Dear EL James, let's talk about that hashtag, shall we?!

No copyright infringement intended.

Dear EL James,

I think we need to talk about what happened on Monday night.  Much has been said about your disastrous #AskELJames event, which took place on Twitter at the start of this week, but one voice has been conspicuous in its silence.  Yours.

Or at least, I assume you've remained silent on the matter.  I can't check, because a few years ago, when I told you that I was a survivor, triggered by the abuse romanticised in your books (and suggested you might want to donate to a DV charity as a show of good will), you did this:

Blocked.

I wasn't shocked.  It's something you have a habit of doing.  After you were quoted as saying that those who see abuse in your books are "doing a huge disservice to the women who really go through it," a friend of mine very politely asked you to "please consider that...many of the people who see abuse in your books are survivors of abuse themselves."  You blocked her, too.

I'm a writer.  Sure, I don't have your multi-million pound bank account, or a legion of adoring, unquestioning fans, but I am a writer of three published books.  I write blogs.  I co-run a relatively high-profile campaign that raises awareness of the abuse in your books and I'm required to write for that, too, be it short soundbites on Twitter, or longer, more analytical pieces.  Writing is my passion; it's what I want to do for a living, someday.  I literally dream of the time I can give up my day-job and earn money doing only what I love most.  So, believe me, I get what it's like to be very precious about your creations.  I understand wanting to protect something you've written from what you feel are unfounded accusations.

But when we write anything and put it out into the world for public consumption, it's then open to interpretation.  Open to criticism.  And how we react to criticism says more about us as writers - and as people - than how we react to praise.

It's overwhelming to feel that people are attacking something you've written and are proud of.  I know that, because your own fans have attacked me personally on Twitter, Facebook and here on my blog, for pieces I've written about the abuse in your books.  It can make you feel angry, hurt, cornered and defensive.  But we still have to take responsibility for our words.  We have to speak up for our creation, whilst also taking into account the views of others who see things very differently to us.

Very recently, I used an admittedly awkward phrase on Twitter, to describe the way that people don't often recognise abuse unless it's absolutely blatant.  One person criticised that phrase and said they thought it was "dodgy" and should be re-worded.  I immediately became aware that my choice of words was potentially wrong and I issued a genuine apology.  

And yet, when a rape survivor came to you and said they were triggered by your books, you sent her this gif:

Never mind the fact that she clearly had read the book, hence her being triggered by it; let's address the fact that you sent a survivor of abuse a blatantly violent gif and used the hashtag "#ignorant" just to compound your belittling of her views (this blog by Jenny Trout has screen caps from the event).

In the wake of prominent campaigning against the first movie instalment of the Fifty Shades franchise, you aggressively changed your Twitter bio to read "Author of the Fifty Shades trilogy: A LOVE story."

When Mara Wilson, actress turned writer, suggested that there was abuse in your books, you publicly referred to her as a "sad fuck."

When, on Monday night, your #AskELJames hashtag descended into not just one or two "sad fucks," but thousands of people - many survivors of abuse themselves - asking why you had chosen to romanticise stalking, threats, unwanted control, coercion and manipulation, or why you'd decided to perpetuate massively dangerous abuse myths ("he just doesn't know any better" and "he does it because he loves her SO much"), you opted to ignore those people, yet again.  You chose to answer only the questions that came from your established fans.  And then you cheerfully allowed yourself to be portrayed as a victim of bullying and harassment.

I am aware that there were people sending questions, mocking your age and appearance.  Personal attacks are not my thing and I distance myself entirely from those people.

But let's bring it back to what I said, earlier.  One person took offence to a phrase I used, recently and I issued an apology.  Thousands of people are seeing your books as portraying an emotionally abusive, violent man as a romantic ideal and they're calling you out for it.  And you are studiously ignoring them, blocking them, insulting them and dismissing them.  Is that really the right thing to do?

Of course you aren't going to come out and say "hey,  guys?  My books are full of abuse and nobody should read them."  Nobody is actually asking you to, either.

But it's clear from your very aggressive and deeply dismissive handling of the justified criticism you've received from survivors, campaigners and other members of the public, that you are not prepared to even consider why those people hold the views that they do.  You are not willing (or perhaps able?) to look at your own work from an outsider perspective.  You are unprepared to educate yourself.

Because that's what this is about, really.  Education.

Abuse happens to 1 in 4 women, here in the UK.  And abuse doesn't just mean "rape" or "being beaten."  Abuse can refer to stalking, manipulation, excessive and unwanted control, threats of violence (whether or not they're carried out), gaslighting, isolating someone from friends and family, coercing someone into doing things (sexually or otherwise) that they don't feel comfortable about and many other horrendous things, besides.  Too often, it goes unrecognised, even by the person it's happening to, because abuse is, by its very nature, insidious.  

