Fifty Shades of Madness: No Gray Area Here

I can’t say it any better than the Dowager Countess of Grantham: Have we all stepped through the looking glass?

Yes, I’m afraid that collectively, as a culture, we have indeed. We no longer seem to recognize the plainly absurd as absurd. Up is down; out is in; wrong is right; insane is normal.

I have been holding out hope that the rapid descent of our culture into utter madness would be stopped, or at least slowed because enough people would come to their senses and find their backbones. I’m not sure I can hold that hope any longer.

Things that are as fundamental to the human person as being male and female, mother and father, are being jettisoned as oppressive and discriminatory, in favor of bizarre and thoroughly fabricated, convoluted notions of human sexuality. All sense of sacrifice and obligation toward children and their true best interest seems to have also been rejected in favor of the feelings, desires, and “rights” of the adults.

Imagine standing in a crowded stadium full of people, on a bright, sunny day, and being the only one there who knows the sky is blue. Everyone else now insists it’s pink. It’s absurd, but try as you may, you cannot convince anyone of the error of their thinking. You show them what blue looks like, but still they say, “We don’t want a blue sky anymore. We want pink! We say it’s pink, so it’s pink!”

Fifty Shades of Grey has been the latest offering of proof that we have gone completely mad.

A story that is plainly, unabashedly about sado-masachism, rape, and pornography is being hailed as romantic. It’s been offered as a Valentine to the world, and devoured with enthusiasm as though it were fine chocolate. Women look at Christian Grey, a man who is controlling, abusive, selfish, and manipulative — a man who knows nothing at all about love — and they swoon. Because he’s rich and handsome. That is madness.

“Oh, it’s just a book. It’s just fantasy.” What crazy talk! Have we all really forgotten the power of an idea that really catches on and gets gobbled up by the masses? Have we forgotten the kind of influence a book can have on a person, and on a culture?

However the money-machine has packaged and sold it, FSoG is not a love story. Christian Grey does not regard Anastasia as someone to respect and cherish; he certainly doesn’t view her as someone to protect and honor. He uses her and abuses her. He manipulates her into “consenting” to what he wants, so that his every sick and selfish desire can be satisfied. And this, somehow, is portrayed as an adult romance to be gushed over?

Dads, raise your hands: How many of you want your daughter to get involved with the likes of Christian Grey? Well, guess what? Thanks to the phenomenon of the book and movie, you can rest assured that there will be more and more Grey’s out there looking for young women they can easily dominate. The culture is telling them it’s not only alright, but it’s the kind of relationship women really, secretly want.

What are you going to tell your daughter about men like Grey? What are you going to tell her about porn and BDSM? Not comfortable having that conversation, you say? You better get comfortable real fast, because she’s having that conversation without you, with folks who do not have her welfare in mind.

And Dads, what are you saying to your sons about FSoG? Do you want your son to think it’s okay to twist a woman into signing a contract agreeing to be bound, beaten, and raped? Who’s going to tell the guys that that sort of thing is not sexy? Who’s going to tell them it’s NOT love? Who’s going to tell them it’s not how a real man behaves?

Moms, what about you? Would you just be delighted to learn that your daughter was Anastasia? That she was being blindfolded and bound, beaten, and treated like a piece of meat for some man’s selfish pleasure? Is that progress for women? “Mom and Dad, I’ve met the most amazing man. He’s rich and handsome. He had me sign a contract stating he could put me in handcuffs, blindfold me, beat me, and assault me. He says I shouldn’t overthink it. But don’t worry. It’s all good because I consented.”

Would you just be so proud of your son if he treated a young woman that way? Would you brag about him to your friends and rave of his accomplishments? “He’s a sado-masochist! He’s a master of dominance. We couldn’t be more proud of him!”

Scores of women — Protestant Christian women, Catholic women — have bought this garbage and then defended doing so. That is just madness. That is an inexcusable action. Yes, inexcusable. Why? Because “to whom much is given, much more will be required.” As part of the Body of Christ, you’ve been given True Love. You know what and Who love is. You have a duty to be a witness of that love to the world, and to refuse to buy — literally and figuratively — the counterfeit ideas of love, marriage, and sex that come from the pit of hell.

