If Christian wasn't rich

[Kayci]

If he was broke that man would have been in jail for being a creepy stalker before the end of the first book.

[Arife]

If Cristian was not rich, he would not be able to pomper Ana, control everything so much, travel together by his helicopter etc. Anll these things became because he had money.

[Natasha]

YES I would still love him but since it's fiction I welcome the money LOL

[Noëlle]

Alberto wrote: "Guys, sorry, but you got it all wrong! With money or without money, Grey is a man with enormous problems and a misguided way of living. He needs an asylum not that ridiculous therapist. If this boo..."

Even in the US most of what he did is a crime. Not all of the sex had any consent involved (a lot of it of was coerced, and in some scenes, forced, and he told Ana afterward that she really did want it because she orgasmed, which is something that happens even to women jumped in alleys, and isn't proof of wanting it, only of the body physiologically working), and his stalking sure isn't legal. I doubt he got a court order to get her bank account information, or any of the other personal info that's not public record.

[Noëlle]

Wendy wrote: "I think the real thing here for most of these comment is that people are comparing what he is doing as abuse. Get a grip people, the ladies all the ladies were willing. These were not kidnapped sex..."

Ana sent an e-mail saying she didn't want to see him anymore. He, without realizing it was a joke, decided he was going to go have sex with her anyway and broke into her apartment. Ana was scared to see him and started looking around for a way out. He tied her up and told her to be quiet or he'd make sure Kate knew what was going on. When Ana said no, he ignored her. He continued. This is the definition of rape.

What is so frightening here is that women like you can't identify rape anymore and think that sex obtained through coercion, intimidation, and force is all okay just because you were personally be willing to submit to a sex-looking rich guy who's skilled in the sack. You might have the willingness, but Ana wasn't always willing. In fact he repeatedly hit her against her will (hitting was a hard limit for her, and aside from the last time, he never got her permission to hit, and she submitted to it only because she was afraid of him).

[Noëlle]

Martine wrote: "Tialisa wrote: "Would we readers have taken to Christian Grey had he not been wealthy? We women can find beauty in the oddest places so looks aside had Christian been a good looking gas station att..."

You're exactly the type of person an abuser would look for. You sound like the kind of woman who would endure abuse hoping that sex with you and being on the receiving end of hitting would change a man for the good.

[Noëlle]

Somi wrote: "Wealth is a central part of the romance fantasy, that's why it's one of the main elements in romance novels. The guy is rich, or gets rich in the course of the story.

The BDSM was weird... I skipp..."

He was a stalker. Ana went to Georgia to spend time with her mother, and he knew she wanted space. So he flew cross country and "coincidentally" showed up where he was. That is a stalker.

[Noëlle]

Kayci wrote: "If he was broke that man would have been in jail for being a creepy stalker before the end of the first book."

To be fair, if he had been broke, he wouldn't have had the ability to follow her across the country or to hack into her bank account. However he still could have found ways to stalk her because that's what stalkers do. He'd still be rotten, only without the luxury, Ana wouldn't have been so willing to subject herself to his abuses. Having been abused myself, it would have been a little easier if I at least had a comfortable place to sleep at night and got gifts to make me happy and got to go on fun trips. Without those things, all there is is the abuse. He spoiled her to distract her, whether or not she wants to admit it.

[Katerina]

I think somebody is over-analysing here.
In my opinion the author of this wrote a romance book translated to modern times with all the BDSM in it.
No more,no less.
Sure a lot of stuff Christian did, freaked a lot of people out, and they have every right to feel this way. But I can´t remember a passage in the books, where Ana thought about going to the police and wanted to get him arrested.
Why didn´t the author chose this way?
She could have easily turned everything in her books in a different direction and named it all crime books. There are sure a lot of books out there who have this content and deal with it differently.

[Mochaspresso]

Katerina wrote: "I think somebody is over-analysing here.
In my opinion the author of this wrote a romance book translated to modern times with all the BDSM in it.
No more,no less.
Sure a lot of stuff Christian did..."