And too often, we make excuses for our abusers, because we love them and believe we can help them to change. 

"He only does this to protect me."  

"I must have made him angry; I need to learn to handle him better."

"They can't help it; they were abused as a child.  This is the only form of 'love' they know."

Do you recognise any of this?  Because you should.  These are some of the forms of abuse shown in your books.  These are some of the excuses you use for it.  And that, for millions of people who have experienced abuse, know someone who has, or who works with people escaping from abuse, is NOT OKAY.  It might only be fiction - a fantasy you dreamed up whilst obsessing over Twilight - but fiction often represents societal views and vice versa.  Thanks to your work of fiction reimagining the fact of an abusive realtionship as somehow being desirable, fans of the books are telling survivors that they don't understand abuse.  They're using "he can't help it" as an excuse.  They're telling members of the BDSM community that they know and understand the lifestyle, based on nothing but the books.  They're saying things like "I want a man just like Christian Grey."  Some of them genuinely seem to believe that an abuser can be "loved better."

My big "NO."  So good I used it twice.

The people who criticised your looks, or mocked your age on the #AskELJames hashtag were trolls.  They weren't making a valid point.  They were bullying you.

But the people who asked why you chose to romanticise abusive behaviour, or why you block and ignore those who want to talk about the abuse in Fifty Shades weren't trolls.  They weren't bullying you.  They weren't trying to censor you, ban or burn your books, harass you or take away your fame and fortune.

In many cases, they were the people who have read your books and recognised their own experiences of abuse, being repackaged as romance and sold back to them.  They were the people who understand the need for greater awareness of what constitutes abuse and who felt frustrated at your fans using stereotypical abuse myths to excuse Christian Grey.  They were the people who don't want to do "a huge disservice" to survivors or victims.  They were the people who've felt that for years, the only person doing a disservice is - wilfully or not - you.

Those people were asking you why.  They were asking to be listened to, instead of being hit with the block button.  They were asking to be heard, instead of laughed off, insulted or otherwise dismissed.  They were raising their voices together in unity, taking strength from one another as they realised they weren't alone in being appalled by the "LOVE story" you continue to refuse to hear a word against.  They were trying to open up a discussion on abuse and how much education is needed to undo some of the damage you and others writing similar books have - perhaps unwittingly - caused.

Those people have, in many cases, been silenced enough.  They know what it's like to be unable to speak out, through fear or self-blame.  Those people deserve to be heard, now.

It's not nice to admit when we've done or said something wrong.  But it doesn't have to be the end of the world, either.  Your fans will still buy your books and watch the movies.  Your bank balance will still stay as healthy as it is.  All you need to do is say "I hear you.  I'm listening.  I'm sorry.  This wasn't my intention.  Maybe I got this wrong."

I have a horrible feeling that instead, you will continue to silence, block, ignore and dismiss.  Whilst your fans are fawning and you've created an "us and them" scenario between your backers and your detractors, that must be the easy option.

But the people you silence are growing in number.  They're growing in voice.  They aren't "sad fucks" with an agenda against you.  They aren't pro-censorship, or prudish.  In many cases, they've read your books, they know what abuse is and they understand BDSM.  They simply want you to say you hear them and you're not going to callously brush them aside anymore.

You could be a force for good if you were able to look at your work from a different view, instead of dismissing anyone who offers you anything less than praise.

I wonder if you'll ever be brave enough to do the right thing.

There Are NO Grey Areas When Defending Abuse

No copyright intended.  Because I'm NOT a twat.

So.  It's happening.  EL James is releasing a rewritten version of Fifty Shades of Grey, as told by the "hero" (excuse me whilst I try to keep my lunch down) of the trilogy, Christian Grey.  It's being released on June 18th (which is apparently Christian Grey's birthday) and has already topped bestseller lists.  So if you're looking for evidence that the world is populated by sheep and money-grabbers, look no further.

Now, anyone who has read this blog for longer than a few months will know that I am not just anti Fifty Shades.  I am breathless with rage over it.  And I'm asthmatic, so that's pretty bad for my health...  If you're a newbie to my anti Fifty Shades blogs, then let's clear up a few things straight away:

• I am in NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM anti consensual BDSM.  Fifty Shades is about as close to being well-written, consensual BDSM as I am close to being James Bourne's wife.  And both of those facts are equally depressing.
• I am in NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM anti erotica/prudish.  I've read and enjoyed erotic novels.  There are sex scenes in the novel I've written, for crying out loud.
• I am in NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM "jealous" of EL James' success or "talent" (bwahaahahahaaaaaa).  If I could only become a millionnaire writer by ripping off someone else's story, writing it badly and being arrogant enough to not only refuse to allow anyone to properly edit it, but to point blank refuse to listen to one iota of (justified) criticism, then I'd genuinely rather stay poor and unheard of.