I’ve heard the pathetic rationale — “I probably won’t see the movie, but I read the book and I enjoyed it…it’s really no worse than a lot of other adult romance novels” — and I’m just gob-smacked.

What the heck are y’all reading? If this is run-of-the-mill “adult romance” to you, then you are a big part of the problem. And you have no excuse. You are obligated to know better and do better. You know darn well that FSoG has nothing whatsoever to do with love. You know darn well is pornography. It’s smut. You know it. How can you enjoy that?

Are you living under a rock that you don’t grasp the destructive force of pornography in our culture? How can you in any good conscience contribute to that destruction?

Would you think someone smart for dabbling in a little Ebola? Maybe as long as Ebola took you for a private helicopter ride, and invited you into the Penthouse suite and served champagne? Ooh, the danger, the risk, the glitter… makes it exciting!

Pornography ought to be regarded with greater alarm and more isolation than the Ebola virus because it is far more deadly. It can kill the soul of a person; it will kill a marriage and ruin a family. It destroys lives every single day from the inside out. It’s pure evil.

(Don’t believe me? Believe Ted Bundy.)

But you FSoG fans out there, you’ve lost your minds. You don’t run from this insidious plague. You’re so hypnotized by a glamorous illusion you’re willing to get cozy with it. You pay for the privilege of being infected.

And no, it’s not just your life and your private choice. Your decision to buy the book, see the movie, and defend those decisions has given aid and comfort to the enemy of all our souls, the enemy who prowls like a lion looking for children, spouses, families to devour.

You have become part of the audience for that filth. You’ve helped make it the best-selling, record-breaking hit it’s become. You helped spread spiritual Ebola.

There’s nothing gray or ambiguous about this. As plain as the nose on your face is the fact that FSoG glamorizes an abusive man, portrays him as some twisted sort of romantic idol, normalizes sado-masochism and pornography, and tries to insist that it’s all marvelous because it’s supposedly “consensual.”

A good friend of mine, who’s a Catholic convert and father of 11 children, said it so well:

“There is a line of theological thought (Milton refers to this in Paradise Lost) wherein the first sin committed after the Fall was one of lust. Adam looks at Eve’s nakedness and proceeds to simply take her. Thus at the core of our fallen nature as men is the desire to subjugate and objectify women, rather than nuture, protect, and provide for them. This is why porn is such a grave evil…it is a siren song for men to cast off their hard-won nobility and grace and revert to a default state of depravity.
How much more evil then are materials like “50 Shades“…that teach women that this state of depravity is not only normal…but desirable?”

In real life, Anastasia doesn’t change her abuser. Grey doesn’t transform into a gentleman and become a loving husband. He doesn’t realize how wonderful she is and vow to never hurt her again. No matter how much she “understands him” and no matter how patient she is; no matter how much she thinks she loves him, she cannot turn him into the man she wants. She’ll end up battered, emotionally shattered, abandoned, and possibly dead.

It also has to be admitted that if Christian Grey was a middle-aged, fat, sloppy, ugly man in a crummy neighborhood, no one but no one would be rushing to justify this book or be enthralled by its “romance.” No one would call it anything other than what it is: a perverted tale of a predatory creep and his victim.

Ultimately, the woman most responsible is the author, E.L. James. She spouts the same nonsense about the story being only fantasy, totally consensual between two adults, and not in any way making light of domestic abuse. She’s deluding herself. She’s become wildly wealthy by calling degradation and abuse “romance”, and beguiling all the crowds into accepting madness as perfect sense.

Ms. James and half the world may have gone mad, but I still know vomitous, pornographic trash when I see it. And I’m not so fond of vomit that I’ll sit in it and call it a bubble bath.

Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

30 thoughts on “Fifty Shades of Madness: No Gray Area Here”

  1. Netties Petrone

    Oh, Jennifer, your words couldn’t be more appreciated! I sometimes think I’ve gone mad, because the “world” is anti everything good and pure. Thank you so much for writing this. It ought to be on the front page of every newspaper.

  2. 50SoG is latest example of female-preferred porn sold openly without shame and in easy reach of children. Likely it was sold at your Base Exchange Mrs. Hartline, just as it was at your nearest Walmart. That and other porn may still be in open display in the so-called romance novel section of those stores.

    Oh, and hush with the man-blaming that you snuck into your article. It’s very unbecoming and doesn’t complement that beam in your female eyes at all.

    1. I never sneak anything in. If it’s in my article, it’s there quite on purpose and openly. But man-blaming? Christian Grey is a male character, and I blame him for being a predatory creep. Yep.

    1. Always fascinating to see “non-religious” people call a woman being raped, beaten,and controlled by a manipulative man “petty.” Nice to know you don’t think women ought to be treated with genuine respect.

    2. Pretty? You don’t have to be religious to see the evil here. I’d make the man who’d enslave my sister this way disappear. Not very religious, agreed?

      So you endorse this reduction of women to playthings; to the violence hidden within the abuse and control levied by men upon women whose pathologies make them easy pickings for such malevolent men?

      Or perhaps FSoG has given you new vistas to strive for in your own sexual conquests.

      Either way, if you are female you are sadly compromised, and if you are male you are – as yet – no man.

    3. Yes. It is a petty things to complain about the movie in it self. The movie on the other hand is a great conversation starter on exactly these subjects. Which is, overall, a good thing. As the title says, there is no aboslutes, we need to evaluate according ot he situation. And we need the tools to do it.

    4. Right JH – no absolutes. That’s a pretty popular way of thinking these days. So it’s okay to slaughter 6 million Jews if it will advance your political ideology? It’s okay to murder and rape if you can justify it in your own mind. I think perhaps we need some absolutes. Perhaps you don’t believe in God but you’d better be right, your life depends on it, because my God, and the God 1.8 billion others find to be the creator and ruler of all, does have absolutes. But maybe you’re right…may God Bless you and open your eyes.

    5. Short answer no. To kill anyone is generally not in line with good ethics. Doesn’t mean it is an absolute. Neither is rape an allowed behavior. As with killing another person it breaches that persons integrity in a, presumably, non consensual way (there is also a number of other factors to weigh in, but there are good sources on this elsewhere on the net). Then again the definition of rape varies wildly which makes the term grey rather than black and white. At the end of the day a consensus must be reached where common rules are applied.

      I don’t care about deities, they are a non factor in this game. What I do care about are people that take it upon themselves to act on their imagined skydaddys behalf. They are usually quite uninformed in general and are rarely able to have a nuanced discussion in just about any field. There are some bright exceptions, but among fundamentalist it’s in general a throwback to the dark ages.

    6. So what you’ve done is declare yourself God – You make the rules. I, on the other hand, turn to a higher authority. I find it perfectly logical that we are created beings and thus there must be a Creator – God. My experience is that most atheists (it sounds like that is your belief) aren’t so much against God, they’re just against having to live by someone else’s (God’s) rules. Sure, it’s not always fun (in the short-term) not being able to do whatever I want to do all the time without restriction, but can you really logically explain your existence without there being a Creator? I’d like to hear it….

    7. As there is no god to put forth any rules, sure we make the rules ourselves. That is the default position, and always have been. You may attribute these rule-set to to any arbitrary deity, but at the end of the day it is a human construct, nothing more, nothing less. The good part is that rules can, and should, be modified with new circumstances, findings and new knowledge. What was ok with one set of understanding and technical level isn’t necessarily ok under a different set of knowledge and level of understanding. The basic rule is to have as big freedom as possible without causing tangible harm to one another. Once freedoms do collide one has to decide which should give way on what premises.In general this has to do with tangible harm done, and an never ending adaption is needed to keep up to date to the latest developments. Deities have nothing to do with this process, it’s a purely human construct.