I couldn't find any passage like that either. Someone is over-analyzing AND conveniently omitting any events in the story that directly contradict that skewed over-analysis. Like the emails that Ana sent to Christian from Georgia saying that she missed him and wished he were there with her. Not to mention all of her internal monologue that clearly states it to readers as well. Or the fact that once he got there, he had one drink with Ana and her mom and left them in the bar. Ana is the one who knocked on Christian's Georgia hotel room door later that night. She spends the night and all of the next morning with him.

Since people feel inclined to take such crazy liberties with the story and infer the most sinister of meanings, I think I will do the exact opposite. I had a sneaking suspicion that Ana's Mom may have actually been in on Christian surprising her at the bar in GA.

[Claudia the Night Owl]

Yes, money isn't everything.

[Mochaspresso]

Recently, there have been several popular contemporary novels that feature heroes who aren't rich.



Many of Nicholas Spark's heroes haven't been rich. Travis from "Beautiful Disaster" wasn't that far off from Christian character-wise and he wasn't rich either. It added an extra layer to the story, but Christian didn't necessarily have to be rich for FSoG to work.

[Ariana]

Eh. It is one thing to be catered to and then be introduced to the crazy love stuff. But if it is some Joe Schmo, the manager at staples, every woman would be less likely to go into it. Unless he gave it time,you truly loved him and you were into that yourself, then it may be different and the money wouldn't matter.

[Bella]

he would be one of many poor twisted asses

[Noëlle]

What Christian did isn't BDSM. Go read the blog at historyofbdsm.com for a scene-by-scene analysis of someone who's been in the lifestyle for more than 20 years. A person living it for decades knows more than some sexually frustrated housewife with a crush on Edward Cullen.

If you have a boyfriend and he starts beating on you when you said no, does that make it BDSM?

Katerina, most women who are abused don't go to the police. They're scared. Thank your lucky stars you've never been abused by a significant other. Ana not only was afraid, but made to believe she couldn't ven legally talk about it with even her best friend. With Christian's ability to find out personal information that he should not, under any circumstances, have been able to access without her permission, he clearly was passing off bribes and have insider friends. What reason would Ana have to think Christian didn't have a buddy at the PD?

[Noëlle]

Here's why I'm not just overanalyzing this. Women read these books, "love" Christian Grey, think he's wonderful, and then do their best to defend his actions as not abuse because of the "romantic" things he does, like vacations (where she is afraid) and expensive gifts (ignoring that the gifts were a means of control). Women defending him are defending everything about him and internalizing the belief that ignoring a woman saying No is okay as long as there are good things. Women are becoming blinded to abuse.

A man buying you jewelry, a new car, a computer, and taking you to France, has not bought the right to hit you when you've explicitly told him you don't want that or to have sex with you when you don't want it.

Those of defending what he's done to her against her will and say that she consented to it all (what the hell is wrong with those of you who don't understand that she said the word NO on more than one occasion and he ignored her and said she, a RAPE VICTIM, really wanted it?!) are proof od the harm these books are causing. Those of you saying that what he did was okay even when she didn't say no but when she wasn't participating have excused the Stubenville rapists who supposedly thought it was okay because the girl wasn't conscious enough to say no. No no meant yes to them, and that's what you're claiming when Ana didn't say no only because she was too scared.

If you've ever the victim of sexual assault or rape, re-read these books and see if you don't recognize Christian for the rapist he is. Thousands of victims have spoken out about these books and the idolizing of a man who exhibits every sign of an abuser.

Congratulations for becoming part of the problem.

