Skip to main content

The Fifty Shades phenomenon...

When it comes to the odd mix of commercial success and negative reviews, Fifty Shades of Grey is like an Adam Sandler comedy. While critics may claim it's the worst film of the year, it does well at the box office. For example, the 2013 film Grown Ups 2 earned almost $134 million at the box office, while being approved by just 7% of critics. From that perspective, Fifty Shades... isn't much different. To this point, the series has sold over 70 million copies worldwide, all while receiving negative reviews like Seattle receives rain. Here are just some such quotes:

Sir Salman Rushdie: "I've never read anything so badly written that got published. It made 'Twilight' look like 'War and Peace.'"

Maureen Dowd (The New York Times): "[It was] like a Bronte devoid of talent," and "[It was] dull and poorly written."

Jesse Kornbluth (The Huffington Post): "As a reading experience, Fifty Shades... is a sad joke, puny of plot."

Metro News Canada: "...suffering through 500 pages of this heroine's inner dialogue was torturous, and not in the intended, sexy kind of way."

Jessica Reeves (Chicago Tribune): "[The] book's source material isn't great literature," "[The novel] is sprinkled liberally and repeatedly with asinine phrases," and "[It was] depressing."

Yes, like how many film critics wonder why people keep going to see Sandler's films, many book critics are wondering why people are reading Fifty Shades of Grey.

While the biggest controversy surrounding the book(s) among critics is the quality of it (or lack there of), the biggest controversy according to psychologists is with regard to the sexually explicit content of the book - intimate partner violence, in particular.

According to a study conducted by psychologists at the universities of Michigan State and Ohio State, and published by the Journal of Women's Health last year, the following was concluded:

"Analyzing the naughty novel, psychologists at Michigan State University and Ohio State University concluded that its characters' behaviors are consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's official definition of intimate partner violence - and that the book perpetuates dangerous abuse patterns."

Lead author of the report - Ohio State University researcher Amy Bonomi - added that in the novel, intimate partner violence can be found "occurring in nearly every interaction" between its lead characters.

According to federal agency guidelines, here's a breakdown of how different types of abuse are defined:

Intimate partner violence: "Physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse."

Physical violence: "Acts such as slapping and choking"

Sexual violence: "Forced sex acts, often induced through the use of alcohol or other drugs"

Psychological/emotional abuse: "Can involve humiliation, social isolation and stalking"

When looking at these guidelines, Bonomi said that "the book depicts multiple elements of such abuse."

She added that Anastasia (the lead female character in the novel) "suffers reactions typical of abused women."

One example is Anastasia often times either doesn't tell Christian (the other lead character) about plans she's made, or she avoids going out altogether, so she doesn't potentially upset him.

With regard to that, Bonomi said, "That is exactly what we see in women in abusive relationships. The abuser is very good at controlling social connections by intimidating the victim."

The lead author of the study also said she had nothing against BDSM relationships, generally speaking, saying, "Consenting BDSM relationships are fine. But the relationship we see between Christian and Anastasia is different. What we see in them is a clear pattern of abuse."

Cris Sullivan - researcher of gender-based violence at Michigan State University - agreed with Bonomi, saying, "[Anastasia is in the relationship] not because she enjoys it, but because she's trying to keep the man. ... That's not a message we want to keep sending women or men. I'm hoping [the study] will lead people to talk and think about the book a little more critically than just a hot little summer read."

So, is Fifty Shades of Grey a harmless read? A guilty pleasure perhaps? Or could it negatively impact some people's views of sex and abuse, where some men come to believe that women are sexually aroused through certain forms of abuse, and where some women come to believe that they deserve such treatment and will lose a man if they don't allow themselves to be subjected to it?

I think I agree with the authors of the study, in saying that there's nothing wrong with a consenting BDSM relationship, but there's also a fine line between that and an abusive relationship. In a consenting BDSM relationship, one person voluntarily gives themselves up for sexual pleasure. It fulfills a fantasy and illustrates their trust for one another. However, in an abusive relationship, like the one depicted in Fifty Shades of Grey, a person gives another total control due to their fear of pain, fear of rejection, and fear of being alone. Due to this, I find it rather disturbing that so many women like this book (series) so much. Has sexism in our culture made it so that many women feel wrong about taking control in a relationship, especially when it concerns things of a sexual nature? Has sexism made it so some women feel they deserve such abusive treatment? Has sexism made it so some women are okay with being seen and treated as sex objects and nothing more? On the flip-side, I find it disturbing some men would like this book as well. How can such a person find genuine love when he's so busy attempting to seize total control over a partner's being, he negates the true her from ever making her presence known and felt? Sure, it's just a "fantasy," but an abusive fantasy is a pretty sick one to have, and no one deserves to be subjected to such treatment.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/13/science/la-sci-sn-fifty-shades-of-grey-sexual-emotional-abuse-20130812

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey#Reception

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"