I know I’m late to the party, but I’ve decided I can’t not write about 50 Shades of Grey. I feel like everything that needs to be said has been discussed, yet this book is now a record setting film. So I guess I’m wrong, which is unfortunate since this is one of the few books I’ve read that causes me to hate every single character and the author. If you haven’t read the books, here’s a very brief rundown: Shy, virginal Ana meets hunky BDSM-loving billionaire Christian Grey. He takes her V-card, shows her his torture chamber of love, beats her, gets dumped, gets back together, wacky hi jinx ensue. They get married and go on a miserable sounding honeymoon where he leaves bruises over her body because she was topless tanning in the south of France. Meanwhile, he used to be raped by his mom’s friend and now owns a hair salon with her, his old Sub tries to kill Ana, and Christian’s brother dates Ana’s best friend, Kate. Sound stupid? Yes, because it is. There is no real plot.
There are many problems with the 50 Shades series: shitty writing, an abusive hero (Christian Grey), a heroine (Ana
Steele Grey) that seems like a huge bitch, characters named after eating disorders, closeted racism and homophobia, and not so closeted classism. I’m going to focus on the abuse. Let’s go ahead and get this out of the way: my argument is not that consensual BDSM is abusive. My argument is that Christian Grey is a temperamental, emotional, and manipulative asshole with a violent past. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not the virginal Ana is able to make a free of mind choice to participate in something she repeatedly says she doesn’t like.
Ana wrecks your life!
I feel like most people know a guy that’s like Christian Grey. You can sometimes identify a Christian by the crying girl that is often with him — the girl you probably call crazy, the one who seems to not have any friends (since she isn’t allowed). Guys like Christian do their damnedest to be the best and worst thing to ever happen to a girl, creating an emotional roller coaster (if roller coasters are portals to hell). Throughout all 3 books, Christian repeatedly pushes Ana to her limits, then gives her a peek of the “nice guy” within, or his tortured soul, making her feel like she’s responsible for his outbursts. Over and over she expresses sentiments like, “I didn’t ask him to come get me. Somehow I’ve been made to feel the villain in this piece,” and “Why am I feeling guilty? Why is he so mad?” If you often find yourself wondering these things in your relationship, please seek help. You might feel crazy, but you aren’t — he is.
Not only does Christian fuck with Ana’s mind and make her feel responsible for anything in the world that could irritate Christian, he also makes sure to drive giant wedges between her and her friends and family. She’s not allowed to be around boys, because obviously she cannot be trusted. Her best friend, Kate, is a bad influence because she has the audacity to question Christian’s intentions (even though in the first book, almost every time Kate sees Ana after Ana has been around Christian, she is crying). When Ana doesn’t want Christian to come to her graduation, he shows up and meets her stepdad. And, most disturbingly (to me), when Ana tells Christian she needs some space and flies to Georgia to visit her mother…Christian flies out and stays at the same hotel and gives her exactly zero space or time to spend alone with her mother. In the second book, Christian flies back from halfway around the world because Ana and her best female friend go out for a drink together and he forbid her from leaving the house. By book three (the book the champions of the series claim show Ana as “taking the power back”), Christian is selecting Ana’s friends (spoiler alert: no boys) by surprising her with group vacations and picking the guest list himself. Hey, guess what! If you have a friend you used to be close with, but now she dates this guy and she cries a lot and never hangs out with you because of him, she’s probably in an abusive relationship.
This is going on longer than I thought, so I’m going to break it up into parts. Maybe for Part 2 I can include a mix of quotes from serial killers and Christian Grey, and we can play a game where you guess who said what!
Do you want to save yourself from being beaten by your boyfriend? Do you want to increase your chances of being beaten by your girlfriend? Just get married! At least, that’s what I learned today from the Town Hall article, The Ring Makes All the Difference by one Mike Adams.
I know I’m just a radical feminist who wants to destroy the idea of marriage and family (because God definitely thinks it is important you register your commitment with the state, y’all!), so my opinion probably doesn’t matter…but what a bunch of idiotic bullshit. Adams doesn’t really making any of his own points (outside of labeling feminists as life destroyers), but highlights some of his favorite facts from a book called (wait for it!) The Ring Makes All the Difference: The Hidden Consequences of Cohabitation and the Strong Benefits of Marriage.