[Katerina]

Wow Alys, don´t get so riled up because of a book.
So you didn´t like it... that´s ok for me.
I will tell you why I rated it with 4 stars: For twenty years I have been reading nothing except crime stories ( does this make me a bloody murder, do I want to torture and kill people in every imaginable way ? Hell, no! )So I came across FSOG and I couldn´t resist the hype and bought all the three of them. What can I say... the first one kept me entertained, although it was bad written. I am not interested in BDSM ,soft or heavy, it does nothing to me.
I read it as a romance book, never once it occurred to me that Christian is the abuser, you proclaim him to be. Probably because I never have been abused myself... so this didn´t ring a bell to me!
Do I want to experience the same things as Ava? NO!
Do I want somebody telling me "I.Fuck.Hard."?
I would laugh my ass off...
I don´t like a book, I throw it away, put in in the garbage bin, give it to someone I don´t like :-)) or burn it.
What happened besides the waste of time. Any harm dome? No!
Do you really believe young girls will come to think that this relationship is the real thing, even if they have to suffer? They will endure pain and suppression in a relationship because Ava went through this ...in a book ?
I believe, most of them will be able to distinguish.

[Mochaspresso]

I actually have been reading through the historyofbdsm blog and I've read and/or sampled some recommended books that others tend to say are better representations of true BDSM than FSoG is and to be honest, I don't really like it all that much. Bottom line for me is that it's just not something that I am into and I didn't read or like FSOG for the BDSM. Even though I'm not into it, I don't mind the light FSOG version of it, but I think that is only due to the fact that I also enjoyed the soap opera story of Ana and Christian. The heavier stuff actually turns me off more than it turns me on. I suspect that maybe this could be part of FSoG's overall appeal. It presented something that many people are not into or are not familiar with in a milder and more palatable manner even though it may not have necessarily been the most accurate manner. The thing is, only people who are into BDSM will care whether or not Christian and Ana are doing it right. It's kind of like veterans watching Black Hawk Down, The Hurt Locker or Zero Dark Thirty. They get bent out of shape over how unrealistic those movies truly are.....but the honest truth is that the average general movie-going public doesn't really care about that because they always knew it was just a movie anyway.

[Katerina]

I agree with Mochaspresso. I did not read the historyofbdsm blog, because I am so not interested in this lifestyle, but to each his own.
In the beginning of romance books the intercourse itself was not described so clearly, as it is in many of the books today.
So to keep the reader attracted authors come up with a variety and more explicit descriptions, this pays tribute to the times in which we are living.
If FSOG would have been heavier and more accurate in the BDSM stuff, people would not have liked it, because they cannot relate to it since they prefer more "vanilla" style relationships.

[Mochaspresso]

libellule wrote: "Alys wrote: "Here's why I'm not just overanalyzing this. Women read these books, "love" Christian Grey, think he's wonderful, and then do their best to defend his actions as not abuse because of t..."

I think that we need to be very very careful about going down the road of where to place blame with regards to the supposed negative influence of books. To hear some people tell it, the bible might just end up being the primary book that gets banned considering how much negative influence it has had on masses of people throughout history.

btw, speaking of the bible....

Ephesians 5:22

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

.....do women really want to go down this road of strict and literal interpretations taken completely out of context and given the most sinister (and clearly unintended) meanings possible?

[Noëlle]

No one is talking about BANNING books.

Also those of you claiming that you're not interested in learning more about BDSM can not claim that what Christian did is BDSM. If you choose to remain ignorant, then own up to your willful ignorance instead of claiming to understand the topic. What Christian did IS NOT BDSM. Quit claiming it is when you admit to not having an interest in learning what it actually is.

[Katerina]

Topic : If Christian wasn´t rich...

[Gary]

Subtopic: Without his wealth his behavior would be recognized for what it is.

[Anthony]

If a person is rich and into BDSM, then they are apparently eccentric and kinky; but if a poor person is into it, then they are considered perverts and freaks.

[Gary]

Anthony wrote: "A rich people are into BDSM, then apparently they are eccentric and kinky; but if poor people are into it, then they are considered perverts and freaks."

Or even worse. If rich people commit sexual violence and abuse then their behavior is redefined not just in legal and moral terms, but as attractive or even heroic.

It's fine to engage in something as a fantasy, but its status as a fantasy should be recognized. Confusing "Oh, that's hot" with "Oh, that's a good idea" isn't a good way to go. Had 50SoG been more "realistic" and taken place in some guy's trailer or just his condo it'd be a very different book. Alys is simply pointing that out--and she's done a good job of it. Kudos.

