was into this book. She is getting her boobs done and in recovery wants to read this. I told her instead to warch Secret Diaries of a Call girl. You can youtube it and see the advertisement for it. I love it, especially the first season. Softcore porn.. hmmm

Secret diaries of a Callgirl is amazing. Love it , too!

[Qziz]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

Maybe you`re probably making this assumption because sex is involved, and henceforth relating it automatically to a "romantic philosophy", which I consider to be a typical sex-negative assumption, because it means that sex is only allowed in some contexts - aka contexts of love and romance , which is certainly not the case in the demi monde ......correct me if I am wrong, I don`t want to lie words in your mouth ....)

Not necessarily. Sex does not equal love; however both can tie into friendship, and when members of compatible genders are involved that can fall into romance. And - again - it's a matter of self analysis. If you are paying someone for an hourly paid companion, obviously there isn't a whole lot of room for discussion. Yet a mistress? The line is far more blurred there. (And I have paid far more to mistresses than hourly companions!) It becomes even more blurred when the partner goes to great lengths to blur those lines for her own benefit (something which goes on a *great* deal of the time). While ideally per definition romance does not exist in such a scheduled/paid encounter - it happens, because humans are imperfect, on both sides of the aisle.

Originally Posted by ninasastri

Anyone who is an escort, client, or posts on escort boards and thinks about this habit as commodification of romance, might eventually lack proper self analyzis and the skills to reflect on distinctive nuances between the many possible realms within interpersonal relationships

I would argue more that what we see expressed in its purest form here is but one of many reflections of a commodification of human relations going on in the wider word. But it is a discussion which, while interesting, is also veering wildly off-topic. To be back on topic:

Originally Posted by ninasastri

have not known about the relation to Twilight either

It's a direct relation.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Fifty Shades trilogy was developed from a Twilight fan fiction originally titled Master of the Universe and published episodically on fan-fiction websites under the pen name "Snowqueens Icedragon". The piece featured characters named after Stephenie Meyer's characters in Twilight, Edward Cullen and Bella Swan.

After comments concerning the sexual nature of the material, James removed the story from the fan-fiction websites and published it on her own website, FiftyShades.com. Later she rewrote Master of the Universe as an original piece, with the principal characters renamed Christian Grey and Anastasia Steele and removed it from her website prior to publication.

Meyer commented on the series, saying "that's really not my genre, not my thing ... Good on her—she's doing well. That's great!"

[NinaBrooke]

Hello Qziz,

Originally Posted by Qziz

Not necessarily. Sex does not equal love; however both can tie into friendship, and when members of compatible genders are involved that can fall into romance. And - again - it's a matter of self analysis. If you are paying someone for an hourly paid companion, obviously there isn't a whole lot of room for discussion. Yet a mistress? The line is far more blurred there. (And I have paid far more to mistresses than hourly companions!) It becomes even more blurred when the partner goes to great lengths to blur those lines for her own benefit (something which goes on a *great* deal of the time). While ideally per definition romance does not exist in such a scheduled/paid encounter - it happens, because humans are imperfect, on both sides of the aisle

I do agree with you here, and I would argue that we are seing the same spectre from different angles, and that my "definition" of a certain praxis within relationships is probably a little more narrow than yours. Coming from personal experience, I know how it is to be a mistress, how it is to experience love within these set of boundaries. But - in the end - for me, as a point of discussion it matters how the societal outcome and the empowerment structure is witnessed or discoursed in "general". And a mistress may be emotionally involved - I consider that amour fou - but the definiton of a mistress shows already the limitations of the relationship. Its a bit one sided - for both ends so to speak. The "booker" hires the mistress, pays her and keeps himself away with these aspects of "paying his - social - debts" and the mistress also has a semi-relationship free from responsibility. But - in case the built castle of clouds crashes and it comes down to the core, there will be shown the differences between a full-blown-romantic relationship and a mistress arrangement. I`ve been there - twice. One good experience and one very bad and traumatizing awakening. Hence, my conclusions are a bit more narrow - minded and narrowly framed than yours. Also, If you talk that one person "simulates" romance for benefit, it is also not romance, maybe youi`re right with the point of commodification, but I would rather argument with a case of deceptive manipulation.

Because commodification is something I see as coming from a perspecitve of capitallism and a judgement per se, not a value chosen for deceptive methods. IMHO. Which means precisely to say, that some areas in ouir lives are circumscribed with discourses of commodification without us being specifically "aware" of it, hence the factor of choice is lacking. I do agree with the relfection point. Thanks for discussint this with me.

I would argue more that what we see expressed in its purest form here is but one of many reflections of a commodification of human relations going on in the wider word. But it is a discussion which, while interesting, is also veering wildly off-topic.