Obviously, there is a lot of wrong going on here, but I’d like to start with the very last paragraph: “God is the author of the rules of the game of life. He is also the creator of science. When properly applied, His methods always reveal the truth.” I don’t really know what that has to do with anything, other than maybe saying if bitches get beat by their live in man sinner sluts, it’s because they didn’t listen to God’s rules of the game of life. But maybe we should talk about these rules for the game of life (henceforth abbreviated as GRGOL, because typing it out one more time might make me throw up. How does this guy have a regular column somewhere and I don’t?).
The Bible is full of contradictory information when it comes to marriage. In the book of GRGOL, Paul tells us in Corinthians to not bother getting married, and to only get married if we can’t stop ourselves from having sex (which we also shouldn’t do). On the other hand, plenty of people had multiple wives and that was considered awesome. Something GRGOL doesn’t address? What marriage actually is. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that marriage is a trip to the county courthouse, sharing your bank accounts, and dragging down your SO’s chances for credit approval with your shitty score and student debt.
But let’s say that the American idea of marriage is what GRGOL had in mind. What other evidence do we have to support the idea that marriage is the best?
– In marriages, male-female ratios of violence are roughly equal – with women and men just as likely to initiate violence against their spouses. However, in cohabiting relationships, men are far more likely to initiate violence.
Is your man beating you? Get engaged, it’ll end as soon as you’re legal! Though…maybe that’s not really what’s going on. Turns out, married immigrant women are about 10% more likely to report being abused than unmarried immigrant women living with a partner. Also turns out, women who are married generally don’t like to report their husband as an abuser. But hey. You want to pretend that marriage stop violence, let’s take a look at the DOJ’s Intimate Partner Violence study:
Looks like the safest thing you can do is get married and not have kids, since bearing kids is obviously what makes women become victims of violence.
– Married people typically earn more and save more than their unmarried counterparts – whether cohabiting or single.
– The poverty rate for children living in married households is 6%. It is 31% for children living with a cohabiting father and mother.
Lots of studies have been done to figure out why unmarried people make more than married people. Some theorize that those who are married are looked at by their employer as more responsible, and given raises or promotions that are influenced by that (think: you’re a prick boss that only believes in your version of GRGOL. John is married with kids, Greg lives with his whore girlfriend in sin. Who do you layoff first?). Another idea is that just like more attractive people are better off in the work place, they are also more likely to find a partner. Or, if you come from money and are set up to be in a higher income bracket yourself, your family might be more traditional. Or…tax deductions (because if getting married to end abuse isn’t enough, tax deductions should be). But in the vein of the second point up there, if you’re in a lower income bracket…it often makes sense to not get married as your combined income may cause you to lose benefits. That doesn’t mean that you’re poor because you’re unmarried; it means you’re unmarried because you’re poor. I’m presumably in the minority of people who are looking to permanently cohabit without getting married, but this guy is pretending there is some magic going on. Living together in sin? $12k a year for you! Signed that legal document? Bam!! $65k!
– A married man will spend about eight more hours a week doing household chores than his shacking-up peer.
Assuming that is even true outside of the one study he referenced/that I could find, you’d think it’d be true all of the time. Because marriage = man cleaning, nothing else should matter. Except this study, covering 5 European countries, which found “that cohabiting couples have a more egalitarian division of labour but that there are important country differences.” Maybe there are other things at play here than marriage?
I hate to write about a guy writing about a book I haven’t read, but over and over it’s clearly the same mistakes: thinking marriage is the problem solver. Do you want the real solution to save family life? Find your person, move in together, get married if you want. Make sure they’re the right person, that you’re compatible in your goals and way of life (kids, no kids, city, country, whatever). Enjoy your time together, work hard to make it work, don’t cheat, don’t hit each other, and don’t give a shit who has what jewel on what finger.
Are you waiting until marriage to have sex? Good for you! Unless we’re close enough for you to tell me about you having sex, please don’t tell me about how you aren’t getting laid (I’m an equal opportunist kill joy). But for the love of God, do not tell me that you won’t be teaching your children about safe sex.