I am also more than happy to talk openly about why I believe Fifty Shades portrays an abusive relationship, having been in an abusive relationship and having been horrendously triggered by the books, upon reading them (because yes, I have read them).  I've written extensively about the emotional abuse, manipulation, stalking, threats, coercion, outright ignorance of consent, unwanted control, physical assault and gaslighting that occur throughout the trilogy.  My best-known blog on the subject can be found here (I still find it mind-blowing that that blog has something crazy like 200+ comments on it and has been read more than half a million times...).  So, if you're new to this and you think "eh, this girl hasn't a clue; Fifty Shades is a beautiful love story," please do give that a read, just so you have a bit of background to what follows...

Pictured: EL James in small boy form.

Now, EL James - fine, upstanding member of the community that she is (she once sent a RAPE SURVIVOR a gif of someone violently throwing a book at a person's head in response to the survivor asking why she'd trivialised abuse, so forgive me if I treat her with the contempt she absolutely deserves) - has apparently dedicated the boringly-titled Grey to the many fans who begged her to write it.  I have two pretty major issues with this.

Firstly, EL James rewrote chapter 1 of Fifty Shades of Grey from Christian's perspective as a "gift" to her fans at the end of book 3 (I seriously hope she kept the receipt).  It flopped.  Hundreds, if not thousands of fans hated it.  Why?  Because they suddenly saw Christian Grey without Ana's rose-tinted glasses.  Without the female narrator telling the reader how impossibly "hot" he is and how much she lurves him, he came across as cold, uncaring, arrogant and plain nasty.  Or, to put it another way, he came across exactly the same way he does in all three books, except this time, even the fans recognised it.  Such was the disappointment of many readers, that I find it very hard to believe that this was the real reason behind EL's decision to rewrite the entire book.  It's more likely that Fifty Shades is a cash cow that EL and her publishers just weren't quite ready to stop squeezing...

But it's the second issue that worries me most of all and it's the second issue that I believe is much more of a true reason for writing this book.

When Fifty Shades became absurdly popular, people began to voice concerns.  Abuse charities began to speak out against the books.  Survivors of abusive relationships (myself included) began to recognise their experiences being glorified.  It suddenly seemed as though women were being sold a man who stalks, threatens, manipulates and controls them against their will as a romantic ideal.  Many of us who've experienced a relationship with such a man were justifiably horrified, not only because these personality traits were being exhibited by a "hero" readers were expected to fall in love with (and worryingly, millions of women did), but because in creating such a poorly researched piece of plagiarism, EL James was falling back on incredibly dangerous abuse myths in order to defend her beloved character's vile behaviour.

"He doesn't know any better, because he had such a terrible childhood."

"He acts this way because he's scared; he's never let anyone get this close to him, before."

"If she can only learn to love him the right way, he'll change for her and give her the happy ever after she's longing for."

Bullshit!!!

These are the lines that are trotted out again and again by fans of Fifty Shades, often in direct response to abuse survivors who have bravely used their own experiences in order to speak out against the trilogy.  Not a word is true.  Whilst a person's past does undoubtedly have the capacity to affect their present and their future, there is always a choice between abusing someone and not abusing them.  In short, there is literally NO excuse for the way that Christian behaves.  Survivors of abuse who've received proper, professional help will eventually come to know this.  Charities who support survivors know this.  Psychologists who work with perpetrators of abuse (should!) know this.

Unless you have severe psychological flaws that inhibit cognitive reasoning, you are always able to make a choice between harming someone (emotionally, sexually or physically), or treating them with love and respect.  Abusers choose to harm their partners.  They then choose to take no responsibility for their own actions, by using excuses just like the ones EL James and her fans take such pleasure in trotting out.

My own abuser used the first two excuses.  I used the third, because I believed the first two.  

"Poor him," I'd sob, whilst ignoring the fact that he'd told me I was pathetic, clingy, disgusting and fat.  "He had such a terrible childhood, he doesn't know any better."  And when he'd forcibly slap my hand away if I was trying to be affectionate, or call me a slut for trying to initiate sex (despite expecting it on tap when he wanted it), I'd shake my head and remind myself "he's only pushing you away because he's scared of how close you've gotten to him; he told you that himself and it must have been so hard for him to admit..."  And then I'd try to work out how best to be there for him - to love him the right way - so that we could eventually move forwards and have a proper, healthy relationship.

