I think people who say this need to think a little more clearly about what constitutes an “abusive” relationship and “women’s violence”. If they did, they would see that Fifty Shades is neither abusive nor encouraging of women’s violence.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one of the definitions for “abusive” is the following: characterized by wrong or improper use or action.
Now, I don’t believe the relationship between Christian and Ana is ”wrong” or “improper”, because they help each other to become better people amongst all of - and through - the BDSM. Christian overcomes his difficult past, and learns what it is to love. Ana grows to speak up for herself and is able to accept Christian and herself for who the two of them really are.
Moreover, it does not encourage women’s violence, as this would mean a violation of a woman’s rights. This again, is not the case for Christian and Ana because while he is violent with her, Ana is the one who willingly consents to it. If you think about it, it might actually be encouraging a woman’s ability. In the second book, Christian does not want to continue on with the BDSM relationship as Ana did not react well to it the first time. He stopped and was hard set on never entering the playroom with her again. Once again, it was Ana who made him change his mind and Ana who brings the BDSM upon herself.
Most people who judge “Fifty Shades of Grey” operate off of the parts the media has made clear - the sex. I thought this initially too, and knew of its bad rep. but decided to see for myself what the story really was. When I read it, I loved it. Not because of the sex, and BDSM, but because it is an epic love story. Very romantic and very sweet.
In conclusion, if people are judging “Fifty Shades of Grey” before they’ve even read it, then they buy into mainstream media too much and they’re claims are weak and ungrounded. If they have read it, and still feel it encourages abusive relationships and women’s violence, then perhaps they should consider the romantic side of it and try to understand where others are coming from before springing their beliefs onto everyone else.
Laters, baby :)
Oh definitely the 1997 version, because of everything, it’s much more accurate to the book, and the casting is so much better, except maybe for Charlotte. I think Sue Lyon was great, but I don’t think of her when I think of Lolita, and I almost can’t even see her as Lolita, maybe bc I watched the 97 one first, or bc she’s too different from the Lolita from the novel, but with Dominique it’s like someone put their hand inside the book and brought Lolita to real life. And same with Humbert. Jeremy does what James simply wasn’t able to do, which is make the public feel sympathy for him, and that charm and duality is an extremely important part of his character, and Mason didn’t deliver it, in my opinion.