[Mochaspresso]

Alys wrote: "No one is talking about BANNING books.

Also those of you claiming that you're not interested in learning more about BDSM can not claim that what Christian did is BDSM. If you choose to remain ign..."

That seems to be something that mainly people who are involved in it care about. I'll be honest and say that I don't care as I'm aware that it's fiction and I didn't read the books for the BDSM anyway. I enjoyed the movie "Warm Bodies" and I could care less that the movie completely deviated from traditional zombie lore. A zombie zealot/purist can tear the movie apart over why it was bad and why it doesn't feature real zombies.....and I still don't care. I liked the story. It could have featured vampires or werewolves or centaurs or mermen...it doesn't matter to me. I still would have enjoyed the story of the two main characters. I think that's what you aren't understanding about some of the people who liked FSOG. The same thing happened with Twilight. I don't care that Edward sparkled in the sun and "real vampires" don't. I liked Bella and Edward's story.

I recently read "The Silver Linings Playbook." Some say that the relationship between the main character and his therapist wasn't realistic as it would have been unethical in real life. I already knew that and I didn't care about that. I was interested in Pat's journey through life. Not whether a therapist is allowed to attend tailgate parties with his patients in real life. Out of everything that was going on, that was a very minute detail to me.

I read "The Coincidence of Callie and Kayden" and knowing a little bit about HS and college sports programs and how they are run, as I was reading, I thought that it was unrealistic that Kayden seemed to have as much free time as he did and that Kayden's coaches and team doctors would not have picked up on (view spoiler)[ the physical abuse and especially the cutting (hide spoiler)] among one of the players. I could go into that book's threads and tell everyone that....but honestly, the young ladies and women who enjoyed the book couldn't give a flying f@ck about realism when it comes to how a college football program is run or how it is depicted in this book. There were other aspects of the book that were unrealistic as well. But ultimately, none of that matters to the people who loved it. They liked Callie and Cayden's story.

fwiw, I have read through a great deal of the historyofbdsm website. Out of curiosity, are BDSM practices "concrete and set in stone"? Meaning do all people who participate practice it in primarily the same manner? While we are discussing it, do all people participate for the same reasons?

[Katerina]

Oops...
no one told me to subscribe to a BDSM crash course before reading FSOG.
Shame on me, having read the hundreds of pages of it, still not knowing whether Christian had to use the crop instead of the flogger or maybe both simultanously...???
Was it ok that he blindfolded and tied Ana to the bed or would it have been better and according to the real rules of BDSM if Ana was attached by cuffs to a Saint Andrew´s Cross?
I will never know...
How am I going to survive this?

[Mochaspresso]

Gary wrote: "Anthony wrote: "A rich people are into BDSM, then apparently they are eccentric and kinky; but if poor people are into it, then they are considered perverts and freaks."

Or even worse. If rich pe..."

This just isn't true. There have been PLENTY of books within the romance genre where the male lead had Christian's character traits (and far worse) and was not wealthy. This assumption that you are making is just plain fallacy. Christian's wealth is only a big deal because of how the author chose to frame her story, but fair maidens have been "reforming" the pirates and cutthroats who abducted them for a very long time in romance genre. So is the assumption that most people see FSOG as anything more than a fantasy. So is the assumption that women are taking relationship cues from it. (One crazy woman in the media claiming that she is divorcing her husband because of it doesn't represent all of women any more than the nutsos of the Westboro Baptist Church representing all of Christianity.) So is the assumption that most people actually liked all of the things that Christian did. I've read through so many FSOG of threads and it seems that when most people say that they like Christian, they are usually talking about the Christian at the end of the trilogy. Just as I know that a Duchesses' magic vagina probably would not have reformed Victorian England's most notorious rake in real life, I get that Ana's magic vagina probably would not have reformed Christian in real life. That doesn't mean that I can't enjoy spending a little bit of time in the the fantasy fiction world where it is possible and I won't necessarily be scarred for life from the experience. It's just fiction.