But there was no right way.  There was no way, because he didn't want there to be one.  If he moved past his issues, he'd no longer have an excuse to treat me the way he did, after all.  I clung to the belief that he'd change if I loved him the way he wanted me to, because I desperately wanted it to be true.  It's what keeps so many abused women (and obviously men) in their damaging relationships; that desperate longing for their abuser to turn back into the nice, charming, lovely person they first met.  And we place the responsibility for making that happen squarely on our own shoulders, just like Ana does throughout the Fifty Shades trilogy.

EL James has claimed - utterly ridiculously - that those who see abuse in her books are "doing a disservice to the women who experience it" in real life.  Again... Bullshit!!!

In many cases, it is those women who've experienced abuse in real life who recognise it in Fifty Shades and feel compelled to speak out.  But that quote from the author is mere evidence that she is utterly unable to comprehend criticism and will not listen to a word against her "perfect man," regardless of who it comes from.  Even in her press release, announcing the imminent arrival of Grey, EL James made subtle digs at those who justifiably criticised her leading man's behaviour, insisting "there's two sides to every story" and reminding readers of poor ickle Christian's "troubled past."

And that is what has caused my biggest concern about this book.  That is the reason that my stomach has been in knots since I heard the news about it.  Because with just a few words, EL James has made it inevitable that Grey is not merely "for the fans," but for the critics.  It's going to be a justification of Christian's appalling, abusive behaviour.  It's going to be excuse after excuse.  It's going to be played for sympathy, so that the fans who already use those tired, outdated, rubbish lines about how abusive people "can't help it," feel justified in doing so and use them all the more.  It's going to be something to wave in the faces of survivors and charities, so that EL James - with her far greater audience than we could ever have - can say "look, it's all so understandable now!  He really doesn't know any better!  Read this and you'll see how pained he is, poor thing!"

And she may as well smack every survivor of domestic abuse in the face with the bloody book whilst she's at it, because she's peddling yet more lies, yet more dangerous myths and, since it's my word of the day, yet more bullshit.  She's telling those survivors that their abusers didn't know any better and couldn't help their actions.  She's telling those survivors that if they'd only been as wonderful as Ana, their abusive lovers would have become the perfect partner they always dreamed of.  And there is nothing more sick than that.  

"It's fantasy, Emma, get over it," the fans will cry.

But in writing this book, EL has made it more than just fantasy.  She's made it a justification for some of the most deplorable behaviour a man could ever display towards a woman.  Bruising her body without consent, stalking her thousands of miles away when she's asked for space, telling her to "deal with" her feeling that she's being abused...  Grey, if my fears are correct, will be a book that explains away abusive behaviour and attempts to elicit sympathy for the perpetrator.  It will be a book that, without any research to back it up, claims that an abuser can justify their actions based on their own past experiences.  It will be an attempt to silence her critics, rather than a "gift" to her fans.

I hope I'm wrong.  I hope that when this book comes out and I read it (via detailed chapter recaps online, because I am not giving EL James a penny of my money; I'd rather donate it to a domestic abuse charity), that it doesn't go for the sympathy vote, or try to justify Christian's abusive behaviour.  I hope he comes across as appallingly badly as he does in that first, rewritten chapter.  I hope the fans read Grey and recognise him as the abuser he is, without giving him any excuses for his actions.  But given the three books that came before...  I don't hold out much hope.

Emotional Abuse & Me

Me, back in early 2010.  That's a hood, it's honestly not my hair...

In March 2012, something life-changing happened to me.  That's not hyperbole.  It genuinely was a moment that changed my life and changed me forever.

I'd been having counselling for three or four months, following the end of a relationship.  A relationship in which I'd convinced myself I was a bad person.  A weak, sad, pathetic, desperate, clingy, needy woman, whom nobody could ever really love.  I'd been with someone who'd given me a sob story about how messed up he was and how he didn't really know how to behave in a relationship.  He'd told me he couldn't help his behaviour; he was scared by how close I'd gotten to him, so he reacted by pushing me away.  And I stuck around, wanting to help him, so surely I was sort of to blame for whatever he did to me after he'd warned me off?  As he himself put it, the last time I ever spoke to him face to face: "You knew what you were getting into.  I'm not to blame for any of this.  You are."

After I finally found the strength to walk away from him - nearly two years after we first met - I was convinced I'd "abandoned" him.  He used the word often enough to describe people no longer in his life, so I suppose it was drummed into my brain.  

I blamed myself.  I hated myself.  I found myself drinking a glass of wine most nights "just to take the edge off" the pain I was feeling.  I'd cry myself to sleep and hope I never woke up.  Every morning, when I did wake up, I'd find myself with a head full of dark questions: "Why am I so useless?"  "Why doesn't everyone just ditch me?  I'm not worth knowing."  "Why wasn't I strong enough to help him?"  "Why am I such a failure?"