Here I disagree again. Again, I don`t see the aspect of commodification supported, I`d vote for different aspects of relationships. I am willing to put it into discussion, but I agree, we`d have to point out maybe another topic, although I am known to steer off topic and love the aaspect of thought triggering of certaint topics into new ones. Youir choice, I don`t have a problem

It's a direct relation.

oooooops .... Nina... do your research ;-))). I know - Wikipedia is your friend ...

[Qziz]

No need for Nina to do her research when she has people to do it for her!

Originally Posted by ninasastri

Coming from personal experience, I know how it is to be a mistress, how it is to experience love within these set of boundaries. But - in the end - for me, as a point of discussion it matters how the societal outcome and the empowerment structure is witnessed or discoursed in "general". And a mistress may be emotionally involved - I consider that amour fou - but the definiton of a mistress shows already the limitations of the relationship.

Amour fou = Andre Breton/crazy-impermanent-reflexive love reference, correct? I would consider that a mistress relationship - and those in my experience do not have a hard and fast expectation of money exchanged for services relationship. (They also have been by far the most expensive of my relationships. Then again I tend to be very generous. Then again that's probably why said mistresses were attracted. We're back to self-analysis again. ) I suspect we may be speaking of different things - at that level it no longer is in our particular demimonde. Up until that, yes, it is very much a services rendered/cash on delivery expectation.

Originally Posted by ninasastri

Also, If you talk that one person "simulates" romance for benefit, it is also not romance, maybe youi`re right with the point of commodification, but I would rather argument with a case of deceptive manipulation.

Of course it is. But women manipulating men through emotion and passion is a habit as old as a certain profession.

Originally Posted by ninasastri

Because commodification is something I see as coming from a perspecitve of capitallism and a judgement per se, not a value chosen for deceptive methods. IMHO. Which means precisely to say, that some areas in ouir lives are circumscribed with discourses of commodification without us being specifically "aware" of it, hence the factor of choice is lacking.

Yes, when I speak of the commodification of relationships/emotion (to completely generalize it out), especially in reference to a "Shades of Grey" style relationship - which by the way I would consider, purely IMHO, very infantile in nature - it is more that of two people seeing themselves as having value to offer and bargain and working with each other on that basis. Which is explicit in our world, and rapidly more and more implicit in the wider world outside - which "Shades of Grey" can be seen as a benchmark for an ever more explicit expression thereof.

[Harley Diablo]

Damn that's deep Ninasadtri. To some clients and maybe escorts the hour or several hours of session is a fantasy and can be what ever you want, just a fuck, a romance, or dreaming of someone you would like to seduce. Come on down to Shreveport,Louisiana and lets us red neck coon ass guys have a crack at you and I bet we can change your thinking.
Muah
hjones

[rxram03]

I work at a local bookstore. What's funny is that the older ladies will get enraged if we get in a skin mag yet those same ladies were the first ones to buy these books. As I was assisting a customer in finding this book, I handed a copy to her and, jokingly, said "enjoy your smut". She responded "young man, it's not porn if it has a story to it". I responded with "yeah...in porn they called that a skit". She stormed off. I'm really surprised I didn't get a complaint on that....or I did and my boss just laughed her ass off at what I said, lol.

[bloddybastard]

Nina, Qziz,

I am newbie here and stumbled over this interesting (and rather offtopic) discussion. Commenting here was not what I had in mind when joining Eccie

I believe you are not talking about the same. "Romance" is by definition
a. A love affair.
b. Ardent emotional attachment or involvement between people; love
c. A strong, sometimes short-lived attachment, fascination, or enthusiasm for something

I guess Nina, that an escort is at least selling c. to the hobbyist. I had the pleasure to check your site. Congrats. You at least aim for b.(first part) I am citing you:

“I aspire to touch your soul, and create an unique and special relationship that lasts for a long time and becomes more interesting and intense the more often we see each other.”

I guess most hobbyists will (want to) believe to get a version of a. when escorting you to dinner and evening amusement. And I do perfectly understand them.

Your native language is german, isn´t it? I guess “Romanze” sums it up quite well. http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Romanze

Sorry for being a wise ass. Nina, are you horny now? I guess you get that pun a lot...

bb

[Augustknight]

I was kinda hoping it would be more like , The story of O . Or , Topping from below .Now I'm disappointed

[bladtinzu]

Originally Posted by Qziz

Of course it is. But women manipulating men through emotion and passion is a habit as old as a certain profession

Someone else finally gets it!! One doesn't "need" romance to survive. Fact is "romance" tends to muddy the waters and IMO just is totally uncalled for. It is a sign of weakness to walk down that primrose path.

And Shades of Grey... Useless drivel. If this was the early 1900's it would be better used as toliet paper than reading material.