[Deelasha]

along with wealth Christian is given everything a girl wants... looks and charm. yes he has problems and is misguided and too hard to handle but Anna is there always... so eve if he would be poor the charisma would attract us throughout the trilogy.

[Azhu]

Even if he isn't rich, he's still smart and also hot enough for make all the girls fall for him..

[Christina]

Deelasha wrote: "along with wealth Christian is given everything a girl wants... looks and charm.

So all a girl want in a guy is wealth, looks and charm? What a depressing world if that was really true.

[Gary]

Mochaspresso wrote: "This just isn't true. There have been PLENTY of books within the romance genre where the male lead had Christian's character traits (and far worse) and was not wealthy. This assumption that you are making is just plain fallacy. Christian's wealth is only a big deal because of how the author chose to frame her story, but fair maidens have been "reforming" the pirates and cutthroats who abducted them for a very long time in romance genre."

I think your examples work better to support what I'm saying than oppose it. Most people recognize the activities of pirates and cutthroats as criminal. In the case of 50SoG, the behavior isn't recognized as criminal, and even reinterpreted as "passionate" instead.

[Katerina]

Pirates and cutthroats were the heroes in former historical romances...so Mochaspresso is right, in my opinion.

[Sadie]

This was my major gripe with Ana. No, no, no - she wasn't shallow at all - it wasn't the fact that he was stinking rich that impressed her; it wasn't *ahem* his chopper... Oh come on, lady. Give me a break.

Personally, out in the real world, I find rich daunting, and quite often, damaged. There's a much higher divorce rate amongst the affluent. If you're wallowing in wonga and you have any sense, you're going to have your guard up and be questioning a potential lover's motives from the get go. That isn't a great basis for a relationship, it could very well undermine it right from the start, unless you meet someone equally well endowed, and even then, you still don't know.

The more cracks in his driven, business persona came to light, the more I liked him, personally. And the crux of this was him telling her to "Take it all." - the notion that he would have let her clear out his account and been penniless. He seemed utterly vulnerable and that's where I liked him most. Whether there was a billion or a dime in that account, that's what did it for me.

As to the original question, well, if he hadn't been a rich successful businessman... Well it depends what he was instead. If he were a pimp... yeah, totally unlikeable. An art student practising power over his models? That could have flown. School teacher? Could have been very grim. Refuse collector? It would have been a joke. Doctor? Could have been incredibly creepy. My point is, I think he would have had to be a person with some kind of high social status to be taken seriously.

[Mochaspresso]

Gary wrote: I think your examples work better to support what I'm saying than oppose it. Most people recognize the activities of pirates and cutthroats as criminal. In the case of 50SoG, the behavior isn't recognized as criminal, and even reinterpreted as "passionate" instead.


I think this is becoming more of a semantics issue, then. I think most people fully realize that their relationship had some major issues. They just may not necessarily label it as "criminal". I will speak only for me on this. I don't use the word "criminal", however, I do use words like "abnormal", "unhealthy", "controlling", "manipulative" and "dysfunctional". I stop short of using "criminal" to describe it because in my opinion everything that happened between them was within the confines of a consensual relationship. He followed her to Georgia. She went to his hotel room and spent the night with him. She knew that he tracked the car. She kept it and drove it anyway. She knew that he got her banking info and deposited money for her. She kept the money. Once she knew about it AND clearly demonstrated that she accepted it (and even liked some of it), it is no longer "stalking" or "criminal" to me. Yes, she was intimidated by Christian....but she didn't view him as that type of threat. She didn't fear for her life. I think the certain words carry much more sinister connotations than are warranted for what is happening between Christian and Ana. In essence, I think "criminal" is a gross exaggeration.

[Serena]

He is Kinda sweet... so I guess it's not only about the money.

[Mochaspresso]

libellule wrote: True, rape fantasies have been a popular trope in romance and erotica for a very long time. Personally I don't care that people enjoy them, but I think it is worrying that so many women don't recognize it for what it is.