When it all got too much, I eventually sought counselling.  I spent my sessions putting myself down, acting as prosecution, judge and jury at my own trial.  I found myself guilty.  My counsellor sat, listened, asked questions and made notes.  Then, in my penultimate session, my counsellor leaned forwards, with a pamphlet in her hands.  She spoke in a very soft, calm voice.  She said simply: "What you've been describing is abuse.  I think you need to call this number and speak to someone about what happened to you."

It was like a bucket of cold water to the face.  I sat and shivered in my seat.  I said just five words:

"But he never hit me."

So many of us, when we hear the word "abuse," think of two things: Physical violence and rape.  I'm quite ashamed to say that even as a childcare practitioner of 14 years' experience, trained in abuse and how to spot it, I didn't really realise that emotional abuse was something that happened between two adults.  

I went home with the abuse pamphlet in my trembling hands.  My counsellor had to be wrong.  I wasn't abused!  I was to blame; I had brought this all on myself.  Still, I knew my last counselling session would take place a fortnight later and I'd be expected to have rung the abuse charity whose pamphlet I'd been given.  My stomach churned at the thought.  How could I phone a helpline used by women who'd been beaten and raped?!  I checked the times of operation and decided to ring after the helpline was closed.  That way, I could tell my counsellor I'd tried to get in touch with the charity, without actually having to do it.  If they had an answerphone service, I'd leave a message and they'd probably listen to it, scoff at my time-wasting and never call me back.  Either way, I had a convenient excuse for not having to actually speak to someone who'd call me out on my stupidity.  I left a message that began with the words "I'm sorry, I'm wasting your time..."

A day or two later, the phone rang.  A very nice, very kind lady with a soft voice explained that she was calling from the abuse charity - did I have time to talk?  I thought I was going to be sick.  They were surely about to tell me off for attempting to waste their valuable services!  I don't think my voice has ever trembled so much in all my life.

And yet shockingly - to me, at least - the lady on the end of the phone didn't tell me off.  She never said I was wasting her time.  Instead, she explained what emotional and psychological abuse was and how difficult it is to spot when you're in it.  She told me - more than once in that first phone call - that it wasn't my fault and that it was okay to let go of the blame I'd been holding on to.  The blame that had been poisoning every aspect of my life.  I'd found myself guilty.  She said I was innocent.

Three months (and several phone calls) later, I began weekly sessions with a support worker.  Ten months after that, I was a completely changed person.

I was going through the night, dead to the world, without crying myself to sleep first.

I had no need whatsoever to "take the edge off" the pain.  The pain was gone.

I didn't hate myself.  I didn't blame myself.  I saw myself having a bright, positive future.  I saw myself as having survived.

Most importantly of all, I was able to use the word "abuse."  I finally realised that my counsellor had been right, on that Earth-shattering day.  The use of my ex's tragic past to explain his behaviour had been manipulation.  The suggestion that if I left, I'd be abandoning him, was coercion to make me stay.  The insistence that the relationship had to be on his terms, labelled as he saw fit, was control.  The digs about my weight... The comments about me being "desperate and clingy" when all I wanted was to be shown some affection...  The demands for sex as soon as I'd arrived to see him, yet the accusation of me being a "pathetic slut" if I tried to initiate it on my terms...  The times he'd throw something across the room and say I made him "violent..."  The time he forced me into the shower, blocking the bathroom door, making me scrub my feet so I was less "fucking disgusting..."  The time he told me that if I was pregnant, he'd give me "the coat-hanger treatment..."  The times he compared me unfavourably to other women - ones he'd been with before me and ones he slept with whilst we were together... The times he'd get what he wanted sexually, then roll over and warn me in no uncertain terms not to touch him, leaving me feeling alone and confused... The times he'd deliberately wind me up and then leave me sexually frustrated... The times he'd deliberately make me angry or upset, so he could criticise my reaction and use it as justification for refusing to commit to a relationship with me...The insistence that none of it was his fault; the world was cruel and out to get him and he was just trying to deal with his issues the only way he knew how...  It was abuse.  All of it.

And once I saw that, I was angry.  Not just with him, but with myself.  How had I not seen it?!  Why did I put up with it all?!

But of course, I was being manipulated.  I fell for his tragic sob story.  The whole "I was abused as a child; I only push you away because I'm scared... I don't know any other way to behave" shebang.  And I wanted to fix him.  I - as crazy as it might sound, given the above list of atrocious things he said and did - loved him.  And when he told me he loved me too, I believed him.  I was going to see it through, however hard it was.  I was going to help him let go of his awful past and move forwards into a happy, loving future.  

