If Christian wasn't rich

[Mochaspresso]

Christina wrote: Are you being serious or are you pulling my leg? You honestly don't see a BIG difference between someone saying "I don't understand why those beautiful women are with those ugly men" (which I NEVER said or even implied, but apparently that's what you think I said) and someone saying "I don't understand why Hollywood doesn't depict relationships between ugly women and attractive men"(which is what I ACTUALLY said). If you truly maintain that those two statements mean roughly the same, I see no point in carrying on this discussion because that would mean that our way of thinking (yours and mine) are so far from each other that we'll continually misunderstand each other.
And as for those examples you gave, I don't think either of them prove your point particularly well, since not one of those women are ugly or even remotely unattractive. Some of them were dressed up to look different, but they were still all beautiful.


I don't see the point in arguing over semantics either. I understand the literal meanings of both questions and the differences between them from a literal standpoint. That's not what I was talking about. I don't think there is much difference figuratively speaking. If people are possibly shallow for focusing solely on Christian's looks, to me the question of "Why doesn't hollywood depict relationship between ugly women and hot men?" is focused on looks as well. In your original post about "According to Jim", you said that you thought it was "naff" and that you loathed it. You said...."It actually made me think of “According to Jim” which I loathe. Why is it always a young, beautiful, intelligent, overbearing, understanding wife and a fat, old, ugly, unlikeable and brutish husband in those shows, never the other way around?" Honestly, would you really like the show any better if the roles were switched? (It doesn't matter to me because looks didn't factor into why I liked the show. I watched it for the relationships between the various family members and their circle of friends. Not for what any of them looked like.) If looks shouldn't matter than it doesn't matter who is ugly and who is hot, imo.

(btw, I used to love "Roseanne" too and neither of the main characters were particularly attractive either. Looks had nothing to do with the appeal of that show other than the fact that they depicted average working class people.)

So are you saying that only single women are pining for someone like Christian Grey? If what you say is true, shouldn't the single women be pining after the kind of average men from those shows (if they display some of Christian's character traits), just as much as they are after Christian? Yet I seldom (never) hear anyone say "I really hope to marry someone exactly like Doug Heffernan some day" or "I want a marriage just like Jim's and Cheryl's".

First, I'm not entirely convinced that there are as many women, single or married, "GENUINELY" pining for a Christian as you seem inclined to think there are. I honestly am not taking a lot of that as seriously as some of you seem to be. I really do believe that for most women who enjoyed them, the books were nothing more than harmless fun/distraction/escapism/guilty pleasure/fantasy indulgence.

In the case of shows like "According to Jim", I am saying that women don't necessarily have to openly "pine" for that because marriage to a regular guy is, for the most part, something that is attainable. Many fantasies typically are not.

[Christina]

Nuran wrote: "The first FSOG falls under 2 and 3. The last two books just falls under 2.

Maybe you should think about what you say. There are many reasons people do what they do when you can't. Also, I find a book can redeem itself, even past halfway, another reason I don't give up.

That is SO true. An unintentionally funny carcrash of a book, that's a very apt description of these books.

And you are so right. Sometimes a book can redeem itself in the final parts, and sometimes you have to read a book till the end in order to really "get" it and fully appreciate it. I was led to believe that I HAD to read all three books in order to really understand and appreciate the story. Which of course turned out to be a load of horseshit since I would've been left with much the same impression if I had stopped after the first book.

[Chelsey]

LuAnn wrote: "The wealthy element makes the fantasy possible. It's a story, we must remember."

Agreed.
Though, I enjoyed his character, and believe he could have stood on his own without being wealthy.

[Christina]

Mochaspresso wrote: " If people are possibly shallow for focusing solely on Christian's looks, to me the question of "Why doesn't hollywood depict relationship between ugly women and hot men?" is focused on looks as well. In your original post about "According to Jim", you said that you thought it was "naff" and that you loathed it. You said...."It actually made me think of “According to Jim” which I loathe. Why is it always a young, beautiful, intelligent, overbearing, understanding wife and a fat, old, ugly, unlikeable and brutish husband in those shows, never the other way around?" Honestly, would you really like the show any better if the roles were switched?"

I was only wondering WHY Hollywood mainly depicts relationships between ugly men and beautiful women (and of course relationships where both parties are equally attractive or unattractive), and not so much the other way around. I don't see how that makes me shallow or focused on looks. I'm not suggesting ugly people should be with ugly people and beautiful people with beautiful people, or that there's something wrong with a relationship where the woman is really beautiful and the man is not. In real life I think it's as common for the man to be the better-looking part of a couple as it is for the woman to be the more attractive one, and I just don't understand why that isn't the case in sitcoms etc. But I guess a bit of realism is too much to expect from Hollywood in this respect.

No, it wouldn't change my opinion of the show if the roles were reversed, because it still wouldn't be a funny show. As I believe I already stated, my dislike of the show has nothing to do with whether or not any of the characters are attractive or unattractive. It's simply not a funny show at all in my opinion.

[Souraya]

If he wasn't rich, there would be no fifty shades of grey

[Julia]

Brandi wrote: "No, it would have taken away from his character. He worked hard to get where he wanted to be. He needed control and in order to have control he needed wealth to get and sustain that control. Why th..."

Can't remember reading he worked hard for a living. In fact he didn't seem to work at all. As the wife of a CEO of a company I know that kind of man is driven and works 24/7. Grey behaved more like the heir to the dynasty; a playboy in fact.

[Pug]

For me, If christian wasn't rich the hell to the no c'mon that'll just ruin the stuffs that he could buy like whips,ropes, etc. and that'll leave him just having issues with himself or maybe just maybe he could turn to be a rapist because you know wanting to hurt brunette women. is just a thought so no for me.

[Julia]

Jennifer Mae wrote: "For me, If christian wasn't rich the hell to the no c'mon that'll just ruin the stuffs that he could buy like whips,ropes, etc. and that'll leave him just having issues with himself or maybe just m..."

I absolutely agree. He needs to be wealthy for the story to work. But a rich playboy, the heir to the company, would have worked much better. (Don't forget he's only 27). It would have explained why he can bunk off work all the time, not to mention 'boys with their toys'. Er, I wonder who cleans the Red Room of Pain. Hope she gets extra money for it.

[[deleted user]]

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..."

YES!!!! Someone who understands! I'm so glad to find someone with the same mindset! xD