    8. You exhort that there is no deity with such confidence – how can you be so sure? If there is no God, no Creator, no “Unmoving Mover”, no “deity” as you choose, how do you explain your existence? How did the cognizant sentient being (and by extrapolation your lineage all the way back) penning these responses come to be? And where did matter itself, the “stuff” of the universe, come from? That is what confuses me about an atheistic ideology.

    9. To the start of the universe the phrase ‘I don’t know’ is a perfectly honest and straightforward answer. Likewise to the question of a abiogenesis. As their is no intrinsic goal in producing you, or me, for that matter, your question in regards of ‘me’ is rendered useless. Saying I don’t know, which true and straight to the point, leaves me the option of actually finding out. Which we are currently doing by evaluating evidence around us and test ideas against them. This is way more fruitful than invent some bizarre convoluted fairy tale. And oh so much more interesting and rewarding. We have some tantalising hypothesis that seems to fit with available evidence, and the picture gets clearer and clearer for each passing day.

    10. So, essentially, you and I are at the same position – we both believe in a god that we can’t prove. You are no closer to proving the existence of your god than I am to proving mine. We just worship different gods. It seems you pray at the altar of science (or do you call your god logic, or reason) while I bow before the one true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Triune God of Christianity. The difference is I don’t mock your “god”, I don’t call your god a made-up fairytale. I actually enjoy your god, I studied your god in college, it was my undergrad major. I hope you do find your answers because I have Faith that they will justify my God. I would guess that you fear my God though, because deep in your seat of your consciousness, your primal ego, probably physically located somewhere near your hippocampus, is a part of you that intrinsically knows there is a God, a Creator, and you know that you have ignored and shunned Him and you fear what awaits one who mocks their Creator. It’s not to late though….

    11. ? In what way was ‘I dont know’ turned in to a deity of any form and fashion? In regards of fear, yes, sure, there are plenty of things I fear in this world. Deities are not among them though. However, people having faith in deities are worrisome. They tend to be unpredictable and irrational. Depending on the degree of delusion they can even become highly dangerous.

      Science, btw, has nothing to do with gods. If you actually think that, it just shows that you misunderstood the concept in it’s entirety.

    12. It seems that atheists can become a little dangerous at times also:
      http://www.youngcons.com/atheist-kills-three-muslims-mainstream-media-ignoring-leftist-politics/
      http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder
      Concerning science, people will turn just about anything into a god, even a golden calf. It’s all about what you put your faith in. Sounds like you trust in science (or perhaps the scientific method). I trust in God. Not too hard to see the correlation.
      If your answer to the question of how matter and life came to be is “I don’t know” then the answer could be “God”, right? Theoretically speaking, it could be God.
      And regarding the opinion that science has nothing to do with God I’ll quote you: “To the start of the universe the phrase ‘I don’t know’ is a perfectly honest and straightforward answer…Saying I don’t know, which is true and straight to the point, leaves me the option of actually finding out. Something which we are currently doing by evaluating evidence around us and test ideas against them. This is way more fruitful than invent some bizarre convoluted fairy tale….We have some tantalising [sic] hypothesis that seems to fit with available evidence, and the picture gets clearer and clearer for each passing day.” Many scientists (Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking…) have tried to use science to disprove or discover God. They have not been successful. But in a round-about way I agree with you on this point – the relationship between science and God is generally misunderstood. Science deals with the natural world and God is supernatural. God created science and all the physical phenomena which it investigates. To try and use the tools of science to uncover the supernatural is fruitless. It’s like trying to use a toaster to mend a hole in the seat of your pants – it’s just going to leave you frustrated and embarrassingly exposed.

    13. Conservapedia is on the same level as the onion in terms of reliability, with the difference that the onion is enjoyable. This said Atheists have their share of nut-cases which can be expected given that atheism deals with only one single question. There are atheists of all conceivable political stances and view points and there are superstitious atheists as well.