Eventually, my amazing support worker helped me to let go of the anger I felt at my own perceived weakness and made me realise that I wasn't weak at all.  I was so, so strong.  I had put him first, even when it hurt me to do so, because I loved him and believed I was helping him.  And maybe, if he had wanted to grow and change as a person, I would have been.  But he didn't want that.  He wanted to use me.  He wanted an excuse to treat me - and others - however he saw fit.  He chose to abuse. 

Abuse is always, always a choice.  Abusers don't go around controlling, manipulating or otherwise abusing people every minute of every day.  They often have jobs, hobbies and social circles, in which they behave as anyone else would.  They can be charming and even affectionate (otherwise, you'd spot the abuse more easily and leave far sooner).  In the moments when a person chooses to abuse, whatever form that abuse takes, they do it through choice.  Not because they had a terrible past and don't know any better.  Not because you've done something to cause them to have no choice but to abuse you.

Once I stepped out from the shadow of my experience, I was able to see it clearly for what it was.  And now, three and a half years after leaving, I can understand why I didn't recognise it at the time.  I heard his "explanations" and I accepted them.  I thought I could help him.  I focused on the times we sat up all night, snuggled together, pouring our hearts out to one another.  I held on to the times he'd make me laugh, or hold me when I cried.  I saw the relationship I wanted us to have, whilst he manipulated me into being blind to what we really had.  Which, of course, was nothing.

I want to go back in time and tell this girl "I know you like him, but just RUN."

Now, more than five years after I first met my ex, I co-run a campaign called Fifty Shades Is Domestic Abuse.  Not because I'm a prude, who hates the thought of BDSM.  Not because I want to censor anyone's reading or viewing habits.  But because when I read the trilogy, I was stunned to realise I was reading something that may as well have been about my ex, give or take a few billion in the bank and a pair of handcuffs.  The manipulation, the coercion, the control...  It was all there.

Fans of the book often tell me there's no abuse in Fifty Shades.  The author tells survivors the same on a pretty much daily basis, often in a hugely offensive, borderline abusive manner (she even sent a rape survivor triggered by her books a gif of a woman throwing a book at someone's head, with the hashtag "#ignorant").  But just as I didn't recognise my own abuse at the time, it doesn't mean it wasn't there.  The abuse in Fifty Shades is very much there.  But when you point it out, the two myths I clung onto get trotted out by fans:  "But he doesn't know any better; he's messed up!"  And: "She sticks around and she cures him with her love."

I know it's a fantasy and the whole point of fantasy is that it doesn't have to have its roots in reality.  But considering emotional/psychological abuse is so insidious that it often goes unrecognised even by the people living with it, I don't think we need fantasy that romanticises it and perpetuates the idea that sticking with an abusive person will cause them to change in the end so that you live happily ever after.

All of which brings me to what caused me to write this piece in the first place.  In the past 48 hours, three separate Fifty Shades fans have contacted me to tell me that emotional abuse "doesn't exist."  One, a survivor of physical violence, even made the shocking decision to send me a photo of herself covered in bruises, with the tag: "THIS IS ABUSE, YOU FUCKING IDIOT.  THERE IS NO OTHER FORM!"

Except there is.  Of course there is.  Emotional & psychological abuse are recognised by all major abuse charities and by the government of this country.  It may not cause bruises, but it causes scars that run deep, even if they cannot be seen by the naked eye.  The fact that there are people out there - and I believe there are far more than just three - who refuse to believe that such a thing exists proves that we need far greater awareness of what constitutes abuse and where to get help.

Five years after I met my ex, I spend some of my time writing on abuse and campaigning against it.  I'm not "weak" or "pathetic," like he said I was.  I've grown and become stronger than I ever thought I could be.  I have a voice and I'm proud to make it heard.

So when you next hear someone say they've experienced emotional abuse, don't tell them that such a thing doesn't exist.  Don't ignore them or dismiss them.  Listen.

WRSAC North Cornwall (to whom I dedicate this post)

Rape Crisis

Women's Aid

Fifty Shades and False Media Perceptions...

This is the real me: I seek out doughnuts the size of my face.

"Real life" is a funny concept.  Sometimes, we talk about celebrities and what they might be like in "real life."  It's a reasonable phrase to use, seeing as we're talking about people we don't know, some of whom play fictional characters as part of their job, but it's also always struck me as being a little odd.  After all, whilst we don't know them personally, those celebrities are just...Well, living.  Every day is their real life.  We're just not a part of it.

