Since 50 Shades of Grey is essentially the same plot formula as Twilight, feel free to insert the relevant protagonists’ names for Bella and Edward here.
I’ve had a lot of PMs asking me for some input regarding the runaway popularity of the B-Grade fan porn that is 50 Shade of Grey. Vox had a brief spot about it in relation to how men can’t win for losing in girl-world. Aunt Giggles had an interesting run down of its popularity, but predictably eels her way around the operative point of how semi-violent romance porn affirms the uglier truths of Game and hypergamy – not to mention avoiding the sticky aspect of ‘committed’ women fantasizing about it.
I honestly haven’t given the book too much headspace since it only reaffirms what the manosphere has been professing for over a decade now: in spite of all protestations of the opposite, women get off on dominance. Big shock, I know. It’s ironic that The Chateau should need to cite psych study upon psych study, ad infinitum for 6 years to reinforce a dynamic that women will now gleefully admit to only after a cheap, fanfiction sub-porn hack calls them blushingly out to the carpet on it.
If this book represents any significant turning point it will be its role in provably, viscerally, forcing women to acknowledge their own bullshit. I can hardly wait for the girl-world collective mental twistings in the wind – the desperate whir of millions of rationalization hamsters grasping for a plausible deniability or a freshly minted social convention (male shaming for bringing women to men’s porn mentality) that will excuse them from the guilt of an inconvenient truth. Perhaps the NAWALT trope, that one’s always the Swiss army knife for the feminine cause. Really anything that will put the Hypergamy Genie back in the bottle and keep the questioning Betas from getting too curious about feminine nature will do.
In the Bitter Taste of the Red Pill comments, esteemed colleague Dalrock had a timely and profound post that fits this porn-dominance formula perfectly:
These women don’t just want to build a better beta, they want to tame the alpha. In fact, I think the former is just another way they are trying to approach the latter. They want to take an inherrently unsafe activity and make it safe. They want to submit to a man without having to submit; they want a man who can tame their feral self. They want him to trip their danger signals. Even better if he is a stranger from a strange land.
They wan’t this all to happen without giving up their freedom; they want to play this out in the context of serial monogamy, so they can feel loved while also claiming their promiscuity is moral. They want to lose controll to a string of strangers who have all of the hallmarks of very dangerous men, and they want a promise that this will always end well.
They want to know that this will be safe, without it losing the excitement of it feeling unsafe. They are telling men to build a sort of serial monogamy amusement park where they can ride the roller coaster and experience the fear of falling or crashing, while knowing that just behind the scenes grown ups are actually in charge and are responsible for them safely feeling unsafe.
One more thing. As I mentioned above they don’t want to be hemmed in. So instead of building an actuall amusement park, they want roller coasters to spring up randomly in the same exact circumstances where the real danger they mimik would appear. They want to be driving their car on the freeway one instant, and the next experience the fear of careening out of controll the next. They want to impulsively jump off the edge of the Grand Canyon and have a parachute appear and deploy at the last minute. And all they ask is your guarantee that all of this will be safe.
Behold, the female porn dynamic perfected. Danger without danger, bad boy with a heart of gold, a guy who wont cheat, but could cheat,..