To think that this doesn't reflect or influence people's real life attitudes is extremely naive. This doesn't mean that there will be hordes of women divorcing their husband, because they can't live up to their expectations. Literature is more likely to influence the way we think and behave in small ways that can't always be traced back to a particular book.

And really, if you read this forums, you can quickly see that a lot of women find Christian to be the perfect romantic hero even in the first book.



I really do think you are misinterpreting or misunderstanding his appeal as a "perfect romantic hero". Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights is a very popular romantic hero too and he was a "genuinely" abusive miserable wretch. Christian Grey is the bad boy. The guy on the motorcycle. The boy in the black leather jacket. He's James Dean. Those women don't think Christian is perfect. They are indulging in the fantasy that there is a woman out there that can be the one to reform him and make him perfect. There is a huge huge difference.

[Mochaspresso]

I never understood the need for "book shaming". People are entitled to not like the subject matter of a given book and are free to state their opinions. People are free to disagree and discuss and debate. However, why is it necessary to go so far as to act as if there is something inherently wrong with all of the other people who don't share your view about a work of fiction? I hated Wuthering Heights....should I be calling everyone who liked it a moron and pray for them? Why is it necessary to question someone's morals or education or intelligence just because they were able to enjoy a fiction novel that you didn't enjoy? Why is it necessary to make disparaging personal comments about the author that have nothing at all to do the book?

[Mochaspresso]

it isn't problematic for me because i am able to discern between fantasy and reality and I don't scapegoat media for society's ills.

[Katerina]

This discussion is getting more and more tedious...
I have been following this for a while and I think ( again ! ) that Mochaspresso is right.
If someone really reads word by word every reply that has been posted here, and not just the sentences that suit him in his opinion, one can truly see that some tend to get offensive and behave like being on a crusade.
There are a lot of books I have read and found incredibly bad and whenever I see posts on goodreads where people praise them, I must confess, that I somehow feel the urge to drop the bomb and tell what I think about them...but I refrain.
So getting back to the crusade... I think I am too old to be evangelized!

[Mochaspresso]

libellule wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "I never understood the need for "book shaming". People are entitled to not like the subject matter of a given book and are free to state their opinions. People are free to d..."

btw, saying how sad it is that someone can't see how problematic a book is is a form of "book shaming", imo or maybe attempted "reader shaming" is a more accurate? So are comments like "Wake Up, Girls!", "you are a part of the problem." and "you are what an abuser looks for." These are all extremely judgmental comments that are directed at readers rather than at the book. People are essentially telling others that there has to be something wrong with them for liking a book. Not to mention making false assumptions about what they liked about it.

[Gary]

Mochaspresso wrote: "btw, saying how sad it is that someone can't see how problematic a book is is a form of "book shaming", imo or maybe attempted "reader shaming" is a more accurate? "

Well, then you're not going to like this.... However, I feel obliged to address your accusation.

It wouldn't be shaming to say that it is problematic for someone to rationalize away things they read. Shaming would be accusing someone of lacking character or something equivalent for simply enjoying a book--even though they know it's got some dubious content. It's fine to read something transgressive and enjoy it for its fantasy qualities so long as one differentiates between the fantasy and the reality. Lot's of people like gratuitous sex and violence in movies, for example. It's another thing to justify that kind of thing emotionally or intellectually. I know you SAY you do that... but then there's all these arguments about how the behavior isn't really bad at all. That's untenable. You shouldn't be ashamed of having made those arguments, but you should assess them for what they are.

50FoG has some directly immoral, harmful and downright illegal behavior in it. It's fine to read a book that has such content, and it's fine to enjoy that content, but it's another thing to fail to recognize it for what it is. Though several folks have said they are making that distinction, it's clear from reading this thread that many are not. Turning around and accusing people who point out that the things described in the book are an issue as engaging in a shaming process, though? That's taking the rationalization into another level. Not only is the behavior rationalized, but anyone who points out that it's a problem is engaging in a form of bullying.

So, now I'm sure I'm bullying you by pointing out how false is your claim to be victimized. Not really much to do with that kind of circular system other than to point out how it only works inside it's closed off logic. Good luck.