The concept of "real life" is often brought up when we talk about celebrities being misrepresented in the press.  "Oh, I know she said a bad thing, but she's lovely in real life!"  It's an unfortunate fact that if a person is in the public eye, one wrong sentence, or one dodgy behaviour captured on camera can become their undoing.  Doesn't matter what they're like in "real life."  If the media wants to put someone into a box, then they will - whether that person fits or not.

Now obviously, sometimes a celebrity is labelled correctly by the press as a result of some horrible behaviour or views espoused when they thought nobody was listening.  No amount of "I'm not like that in real life" can really save them then and rightly so.  We have a duty to call out the things we see as wrong.  But when we do make a public declaration that something or someone is wrong, we really ought to do so having listened to the other side of the argument before making our final judgement.

All of which brings me neatly on to the subject of - you guessed it - Fifty Shades.  I know, I know.  I'm as tired of having to make these points as you are of hearing them, I'm sure...

Most regular readers of this blog know that I'm one half of the Fifty Shades Is Abuse campaign.  I say "one half," because it's run by two people (myself and the wonderful Natalie Collins), but truthfully, it's supported and perpetuated by thousands of people.  Far too many to list, here.  That said, Natalie and I are the ones who give the interviews.  The ones who put our names to the campaign.  The ones who are then quoted when articles are written.  As a result, we accept that people are likely to have something to say in response.  After all, we're criticising something that has sold a hundred million copies.  We're questioning one of the most hotly anticipated films of the year.  

The trouble is, whilst we understand that there'll be many people who disagree with us, it doesn't really stop at mere disagreement.  It crosses a line into judgement.  Sometimes, into abuse.

Real-life me has an issue with fake ice.  That's the smile of a woman about to fall down.

Yes, since speaking publicly to the media about Fifty Shades Is Abuse, Natalie and I have been alarmed to check the campaign's Twitter account and find death threats, rape threats, accusations of being anti BDSM (particularly hilarious when you consider that a great number of our supporters are members of that community), accusations of being pro-censorship (something we've refuted in every interview we've given) and pleas from Fifty Shades fans to do the world a favour and kill ourselves.  It's kind of ironic that people feel the need to defend a book that we've said features abuse, by sending us... Abuse.  

It's at this point that I'd like to suggest a little further reading once you've finished this, because if you click here, you'll find the Fifty Shades Is Abuse campaign's "Myth-Busting" or FAQ blog.  It's a link we often send in response to criticism from people who don't know much about the campaign and have made quick - and indeed, false - judgements.

So as sad as it is, I've become depressingly used to clicking on the Fifty Shades Is Abuse twitter page and finding that someone has sent a tweet wrongly telling us that we're dictating what women can read and demonising BDSM.  And I've become used to sending them the FAQ, which helpfully explains that we're absolutely doing neither.  And I've become used to far too many people responding by telling us they'd never read anything written by an anti-kink prude, so we can shove our FAQ where the sun doesn't shine.  Repeat ad nauseum.

Of course, there's something of a safety switch involved, in as much as although it's hard to take the insults and trolling anything but personally, it's not being directed to us as individuals.  It's not reaching our personal Twitter accounts.  Or at least it wasn't...

In the immortal words of Kenneth Wolstenholme, it is now.

This appeared on the Telegraph website, yesterday.  The link appeared this morning in my personal Twitter notifications.  Along with (you guessed it) accusations of being anti-kink (ironically, I only wrote a piece on freedom of sexual expression yesterday), accusations of being pro-censorship, judgements from people I'd never even spoken to before, countless misogynistic comments about my desperate need to "get fucked" and the odd threat of physical assault.  A fun way to start the day, I'm sure you'll agree.

Firstly - and bizarrely - the piece refers to Fifty Shades Is Abuse as a "ring."  That's interesting, because what we actually are is a campaign run by two women.  There was a "Fifty Shades Is Abuse Web Ring," which was set up purely so that people could easily access links from various writers who'd tackled the subject of romanticised abuse in the books, but it wasn't set up by us (although we were listed as a resource on information, due to the wealth of writing we've accumulated on the subject).  Anyway, the article suggests that I'm a member of the Fifty Shades Is Abuse "ring."  Nope, just co-runner of an ever-growing Internet campaign, backed by hundreds from the BDSM community and several leading abuse charities.

The quote attributed to me in the piece comes from an open letter I wrote to the papers after I first read the books and had been massively triggered by them.  I wrote it not as a Representative of Fifty Shades Is Abuse, but simply as a survivor of domestic abuse.  So to have my words thrown back at me by someone who is essentially tying the campaign to their own idea that we must be prudish types, trying to censor women's reading material is particularly hurtful.  With all of the hype regarding the Fifty Shades films, would it really have been so hard to have found a quote from either Natalie or I in which we're talking from the campaign's perspective, not discussing our own, painful experiences of abuse?  The rest of the media seems to have managed it...