      “Concerning science, people will turn just about anything into a god, even a golden calf. It’s all about what you put your faith in. Sounds like you trust in science (or perhaps the scientific method). I trust in God. Not too hard to see the correlation.”

      I don’t see the correlation. At all. If your deity is a valid method to follow evidence to attain knowledge, sure we can call it god.

      “If your answer to the question of how matter and life came to be is “I
      don’t know” then the answer could be “God”, right? Theoretically
      speaking, it could be God.”

      We can refer to it as the magic teapot, the flying spaghetti monster or the pink unicorn I keep in my garage. At the end of the day the god hypothesis doesn’t generate any useful information, and lead nowhere. Even if we would find a deity, it would just lead to a new dimension of questions. This said, if evidence leads to such a situation we have to deal with it. So far this is not the case, And there are no indications that this will change.

      ” Many scientists (Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking…) have tried to use science to disprove or discover God.”

      No. They haven’t. In the same manner as you wont be able to disprove my omniscient omnipresent invisible pink unicorn in my garage, I wont be able to disprove a god (any god). Neither have Hawking, Sagan etc even tried to prove such a thing. After all it is not only futile to prove a negative, it is not necessary. What they have done however, is hard ardours work which have culminated in god explanatory models for how the universe have come to be. And so far we don’t need any gods for that. Is there plenty of more things to discover? Sure, that’s what makes science interesting.

      “Science deals with the natural world and God is supernatural.”

      How convenient. On the other hand, it renders him/her/it irrelevant. And I suppose it also makes him/her/it the ultimate master in hide and seek.

    14. With all due respect, JH, your position is a farce. Your arguments are an illusion. All you are doing Is ridiculing other people’s belief systems while refusing to put up any alternative. You mock Christianity but when asked any question of substance all you can offer is “I don’t know?” Weak sir, very weak. What do you know? What evidence has your glorious scientific method proven? Nothing. Science has made a few rudimentary observations, deduced some elementary properties of the the material world, and manipulated some obvious laws of the universe for our superficial benefit (but more often than not to our disadvantage) and scientists declare themselves “masters of the universe”! Ridiculous. Save your naive sarcasm for impressing your academic elitist peers and your own intellectual masturbation, because you’re only glorifying yourselves. In the real world people need answers and they need help and it comes from God. So tell me what you know JH? What has your glorious scientific method come up with?

    15. “All you are doing Is ridiculing other people’s belief systems while refusing to put up any alternative.”

      No. I don’t ridicule something just because I point out the flaws in the hypothesis. In the absence of of knowledge the default position is not to invent a new mythology. It is to do an honest attempt to find out. If you have actual evidence supporting your claim your welcome to present them. But they have to pass ordinary scrutiny. In the above I simply pointed out that your god concept is equal to any other faith statement about for instance a pink unicorn, flying teapot, or as Douglas Adams put it; a mischievous badger. That’s an observation of facts at hand, and not ridiculing.

      “question of substance all you can offer is “I don’t know?” Weak sir, very weak.”

      Its actually quite the opposite. This is the default position. It leads to constructive reasoning when we do the natural follow up; we don’t know! Let’s find out! That what has gotten us where we are today. More people than ever living better life’s than ever for longer than ever, in a life style that our ancestors couldn’t even begin to dream about. Sure we could have spent the time of hard work finding out stuff, on improving our mythologies, but then we would have been camping in the caves with an average life-expectancy of 35.

      “So tell me what you know JH? What has your glorious scientific method come up with?”
      Oh whatever have the romans done for us… Apart from saving you from death? Keeping you alive? Keeping clothes on your body? Giving you the ability to converse with people all over the world instantaneously? Landing probes on distant planets? Curing most types of cancer? Slow aging? Keeping people fed? Solving some the biggest mysteries of how the universe ticks and works? Oh, nothing special I guess…

