/lit/ - Literature

>>14979559
>cretin
....come now brother, remember blessed Concord.

>I'm saying women are into rape and their fantasies are not rape fantasies, that's what I'm arguing. Didn't you read this part?
I've read that you have no real case to make about anything I've put forward for you, that you've denied any women watch or into violent fetish or that men and women mutually enjoy simulating these things for fun, which is flatly wrong and easily proven.

So no wonder you're insulting me now to change the subject from you to me. Which only proves you're aware that you're wrong.

>Prime reason there isn't
>the bits where the makeup artists go and fix jude laws hair in the middle of an action sequence
>or
>there's never any scenes where the man stops to check that the woman is okay with it
>is because men hate seeing their violent fantasy destroyed.

You've yet to prove it's 'men' exclusively and not the audience itself. C'mon you know how Hitchens Razor works, surely? If you're not able to prove your case then you don't have a case.

You want to deny that women .. as i say, both like and take part in violent fetish ..that this is 1000% about men and that all the women both masturbating at home and being masturbated in the videos, in bondage, have been tricked against their will. This is just flatly dumb.

Also textbook misandry.

>50 shades ..... doesn't showcase anything about bdsm.
are you crazy?


Dogmatists, sheeesh. Start out from a wrong assessment, can't admit they made a mistake, must continue deeper into hostility and unreality.