BDSM Religion?

Do you ever wonder if the people we're told are the best and brightest are actually kind of stupid? I don't mean unintelligent, they are obviously intelligent, and yet they manage to be stupid. Sally Quinn for example.

Quinn thinks Fifty Shades of Grey is a religious phenomenon. No, really. Her argument for this is stupid.

I think the “Fifty Shades” phenomenon is about religion.

Not religion in the conventional sense of the word, but in how we are redefining faith practices today as more and more people--especially women--shun man-made traditions yet continue to yearn for religious experiences. 

I wonder what kind of traditions there might be besides "man-made" ones? Woman-made tradition? Perhaps God-made tradition? Or does she just mean more and more people are shunning traditional religions in favour of shit they make up? I'm guessing the latter.

Here is a bit more of the argument with some added emphasis:

Never before have there been more “seekers” who are not satisfied with the religion they grew up practicing, those who are possibly secular but want more, those who have never really made a connection to the divine but are looking for a way. Sexual relationships are a major part of religion, with some traditions seeing it merely as a means of procreation, not to be enjoyed while others celebrate sex as a gift from God.

Sexual relationships are a major part of religion? Sex is definitely part of some religions, for example, some aspects of Hindu religion,  but, no, neither sex nor sexual relationships need be a major part of religion. It would be true to say that most religions deal with sexual relationships but it is far from true to say that sexual relationships are a major part of religion. Perhaps Quinn is thinking of some Catholic liturgical sex we have never heard of? Or Anglican circle jerks?

This is more than sloppy language on her part. It's a major distortion and if we take it away and restate the matter in more correct terms her argument simply vaporizes. Look at the very next paragraph after the one I quote above:

So what is it about Christian Grey and his dominant yet ultimately loving, even worshipful relationship with Anastasia Steele that has touched so many women’s souls? What is it about being a submissive woman, as is the expectation for so many women in so many religions, that has such appeal?

Huh? Quinn has established nothing at this point she is just assuming it because "Sexual relationships are a major part of religion" and you can use words like "love", "worshipful", "relationship" and "soul"  to talk about both religion and loving sex.

And don't you get the feeling that there is a far simpler explanation that it's not women's souls but some other part that is getting touched as as consequence of their reading this book.

Okay, so why is this stupid argument important? It's important because Quinn, like so many others, can't face the fact that a lot of women enjoy being or even just reading about being submissive in bed and is desperately looking for another explanation—pretty much any other explanation so long as it is "other".

It's also important because of the bizarre blindness displayed. Take this fascinating "insight" from Quinn:

Grey starts out in the books intending to dominate (beat and cause pain to) Anastasia in his famous playroom dubbed “The Red Room of Pain,” and ends up loving and not wanting (or rather willing) to hurt her. One could compare him to the God of some peoples’ imagination. 

Which God and which peoples Sally? I think she is projecting something far more disturbing than submissive sex onto the novel and onto religion.

 Here is why:

Just when Anastasia has had it and is about to give up on Christian for doing something absolutely appalling, just when she no longer believes in him, he redeems himself by doing something so outrageously wonderful that she cannot abandon him and is pulled back into the fold. Just when he is withholding his love from her and she is weeping and can no longer bear it, he embraces her with an overwhelming totality. Just when she is doubting herself for her submission, he turns the tables and offers himself to her. 

Don't you think of something other than religion when you read that? You should for that is a classic description of the dynamic at play in an abusive relationship.

And I suspect, without reading the thing, that it is not only a classic description of the behaviour of the abusive man but also of the woman who sticks with an abusive man. From what I can learn of the book without reading it, one theme of it is that poor Christian is a morally damaged man who is trying to get over something. The dominance and submission is therapeutic I guess. The crazy thing is the belief that a woman can fix a badly twisted man by loving him. Quinn, rather disturbingly, is not troubled by that.

By the way, did you notice what is completely missing in Quinn's account of religion? There is absolutely no notion of any moral accountability to God or ourselves on our part. To read Quinn, you'd think that God is the one who has something to prove to people who are desperately seeking religious experiences. Our sole responsibility seems to be to make sure that the experiences are good enough and sought entirely on our own terms.

There is also something missing from her account of Fifty Shades of Grey and that is that Anastasia is terribly turned on by the sex she gets from Christian. And that just might have something to do with its appeal.

Funnily enough, a friend of mine and I had a conversation with a young woman who works as a bartender at the local pub. She overheard us discussing Brett Easton Ellis wanting to write the screenplay. She came over to talk about it. She'd never heard of Brett Easton Ellis, although she'd seen the movie version of American Psycho. She wanted us to know itw as a great book in her estimation. "Really badly written but exciting." Which if you think about it, is a welcome change from really well written but boring. In any case, the bartender's insights were more interesting than Sally Quinn's.