[RealBeer285]

[QUOTE/]
And Shades of Grey... Useless drivel. If this was the early 1900's it would be better used as toliet paper than reading material.[/QUOTE]

I guess WALDT, while my experience was not as complete as tractor's, it kept me out of the hobby for a few months. I even got the first home BJs since the 80s (no, I am not going to write a review). I could use a suggested reading list from those that liked the series.

[Biggreentractor]

Originally Posted by RealBeer285

[QUOTE/]
And Shades of Grey... Useless drivel. If this was the early 1900's it would be better used as toliet paper than reading material.

I guess WALDT, while my experience was not as complete as tractor's, it kept me out of the hobby for a few months. I even got the first home BJs since the 80s (no, I am not going to write a review). I could use a suggested reading list from those that liked the series.[/QUOTE]

I didn't get months only weeks. But I found myself completely satisfied for those few weeks. I didn't hobby, didn't desire to look at porn on the computer. If she only knew that with the money I spend creating fantasy, we could probably buy that beach house she wants.. But hallmark doesn't say " if you will remain kinky, I won't buy pussy no more" so here I am again trolling. In closing I did suggest the "diaries of a callgirl" she turned up her nose and said "that makes it dirty". Wimmen geeesh

[bladtinzu]

Originally Posted by Biggreentractor

I didn't get months only weeks. But I found myself completely satisfied for those few weeks. I didn't hobby, didn't desire to look at porn on the computer. If she only knew that with the money I spend creating fantasy, we could probably buy that beach house she wants.. But hallmark doesn't say " if you will remain kinky, I won't buy pussy no more" so here I am again trolling. In closing I did suggest the "diaries of a callgirl" she turned up her nose and said "that makes it dirty". Wimmen geeesh

The third marriage I had was difficult to say the least. I couldn't get her interested in anything except shopping.. And she was an expert at spending my money on items I would never even consider buying.. Hell I'm a guy.. I need fast cars and fast boats! I don't need 400 pairs of shoes or 200 different handbags and matching wallets. 8 years of hell untill she decided she wanted a divorce. And what did I do? Threw a "Ding dong the bitch is gone party" the next day.

Now the first wife Nikki... That marriage made "Shades" look tame. Hell it made a lot look tame. I mean we had our honeymood at Hedonism for the love of god. She loved watching me with other women and joining in. If it wasn't for TWA Flight 800 taking her mother and sister we would still be married today. Though after she had the girls she settled into housewife mode. But even to this day when she brings them down to visit she slips out of that mode into the kinky little minx I married eons ago.

[NinaBrooke]

Hello Qziz,

Originally Posted by Qziz

No need for Nina to do her research when she has people to do it for her!

And it`s so much more fun to gather information together and learn! Thanks to you and others for participating!

Originally Posted by Qziz

Amour fou = Andre Breton/crazy-impermanent-reflexive love reference, correct? I would consider that a mistress relationship - and those in my experience do not have a hard and fast expectation of money exchanged for services relationship. (They also have been by far the most expensive of my relationships. Then again I tend to be very generous. Then again that's probably why said mistresses were attracted. We're back to self-analysis again. ) I suspect we may be speaking of different things - at that level it no longer is in our particular demimonde. Up until that, yes, it is very much a services rendered/cash on delivery expectation.

Sorry for responding so late, was busy travelling.
Amour fou: Yes, kind of. It is very interesting that there is no sufficient explanation of the words "Amour Fou" in english. It is basically a kind of sympathy (a delusion of love) that has no foundation in reality whatsoever. "Fou" refers to a "flash of lightning" that hits you and renders you impossible to clearly judge your actions. It refers to a kind of infatuation with a person with no clear or unclear references to love. "Coup de foudre" might be another explanation, I will check later if wiki has a reference to that in english. "Love at first sight" it says, which , strictly speaking, is no love, but an aspect of mystical or spiritual infatuation....

I take it now from your words you meant the term "Mistress" as in no "escort" but rather a private "secret lover". I was referring to "mistresses" in a kind of relationship that evolved out of the "escort Relationship". I am at the same line here with you, and would put into the argumentation of the "no money expected", that sometimes in (private) encounters it is not "obvious" or "spoken out" that money is wanted, but implicitely it is stated within the context of society you exist or "put room to a relationship". Non-verbally or thru circumstances surrounding the intricacies of the relationship. I take you are a married man and mistress hence refers to secret lover?

In one of my latest blog articles on my wordpress blog I was referring to the differences between a paid encounter and a private secret lover. Article is mainly about plagiarism , mostly, but a good bit of it touches the topic we discuss here , too.

Originally Posted by Qziz

Of course it is. But women manipulating men through emotion and passion is a habit as old as a certain profession.