    16. First, I want to apologize for my delayed response. It seems I have come down with a really nasty case of the common cold (something that modern science hasnt really come up with a cure for). At first I thought it was the flu (another malady that modern science hasn’t really figured out yet). Thank goodness its not AIDS though (wait – modern science doesn’t have a cure for that either – in fact I was just reading the other day that AIDS had existed in Africa for quite a while but it was the implementation of “scientific inoculations” with reused syringes in the early part of last century that allowed it to take off – thanks science) or ebola (another disease that science hasn’t really got a handle on…keep trying science).
      But back to the discussion. There is no flaw in Catholic Christianity. You claim that there is no evidence supporting it but there is no evidence to support your position of a godless universe either. When some evidence is presented to further your position I will consider it, but there is none. Logic, however, screams for a Creator, One outside the physical realm to bring our universe into existence. And my God is not equivalent to your foolish trivialities – no one has believed so strongly in a Flying Spaghetti Monster that they gave their life for it. Christ so inspired his disciples that they died horrible deaths at the hands of pagans rather than renounce their Faith, and this continues to this day.
      But, since you asked, there is evidence for the supernatural, plenty of it. For instance:
      -the incorruptible bodies of Saints – over 300 of them, not affected by time or natural decomposition.
      -Fatima – thousands, including atheists, saw a supernatural image of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
      -Eucharistic Miracles – there are many of them, the most famous being in Lanciano, Italy – the consecrated bread actually became cardiac tissue, as verified by scientific testing. This happened in the 8th century, it was tested in the late 20th century – also incorruptible.
      -The Holy Shroud of Turin
      -Demonic Possession – if you believe in demons, then you have to accept the existence of God. Here is one of the more recent episodes: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/01/25/the-disposession-of-latoya-ammons/4892553/
      And now let’s look at some of your suppositions (surely you didn’t think I would just accept then carte blanche):
      More people than ever: no thanks to science. Modern “scientific” cultures (non-Hispanic US, “white” Europe, Russia, Japan…) have birth rates well below sustainability levels (2.2). Thank goodness for those backwards nonsensical religious evangelicals, Catholics and muslims or there soon would not be any humans left.
      Living better lives than ever – hardly. Pollution, crowded cities, rampant random violence, the breakdown of the family, wide scale drug abuse – living in modern times is no picnic. The carnage of the 20th century (Stalinist Russia, communist China, WW1 and WW2…) has been unmatched in human history. Your “better” life is an opinion. Many cultures throughout time have lived quite comfortably without modern science.
      Longer (lives) than ever: maybe slightly, but it was not uncommon to live to 70 or 80 years of age throughout history. Sure, lifespans were cut short during the Industrial Revolution by the ravages of unchecked science but we got past that. Also, when considering the life expectancy of modern man, don’t forget to factor in the scourge of abortion – about one fifth of all children conceived on the US die from abortion before reaching one year of age. That should drop the numbers a little. (I am guessing that you are pro-abortion. If you wish to argue this issue lets do it elsewhere so as not to encumber this discussion).
      In a lifestyle our ancestors couldn’t dream about – yes they couldn’t dream of the horrors of nuclear annihilation, the acceptance of sexual degeneracy as normal, and a host of other evils. But people have managed to live quite comfortably, lavishly even, throughout time.
      Saving me from death – last I checked we’re all gonna die a physical death, JH…
      Keeping me alive – again, people managed to live quiet well without science.
      Keeping clothes on my body – again, there has never really been an issue with lack of clothing that I’m aware of….
      Giving me the opportunity to converse with people all over the world instantaneously – alright, that’s true. Is it a good thing? I guess. I could live without it though – I wouldn’t be spending so much time arguing with you here
      Landing probes on distant planets – yeah, that’s fun. Hasn’t really helped out mankind, but it is a fun hobby
      Curing most forms of cancer – are you kidding me??? Cancer is the number two killer in the US. There is no cure for most types of cancer.
      Slowing aging – see above – not so much, other than botox injections and facelifts – that’s a good use of science, oh yeah.
      Keeping people fed – yes, GMOs are a wonderful fruit of science.
      Solving the biggest mysteries of how the universe ticks – not hardly. We know almost nothing about how our universe works, as we don’t understand its foundations yet. When you figure out where it came from then we can start making progress on figuring it out.
      But look, I don’t want to be forced into a “science is bad” position. Like I said before – I like science. I just keep it in its proper perspective. Its a useful tool, a hobby of sorts, that has made life a little easier for mankind. I don’t worship it though and I don’t exalt it to the “end all be all”. I don’t know who you are – if you’re a scientist of some sort or just some middle school kid studying physical science and sneaking on his daddy’s computer – but throughout time many brilliant scientists who have made major contributions to our collective knowledge managed to reconcile belief in God with scientific principles. Off the top of my head – Galileo, Copernicus, Descartes, Mendel, Pasteur, Curie, Tesla… So, what’s so hard about accepting the scientific method and God? They are not mutually exclusive.

