Recently, this story is going around of the divorce that is claimed to be related to the 50 Shades of Grey books. There’s really nothing that novel about this occurrence of frivolous divorce because it’s a very common place one that is encouraged within Churchianity and without. However, it presents a perfect illustration of what repeats itself again and again within ALL marriages today, both “Christian” and not.
As has been covered in the past, the pornography that women favor is excused, accepted, and celebrated. This includes things such as Fifty Shades of Grey and Magic Mike, while it also includes things such as typical romance novels (even “Christian” ones), television geared to women, and no doubt books written for an audience of women intended to be a guide to spice up one’s love life (I’m not purchasing the specific example I’m aware of to answer the question below in a concrete way, but given the rest of Churchianity and its hatred of non-mangina men, I’m sure of what the answer would be to the question).
There will be ample opportunities to diagnose the state of this woman involved when it comes to her reasons for the frivolous divorce, but the point I want to explore is this: The expectation upon husbands to go along with what their wives’ every fantasy, whim, and desire, despite his inclinations and reservations. You see as a good loving husband who submits to his wife everything in Marriage 2.0, he is supposed to be open and willing to everything his wife wants to do within the bedroom. Her desires, including all of her sexually-inclined ones, are pure, wholesome, and chaste because she only wants to feel safe, cherished, and loved. However, men have those nasty physical desires which are base, vile, evil, and disgusting and should never be honored under any and all circumstances. Of course, it seems we only have more proof of sunshinemary’s comment:
Given the popularity of FSoG, many women apparently feel safe, cherished, and loved when being beaten with a belt.
Let’s see the results of how this particular woman in today’s case had to feel safe, cherished, and loved:
A high-powered City businesswoman is divorcing her husband after he refused to play along with the erotic themes in the raunchy blockbuster, Fifty Shades Of Grey.
The wife, a 41-year-old banker who earns more than £400,000 a year, bought the bestseller almost as soon as it was published last year, and decided to use it to pep up the couple’s staid sex life.
But when her husband failed to respond to the novel’s themes, which include bondage and S&M, she petitioned for divorce.
In the case, filed in the High Court this year, the wife refers to the book in her grounds for divorce, which blames the breakdown of the marriage on the husband’s lack of sexual adventure.
The obvious problem of such a thing comes out. When men complain of such things, they are out of hand, and are only considered to be showing just how evil and vile they are. When women complain of their sex lives, it’s perfectly justified in every instance, even to the point of divorce as we see here if he does not comply. Divorce would even be justified for his mere possession of such pornography. This justification of divorce for porn possession in the eyes of such people have been addressed previously, but it stands as normal in Marriage 2.0, as well as it being vile as a man for demanding a satisfying sex life in marriage. How dare a man would insist on such a thing towards a woman! Bringing in BDSM or other themes, or even suggesting it would make him the worst husband ever, a villain in the sight of all, and any divorce suit he would bring like this would be summarily dismissed as out of hand. How despicable would he be if he were to even think of divorcing his wife for such things!
However, instead of being dismissed for the farce that it is, this divorce case is being taken seriously as a for-cause divorce, indicated by the husband having to discuss his sexual desire in court. It is also telling that the husband would have to submit to the indignity of such a thing in public:
The woman’s husband is admitting ‘unreasonable behaviour’ so the divorce can be granted quickly without a contested hearing in which his low libido would be discussed in court.
It would never be okay for a husband to divorce his wife in today’s culture for a low sex drive, which is much more common, and commonly defended as normal for women. But it seems perfectly fine if a woman were to do so when consuming any kind of feminine porn (or even sexual self-help books like mentioned above) to expect anything she desires from those things to be immediately granted. Divorces because a husband wouldn’t put up a stripper pole and mime Magic Mike are sure to be out there, as well as divorces due to the husband’s non-compliance of most every sexual-oriented help text ever put out there written to an audience of women. I have to wonder with the supposed “Christian” resources whether there is a direct warning against divorcing the husband upon non-compliance with the text (like I said I’m not purchasing just to find this out), or if the divorce is supported either directly or tacitly.
But there is no doubt that this kind of divorce is approved both within Churchianity and without. Marriage 2.0 practitioners wouldn’t have it any other way. Husbands are abusive towards wives when they won’t satisfy their wives sexual desires to the letter. And husbands are abusive as well when they even dare to express their sexual desires, let alone desire that they be indulged on a regular basis. This is one area of many where husbands can’t ever win, because their wives pull away the football.
Wouldn’t it just be better for husbands and wives to admit that they have sexual desires in an honest and open way, be open and respectful about what you can and can’t do? The problem with wives is that it’s not can not, it’s will not on their part and they do not recognize can not out of their husbands. Wouldn’t it be better to be open about fulfilling them with each other unconditionally in a safe and sane manner, completely stopping the use of sex as a weapon by willful sexual denial?