Maybe, I do think you are right here, but men manipulating women is also a habit non of unknown territorry as well ;-))). I think , that, otoh, we escorts (or at least the majority of escorts, who I do think are honest and good people not manipulating - in contrary to the "solid" women) are more honest at that approach. We try not to delude men. We say how it is, Of course we play with fire , like an ecstatic and skilled fire-dancer, but we don´t burn our hearts out, nor put fire on our audience. Or at least not anyone with a certain respect for humans and their emotions, and a certain dignity within self reflection does so. Please correct me, but I think the majority of mature (as in wise, not in age) escorts are honest about the fact that a chemistry can develop between a client and a escort, but we tend to not exploit it. Much rather, in the rare cases I have fallen in love with a client, I waived the "pay for time" bit. In others I decided not to see clients anymore. Unfortunately it happens too often that I cannot see a client anymore, because they fall in love, and it bothers me, because I can`t repeat and I don`t want to exploit them, either. In the love area: In one case a guy wanted me to quit the job, and asked me to take money as compensation for the loss of my job. That went on for a while, until I found a regular job and declined his money for good, even while he offered support. Nevertheless of course he was generous , too. But it was talked about in an honest way, and the sympathy was not dependend on the financial aspect.

I think that is a part where usually escorts differ from regular gold diggers. We draw the line financially where "love and romance" begins, where cold-hearted regular women (or some dumb deluded whores )-..... lol) draw the line for the aspect of "gold digging" with the manipulations of romance. Or consider money an aspect of romance.

As in your position, I do see the generosity on your mistresses behalf largely based on the fact, that - I assume so (correct my assumption, if I am completely wrong) - she was an illegitimate relationship within the shadows of a marriage. Hence, the financial aspect is always interwoven, and correctly so. A mistress is "submissive" to a marriage on more than one aspect, a marriage is a financialo se3curtiy contract, which the mistress supports with her code of conduct (which is secrecy and submissiveness) so, rightfully - IMHO - she has a right for financial compensation, since she basically is "non existent" politically and a second class citizen. I mean if she is left ,she has nothing. He has it all, the wife , too and I have been in a situation where I remembered , WHY I charged money in the first place. It`s a non full relationship, and it has nothing to do with true love. Things like this have a tendency to get ugly, specially when the worlds collide for some reason or the other. Men make excuses to please their wives, put mistresses down, blame it all on them and whatnot. At the end it`s a game and it`s more fun to play when money and security is involved. (that was a cynical joke). That said, people who marry (and don`t take that the "light" way) are searching for relationship circumvented by social security and finances, hence the payment aspect. So, no surprise that they pay escorts AND mistresses. Some don`t, and I consider them scumbags ) (lol)....

Why scumbags? Because I consider someone that truly shares "love" as in "romantic love" with one (or more than one, hence polyamory) person to not be selfish. And consider either to come clean , or to take responsibility. This means, either releasing the mistress, or releasing the wife (in terms of monogamy). Since this does not happen, the aspoect of "aspect of services rendered" is always implicit. I take it, escorts are smarter than secret mistresses when it comes to grasping that aspect, and hence charge money for secrecy. I do say of a client relationship within psychotherapy similar. It embraces the aspect of the selfishness (or lets say - less "mean" - self-centered-ness) is inherent as well. A therapy is not abouit the therapist, except you use him as a tool and pay him. But the therapist does not knock at your door and sob abouit his marital issues with you at 6am in the morning. Married lovers do. Mistresses don`t , because hardly any mistress has access to the married man`s life in the same way, a married man has access to a mistress` life. It`s shaped one-sided.

Originally Posted by Qziz

Yes, when I speak of the commodification of relationships/emotion (to completely generalize it out), especially in reference to a "Shades of Grey" style relationship - which by the way I would consider, purely IMHO, very infantile in nature - it is more that of two people seeing themselves as having value to offer and bargain and working with each other on that basis. Which is explicit in our world, and rapidly more and more implicit in the wider world outside - which "Shades of Grey" can be seen as a benchmark for an ever more explicit expression thereof.

Totally agree!! Super thought triggering point. I really love this discussion and the brainstorming aspects of veering off topic within! Thank you!

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by bladtinzu

Someone else finally gets it!! One doesn't "need" romance to survive. Fact is "romance" tends to muddy the waters and IMO just is totally uncalled for. It is a sign of weakness to walk down that primrose path.

And Shades of Grey... Useless drivel. If this was the early 1900's it would be better used as toliet paper than reading material.

Agree with the toilet paper. I do think, now that someone told me about the connection to Twilight, it`s all that is about it, and it`s clear now...

As to romance muddying the waters. Some people tend to think romance is a getaway free card with all kinds of BS. Hence , I agree with Pitbull on that one..

"I make the girls come ... and go"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9M6dhWmGY4