    17. You still haven’t managed to come up with an coherent argument that stands up outside of the fox bubble. Sigh. But there is still hope for you; go read some good science books and get an education, you can still make it out of the bubble! It was over 30 years ago since i bothered with superstition, so I have a quite hard time to wrap my head around the cognitive dissonance you have to endure on daily basis. But as stated, others have managed to leave, so well, good luck!

    18. Neither have you. Good luck brother – I’ll pray for you (whether you want me to or not). And I will read some more good science books too, I enjoy them. Then I’ll read some Tolkien and C.S. Lewis (more Christians – dang, they’re everywhere!). I did enjoy our conversation though. You’re not quite as arrogant as many of fellow God-dismissers. Take care.

    19. Jennifer Hartline

      Always fascinating to see “non-religious” people call a woman being raped, beaten, and controlled by a manipulative creep “petty.” Nice to know you don’t think a woman deserves to be treated with genuine respect.

    20. I said it was petty to complain on the movie itself. It does not mean that the subject doesn’t Nedd to be discussed, and this is one way to get an informed discussion going.

  3. SnowCherryBlossoms

    What a good article, you bring up so many valid points! Are we willing to pick up our cross and follow Jesus? It isn’t easy going against the world, in fact if things keep going as they are, we will probably lose our lives doing so, at the very least we will be persecuted for it. People don’t understand what sin, especially sexual sin, does to their soul. Paul made this very clear- he said we should FLEE from it- not run to it.

    But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any
    kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s
    holy people. Ephesians 5:3
    Satan is behind all of this, luring people in, causing so much hardness, disobedience, death and destruction and the inevitable loss of souls, degrading the act meant for marriage and bringing God’s beautiful children into the world.
    Alice von Hildebrand put it very well: “Why did the serpent go to Eve instead of Adam? Some have said it was because Eve was weaker and therefore an easier target, but I think the answer goes much deeper: Eve was the mother of the living, which drew the attention of the “murderer from the beginning.” Because he hated human life, the devil went after Eve.”
    It is very clear the Enemy is still at it, doing his best to destroy mankind in any way possible.

  4. ” A story that is plainly, unabashedly about sado-masachism, rape, and pornography is being hailed as romantic.”

    No more hyped than the May 1913 premiere of Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring which not only caused a riot but was hailed by the Victorian prudes as pornographic music. Today it is a respected study in atonal form. Tomorrow the former will be a study into the habits of a twisted libido. I think if we could survive the Borja’s escapades in the Vatican we can well get over FSoG.

  5. Pingback: MONDAY AFTERNOON EDITION - BigPulpit.com

  6. Jennifer-Never never stop saying the sky is blue; even if you are the only voice. St Athanasius was often the only voice against the Arian hersesy in the 4th century and he had no trouble speaking out, no trouble calling heretical priests and bishops “ariomaniacs” publicly. He knew and believed the blue sky of the divinity of Jesus and he and the Holy Spirit constituted a majority-even when in some places 97% of the bishops and priests were heretics. This earned him the nickname Athanasius Contra Mundum, Athanasius Against The Whole World. If needs be, please be Jennifer Contra Mundum and never stop writing. Guy McClung, San Antonio

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *