50 Shades of Abuse Flyer - Canada
Use, redistribute, print.
Click image and magnify for large version.
Okay. I understood all the flack Twilight got for being an abusive relationship. Because it was and it was being read by a very young and impressionable audience. But ffs, 50 Shades is an ADULT NOVEL. Iit is about a BDSM couple. Which - newsflash - do exist. It is a completely consensual form of dominate/submissive sex play. The whole concept of domestic violence and abuse is that one side exerts control over an unwilling victim. I don’t recall Anastasia, or whatever she’s called, protesting to Christian’s form of sex. If I remember correctly, she quite enjoyed it! So before you condemn a work of romanticizedfiction, actually consider it’s audience and remember that they are mature and capable enough to know the difference between reality and fiction.
so i guess you didn’t read the parts where he coerces her and the part where he continues after she has used her safeword and acts like a fucking creep whenever they aren’t having sex
it is the worst possible introduction to BDSM i could imagine
i know my shit okay
im hoping the people defending this book are 1. never getting into BDSM 2. not currently into BDSM 3. havent read the book bc i dont want to believe anyone is that fucking stupid
knowledge on you right now.
Wanna know the BDSM mantra? Safe, sane, consensual.
So let me explain why this book was devoid of all three of these things.
Safe - In the first few chapters of the novel, Christian Grey tracks Ana’s cell phone to find her at a club. Takes her home when she’s drunk, changes her when she’s so intoxicated she doesn’t remember him doing so,and informs her he will be keeping tabs on her for her own benefit. This is not the behaviour of a respectable Dominant. This is the behaviour of a power hungry, abusive asshole who really can’t take no for an answer.
Sane - One of the most important parts of BDSM is aftercare. Scenes can be extremely traumatizing and intense for the submissive. Aftercare is anything from petting to cuddling to holding to sweet talking, whatever degree of gentleness a bottom would need to pull them out of “subspace”. How does Christian provide aftercare? He submits Ana to a traumatizing first time spanking experience AND THEN FUCKING LEAVES. AND GETS MAD THAT SHE DIDN’T TELL HIM SHE WAS UPSET. He’s the one who should fucking know better! That, again, is not the act of a responsible Dominant. It’s the act of a selfish abuser.
Consensual - Did I mention he undressed her when she was belligerently drunk? Tracked her phone to locate her? He also buys her a new car despite her saying no countless times. Now, consent is important for any kind of sexual activity at all. Consent means informed, consent means enthusiastic. Informed, enthusiastic consent. This is crucial in a BDSM setting. Scenes can be extremely intense, especially for the bottom. What is Christian’s form of obtaining consent? Handing Ana a fucking contract highlighting all the things he wants to do her asshole and asking her to sign it. She was a virgin (Don’t even get me fucking started.) who had never before been exposed to BDSM. Entering in that kind of relationship takes a gargantuan amount of trust and knowledge so you know exactly what you’re getting into. Not reading a list of kinks on a piece of paper and signing your rights to say no away. Christian didn’t offer her resources, he didn’t offer her information. He gave her an ultimatum. That is not the sort of consent a responsible Dom/me would seek from their submissive.
Fuck. This. book. It’s written in a shitty way, it’s a terrible example of a BDSM relationship (ask anybody already involved in the lifestyle and watch them go blue in the face just thinking about it), which is already faced with enough prejudice and misunderstand, and it romanticizes and glorifies abuse.
And this post is going into my bookmarks, because it is beautiful.
What scares me most is the fact that people, misinformed and ignorant people, will now try to enter the community/find play partners with the dangerous ideas of what BDSM is. They won’t respect a sub, they won’t listen.
And that can seriously hurt people. People can DIE.
Fuck whoever said that BDSM is about controlling an unwilling victim. NOT ALL BDSM REVOLVES AROUND NONCON FANTASIES and when it does, the whole point is that the participants are PRETENDING that one party is unwilling when in fact that isn’t true at all, and when the safeword is said, everything STOPS, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.
Doing anything to an unwilling person is ABUSE. Doing anything SEXUAL to an unwilling person is RAPE.
There’ll be no flirting, that’s for sure. It’s not what this Doctor’s concerned with. It’s quite a fun relationship, but no, I did call and say, ‘I want no Papa-Nicole moments.’ I think there was a bit of tension with that at first, but I was absolutely adamant.
Peter Capaldi, Sunday Times Magazine
Peter Capaldi might just save Doctor Who…
Sometimes I remember that Peter Capaldi is now the Doctor and I cry and my tears are hope.(via savewilliamgraham)
Parenting done right.
they had one of the ninja turtles tied up tho
My dad just said: at your age you’ll probably wanna try a lot of things. Boys, girls, being a girl, being a boy, being punk or goth or spunky. And im okay with that. As long as you don’t come home and tell me youre a republican
Parenting done right
People are increasingly scared to talk about anything.
A Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, in a new report from Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union on the NSA’s damaging effects on press freedom and citizens’ ability to hold our government accountable.
That is what we call the “chilling effect” and its a detriment to the first amendment.
Not only is it morally wrong to let people live desperately on the streets, but it doesn’t make much economical sense either.
A new study has found that it’s significantly cheaper to house the homeless than leave them on the streets.
University of North Carolina Charlotte researchers released a study on Monday that tracked chronically homeless adults housed in the Moore Place facility run by Charlotte’s Urban Ministry Center (UMC) in partnership with local government. Housing these people led to dramatic cost savings that more than paid for the cost of putting them in decent housing, including $1.8 million in health care savings from 447 fewer ER visits (78% reduction) and 372 fewer hospital days (79% reduction). Tenants also spent 84 fewer days in jail, with a 72% drop in arrests.
Moore Place cost $6 million in land and construction costs, and tenants are required to contribute 30% of their income (mainly benefits) towards rent. The remainder of the $14,000 per tenant annually is covered by donations and local and federal funding. According to the UNCC study, that $14,000 pales in comparison to the costs a chronically homeless person racks up every year to society — a stunning $39,458 in combined medical, judicial and other costs.
What’s more, Moore Place is enabling the formerly homeless to find their own sources of income. Without housing, just 50% were able to generate any income. One year after move-in, they’re up to 82%. And after an average length of 7 years of homelessness, 94% of the original tenants retained their housing after 18 months, with a 99% rent collection rate.
The general population is biased: The original proposal for Moore Place was “controversial, if not ridiculed,” according to the Charlotte Observer. Locals mocked the idea that giving the homeless subsidized housing would do any good. A 2011 report commissioned by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority found that people have condescending attitudes towards the homeless, with the public perceiving higher levels of substance abuse problems (91%) and mental health issues (85%) than reported by the homeless themselves (41% and 24% respectively). It concluded that if “personal failings as the main cause of homelessness, it is unlikely that they will vote for increased public assistance or volunteer to help the homeless themselves.”
But “you can’t argue with the statistics," said UMC housing director Caroline Chambre. “This approach was controversial at one time because of the stereotype of who the homeless are, and we had to change that stereotype.”
In 2012, total welfare spending for the poor was just 0.47% of the federal budget. It turns out that maybe if we spent a little more to help the chronically destitute solve their problems, we could save a lot of money.
Hey Capitalists, supply and demand means that with 5 times as many empty homes as homeless people, you should be paying them to move in
Good point, Stephen.
Page 1 of 419