[Mochaspresso]

How is calling Christian's behavior abnormal, unhealthy, dysfunctional, controlling and manipulative equated to "justifying" or "rationalizing" it? I think most people who enjoyed it do actually recognize his behavior as extremely problematic as that was the point of the entire story. In fact, a recurring line throughout the books was that Christian was "fifty shades of fucked up".

Imo, what they aren't doing is over-analyzing and exaggerating and I will even go so far as to say that some of FSoG detractors might even be a little hypocritical and/or biased in their analysis. Imo, the relationships depicted in Wuthering Heights, Romeo and Juliette, Jane Eyre and Gone With the Wind were extremely problematic yet I don't see as many complaints about the relationships in those books.

My turn to over-analyze and exaggerate.......In the children's version of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Goldilocks is a criminal. She's guilty of trespassing, breaking and entering, burglary and vandalism. She's a felon and a fugitive from justice and the bears have been traumatized by this ordeal. She belongs in juvie and it's so sad that people can't see that when they allowed their children to read or hear this extremely problematic story. What messages are we giving our kids?

[Christina]

I don't see how it can be called bookshaming to point out that Christian's behaviour is problematic rather than romantic, and to wonder how so many people idolise him and his stalker ways.

[Mochaspresso]

Christina wrote: "I don't see how it can be called bookshaming to point out that Christian's behaviour is problematic rather than romantic, and to wonder how so many people idolise him and his stalker ways."

People know that his behavior is problematic. He even knows it and says so in the books. I don't think anyone in this thread actually said that they "idolize" Christian either. I don't know where that assumption came from. Also, I think that you are clearly misunderstanding exactly what people are finding romantic.

[Christina]

Mochaspresso wrote: People know that his behavior is problematic. He even knows it and says so in the books. I don't think anyone in this thread actually said that they "idolize" Christian either. I don't know where that assumption came from. Also, I think that you are clearly misunderstanding exactly what people are finding romantic.

I haven't followed this thread in its entirety, but I've read enough comments etc. elsewhere to know that many people in fact do NOT see his behaviour as problematic but as romantic. They think it's romantic that he follows Ana to her mom's, even though she said she needed some space or time to think, (or whatever it was she said, I don't remember it precisely), and they think it's proof of how much he loves her that he keeps tabs on her constantly and buys her workplace, and threatens/promises (depending how you look at it) to buy any place she might work. After all, he's only doing it for her own protection, not to satisfy his own need for complete control, right? I have read/heard/seen enough on this topic to know that this is how some people read the story.
I have seen many women claim that Christian is the perfect dreamboat and what every woman longs for and that they hope they find someone exactly like him in real life. If that's not idolising him, I don't know what it is?
And no, I haven't misunderstood what many people are finding romantic about the story. They like the idea that love can transform a person in a major way. If only you stay with someone long enough and just love them enough and put up with their behaviour, no matter how appalling it is, then eventually your love alone will change them and they'll become that lovable, good man that you just KNOW they are deep down inside. If only you stick it out. I like that idea too, but I also know that it's extremely unrealistic, and based on some of the reactions I've seen, I'm not entirely sure that the CG lovers in general are aware that it would never happen in real life.
It's a nice fantasy though, and if people would realise that that's all it is and all it's ever gonna be, a fantasy, then I wouldn't see a problem with that at all.

[[deleted user]]

Irk honesty.. he may have just seemed off. But then again. Once you get to know him you really do like him.. although.. idk about beatings and such.. but the money did help him spoil her.. so I mean... We would prob. Have liked him.. but the story as a whole would be so lacking. Without his money... Power... And Status.

[Staceyl]

"If Christian wasn't rich" haha (I had a good laugh...)
But yet it poses as such a good question. Honestly I don't think so. Because he was wealthy and horribly good looking it made it easier for me to accept him for who he was.

[Mochaspresso]

yogi bear and boo boo were stalkers and petty thieves too.

[Mochaspresso]

if people are repeatedly saying that its just fiction, I think that's more than enough proof that people aren't truly taking anything in the book as more than that.