Shout out to one of my very astute readers for sending me this gem: I Will Not Teach My Kids About Safe Sex Because There is No Such Thing (also, you kind of suck because I have since wasted hours of my life reading this guy’s blog). The blog author, Matt Walsh, makes two key points: if you are having casual sex, you aren’t having good sex (indeed, only those who have been married for many years have good sex), and teaching your kids about condoms is like telling them to drink and drive, as long as they buckle their seatbelts. Oh. Okay. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess Matt can’t be on Facebook during bikini season.
The ‘safe sex’ model, however, tells a sterilized and paranoid story. It says, “this is something so frivolous and so joyless that you can do it with whoever, for whatever reason, even if just to alleviate boredom. By the way, though it is just a recreational activity, like Parcheesi or air hockey, it can also lead to broken hearts, chlamydia, pregnancy, and AIDS. So, in that sense, it’s a little different from a board game. Hey, let’s look at some super-magnified images of genital warts!”
Imagine the college students who have to chug 6 rum cocktails and 8 Natty Lights between them before they can anonymously copulate in someone’s dorm room.
Why do we say that these people enjoy sex? The man who makes love to his wife of 20 years enjoys sex; these people only enjoy certain physical sensations.
We tell young people to wear condoms to protect against ailments like hepatitis and AIDS. The obvious insinuation here is that there is a ‘safe’ way to fornicate with a diseased stranger.
Sex itself isn’t safe. On the other hand, committed relationships, fortified by the vows of marriage and reaffirmed daily by both spouses, are safe — and it is only in this context that the inherent vulnerability of sex can be made secure and comfortable.
Now, I know you’ll tell me that we have to be realistic. Kids will have sex, so shouldn’t we at least make sure they’re prepared for it?
To answer that question I have a few of my own:
You don’t want your kid to drink and drive, but if he did, you’d prefer he wear a seatbelt, right? Well, would you ever say to him: “junior, I know you’re going to drink and drive. You shouldn’t, but everyone does. So just wear your seatbelt”?
Say what? I’d say it’s actually more like telling your child you don’t want them to drink, but a lot of kids do drink. So if they decide to have alcohol in high school (despite you teaching them about the dangers of alcoholism and binge drinking, legal consequences, etc.), under no circumstances should they drink and drive. It’s dangerous, it’s unforgivable. It can result in loss of life for multiple people, it can result in severe property damage, etc.
If you have sex – despite the physical and emotional dangers I have taught you, children – you need to wear a condom. I don’t know what the sexual equivalent of drinking and driving is for parents talking to teenagers. Maybe bukaki?
Oh wait! A direct contradiction!
And abstinence before marriage has a better way to deal with the bad things — it tells you about gonorrhea and herpes and out-of-wedlock pregnancy, but it assures you that you don’t need to live in fear of these things if you simply wait for the right time.
Oh. So you will tell them these things can happen, but you won’t tell them how to prevent them? And any unwanted fetus that I find inside me (ring or not), has gotta go. I guess these kids will have to get married and procreate IMMEDIATELY. Shit like this is how kids develop the idea that putting Sprite in your vagina works as birth control.
I’m not a psychologist, but if you spend so much time telling your children to define their self worth and identity on the state of sticking things up their hoohah, what do you tell you tell them if they’re date raped or when lose their identity when they’re married or if they just “mess up” and have sex? If I was from a family that felt so strongly about abstinence that my dad was writing blog posts about my chastity, I’d probably run away if I had sex and got knocked up.
And odds are pretty fucking good these kids are gonna be having some babies (what’s up, Bristol Palin). Abstinence only education consistently fails. And coming from a religious stand point, the Bible says we shouldn’t have sex AT ALL but if we do we ought to be married. And do you know why, Matt? Paul says that we should be married because we’re gonna bang anyway, so we might as well be married.
I leave you all with 1 Corinthians 7:1-9. Kinda cheapens the “don’t say they’re gonna do it anyway!” argument.
Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time,so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satanwill not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
For anyone who doesn’t know, I’m slowly but surely working on a book about my online dating experiences. That being said…I obviously have an opinion on the announcement that OKCupid was messing with its users by lying about compatibility. That opinion is..no fucking shit.
I didn’t go on one or two online dates. I mean, I used OKCupid so much they let me become a moderator or something. I used OKCupid like it was my job. And I never, ever put much stock into their stupid little percentages.
Here’s examples of conversations that I had with guys I had a high match percentage with.
The scene is a Starbucks, the time is 8 pm. This is DC; it makes sense. Our connections on OKC include we’re both into politics and we’re sarcastic. High rating. Conversation has been going mediocre.
Him: Well, let’s just get this out of the way. Are you a Jew?
This is still in the initial text/OKC messaging phase. We’re making plans to meet so we’ve exchanged numbers. Again a high match percentage — likely due to a mutual interest in politics and love of the first few seasons of Arrested Development.
Him: Do you want to see my dick?
Him: [sends dick pic]
Me: [vows to only give out Google Voice number so pictures can be screened]
A month passes.
Him: I didn’t realize you were such a prude.
I mean, how are people surprised by this? I don’t expect that everyone is a career online dater, but surely you must have noticed you were matched with some crazy fucking people at one point. My best friend and I used to talk about how a very high match percentage (over 87%) was basically a guarantee the guy would be off his rocker. Also, it’s dating. I already exercised caution and assumed everyone lied. I did, even if it wasn’t always intentional…sometimes your values and opinions change. What was mandatory to me in January might have been some somewhat important in June.
The moral of the story here: don’t invest too much faith in an online quiz that takes into consideration whether a user considers it “mandatory” their potential date likes anal.
Though deleting text from users’ profiles might explain why my disclaimer didn’t work. I ended up putting at the top of my page, “I’m not interested in having sex with you for money (or anytime soon), and I’m certainly not interested in dick pics.” Maybe OKC deleted the “not.” That would definitely explain a lot.
Last week one of my Facebook friends posted a link to a blog entry titled My Husband Doesn’t Need to See Your Boobs (post has since been deleted, find it here instead) I didn’t want to click on it, because I was sure it would piss me off — so of course I ended up reading it on my disaster flight and immediately became full of rage. The post is about the author’s husband having Facebook friends that post pictures of themselves in bikinis, and how it’s wrong. Yes, you read that right. Apparently any time any girl posts bikini pics on Facebook, it’s about this blogger and her husband. I bet all of their female friends sit around and just wait to take bikini photos so they can make this woman’s life and marriage miserable. Anyway, this bitch removed the ability to leave comments, so I have no choice but to write about her article here.
She starts off with some story about wearing slutty khakis in high school and then being a prude for the rest of her life. After the introduction to what it’s like to be insane, we get down to the nitty gritty.
I’m not writing to chastise you for posting your bikini pics from your lake outing. I suppose we all have enough criticism via blog spaces.
Um, what? What does that even mean? You are clearly writing an entire blog entry to chastise people for posting bikini pics, and a passive aggressive comment that “we all have enough criticism via blog spaces” only drives that home.
But I am writing to share the perspective of a woman who is fighting for her marriage. And for that reason, I want to tell you that I don’t need my husband to see your boobs.
I’m just writing from the perspective of a woman who is in a happy and committed long distance relationship. And for that reason, I want to tell you that I never tell my boyfriend who to look at, nor do I monitor his newsfeed. Because guess what? If a picture of some girl with bigger boobs than mine makes him lose interest in me, we have bigger problems than social media. Take some responsibility – happy people don’t cheat. I’m not blaming the victim, but a relationship is a two person deal, and a picture of a friend in a bikini isn’t going to make or break anything.
Anyways, what I’m saying is I don’t fault you. I don’t blame you for being confident enough to let the world see how good you look in front of the waves with your coozie and ballcap and barely anything else.
But I want to tell you that it’s a stumbling block in our marriage.
Is it, though? I know you’ve amended your blog to say you aren’t insecure, but you are a liar. Either you’re married to a 15 year old boy, or you are incredibly insecure — even if you don’t realize it. Do you know what is really unattractive? Telling your SO not to look at other women. Telling them it’s a stumbling block. If my boyfriend took my magazines and ripped out the pages of shirtless men before I was allowed to read them, we wouldn’t be together much longer. And why do you think any other woman cares? Here’s an example of something another woman should feel bad for doing: “I don’t blame you for being confident enough to let my husband see how good you look in front of our bed, with my inherited crystal wine glass in your hand and your thong on and nothing else. But I want to tell you that when you sneak into my house to seduce my husband, it’s a stumbling block in our marriage.”
When I scroll through my news feed, my thumb moves in a continuous circular motion until something catches my eye and I want to look closer. And then I tap on the picture and make that little swipe with my thumb and pointer finger so I can zoom in just as close as I can to capture all the details.
Thank you for explaining Facebook.
I’m especially bad about this when there is a line of bathing suits in the pic. AND I’M A GIRL.
Mostly I’m looking at your legs asking myself, How are there seriously people without cellulite????
Well, I used to have cellulite until Crossfit made me do a bunch of squats. But don’t worry…every squat I do, all I think about is the bikini pictures I will get to post that will hopefully ruin someone’s marriage. Virtual marriage ruining is what gets me through my work out. It’s completely about YOU.
I doubt my husband is so lucky. Actually, I know it’s next to impossible to take in images like those and erase them from his mind. Because our men are much less emotional and are much more visual. And as quickly as I can forget your picture, it is filed away in his mind, ready to be pulled back out whenever he so chooses.
Maybe this is the solution. Just write on every picture, “Thank you for posting! My hubby has it filed away in his spank bank for later on!” I guarantee these girls will unfriend the both of you, and problem solved!!!
Again, I am not faulting you. And by no means am I faulting him. This man of mine diverts his eyes from whatever questionable images flash on the screen before him. But sometimes the temptation is too much.
Really? Because every word of your post sounds like you are faulting all other women, ever. And I guess hubby can do no wrong, huh? But seriously. Do you not go to the pool or beach together? Does he keep his eyes shut? Do you poke them out? What happens? Do you only vacation at public beaches in Kuwait? Oh, the evil temptation of girls in swimsuits! I wish there were more countries where you still went to jail for wearing a bikini!!
After Memorial Day, I noticed so much skin on social media that I half-yelled a warning to him as I ran out the door one morning. It’s summertime, honey! Beware the beach pics and half nude girls on Instagram! And like that, he was in solitary confinement from all virtual community for the next two days.
……..You are a terrible, miserable controlling woman and I expect you will be cheated on in no time. I cannot even imagine how my SO would respond, but I know if I was told this, I’d be changing those locks before you got back.
Protecting his eyes, protecting his heart.
More like protecting his brain and potential migraine from hearing his Debbie Downer wife bitch at him for going on the internet. Do you know you can watch orgies with like 50 women fully nude on the internet? And you’re worried about FACEBOOK? Facebook who won’t let nips show in pics???
When your bare shoulders and stretchmark-less bellies and tanned legs pop up, I not only worry if my husband will linger over your picture. I worry how he will compare me to you.
Please, tell me more about how you aren’t insecure.
But would you, could you, keep your boobs out of my marriage? You can have your memories, and we can have our sacred hearts. And we can all get along in beautiful harmony.
I think the better option is for you to delete your accounts on all forms of social media. Better safe than sorry.
Anyone who feels the need to passively aggressively make a sad little blog entry about girls in bikinis instead of directly confronting girls or, you know, getting over it, seems like they are doomed from the start. No way this chick has a great marriage. I’d understand more if she wrote this directed to HBO or photoshopped women in Vogue or almost anything else. As it stands, all she has done is come across as a controlling and demanding wife, and as a self-centered bitch. Not all Facebook picture are about you, lady. I can basically give you my personal guarantee that none of the people posting anything are thinking about you — well, except now they probably are.
For your husband:
Yes, I also support your right to wear leggings. Check me out on Facebook, Instagram (your best bet for more pool pics), and Twitter; subscribe to my blog here.
You might enjoy…
“Marriage: The Best Way to Solve Your Relationship Problems” – GOD, According to Columnist Mike Adams
I Hate Flying so Much I Cannot Even
No, I Really Don’t Want Kids — I Think I Would Know