And interestingly, my letter was published anonymously, too.

The author of the piece, Rebecca Reid, goes on to compare the Fifty Shades Is Abuse campaign to the furore over Lady Chatterly's Lover, reminding her readers that back then, people were trying to control what women were entitled to read.  The comparison is absurd and actually, massively offensive.   The writer claims to have done research before writing her piece, yet she seems to have missed the fact that in every single print, radio and TV interview Natalie or I have done, we have made two points clear right off the bat:

1. We are not anti safe, consensual BDSM.

2. We are in no way pro-censorship.

From our FAQ.  

So the idea that we're being equated to those who, decades before we were born, were trying to clamp down on what women were allowed to read in their own time is just ludicrous.  I was interviewed on the radio recently and one point I raised was that we had no intention of controlling what anyone was or wasn't allowed to read.  To lump us into that pro-censorship, prudish category is to undo any claims of "research" into the campaign.  The author suggests that we're implying that women need to be "protected" from Fifty Shades and she describes this idea as "patronising, offensive and utterly ridiculous."  Which, being anti censorship, we would agree with.  Which is why we've never said it.

Unfortunately, the author then goes straight for the "it's fiction" argument.  And yes, it is fiction.  And no, that does not make romanticising abusive behaviour okay.

I'm bored of having to break this down, so I'll do it as briefly as possible:

1. It may be "fiction."  But stalking, coercion, manipulation, unwanted control and threats are the reality for 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men.  Were it fiction that featured these things and depicted them as being bad, there would be no problem.  Instead, these things are depicted as excusable due to Christian's past (there is no excuse to abuse) and even desirable, as a result of simply calling Fifty Shades "a love story."  Or, in Rebecca's words: "sexy and beautiful."  When you take such inexcusable behaviours and you write them as excusable, perpetuating dangerous abuse myths in the process, you're going to find that it does more than simply "chime with abuse survivors," as Rebecca puts it.  It glamorises our experiences.  Imagine the worst thing that has ever happened to you.  Now imagine that thing has been fictionalised and people are saying what a beautiful, wonderful thing it is and how they wish it would happen to them.  Wouldn't you want a voice?  Wouldn't you want more than to be dismissed by the author of the fiction, as well as fans (and now journalists)?

2.  It may be "fiction," but it's globally successful and has been accepted into popular culture almost without question.  This normalises the behaviour within the books.

3.  "It's just fiction" is a really handy way of utterly dismissing the views of hundreds of abuse survivors who were deeply upset by the way their experiences had been romanticised in this novel. It's an easy method of not listening to the abuse charities who've expressed concerns.  It's a convenient way of ignoring the many members of the BDSM community who are warning that the behaviour in the books is abuse, rather than a representation of their lifestyle.  Imagine you're one of those survivors, or charity workers, or Dom(me)s/subs.  You've been trying to speak out for the past two and a half years or more.  And every time you're put back in your box with "oh, it's only a book."  They may as well be saying "oh shut up and stop spoiling our fun."

Rebecca asks where the women who supposedly want their own Christian Grey are.  Well... They're on Twitter in their thousands.

Literally the most depressing thing I've seen today.  

They're the people buying the "Property of Christian Grey" t-shirts.  The fans who see nothing wrong in dressing their children in "Mummy wishes Daddy was Christian Grey" babygrows.  They're the writers in glossy magazines, selling Fifty Shades to readers with constant references to how "hot" it all is.  Seriously, one of the main comments I've had from friends (and other journalists!) who've read the Telegraph piece is: "Has this writer not thought to look at how many women are openly saying that they want their own Christian Grey?!"

Rebecca then makes the incredibly tired connection between us saying there's abuse in Fifty Shades and people who say horror movies inspire killings etc.  She claims we're putting women in the roles of children and it's "aggressively patronising and frightening."  Except, the teensiest bit of research would have found this, also from our FAQ:

So inconvenient when people don't fit the box you're trying to squeeze them into...

So no, we've never said that we think women who read Fifty Shades are in danger of rushing headlong into relationships with abusive men.  We've never patronised fans or insulted their intelligence.  But what does the truth matter, eh?  There are people out there insulting a series of books and a film!  We must put them firmly in their place, without listening to a word they're actually saying!  DOWN WITH CENSORSHIP!

EL James herself has a tactic of blocking and ignoring anyone who criticises her books as portraying abuse.  The Internet equivalent of sticking her fingers in her ears and singing "la la la..."  She's ignoring criticism from the very lifestyle she claims to be representing, too.  Of course she does; her books have made her a zillionnaire!  Who cares about the critics; they're only on about the sex scenes, anyway, right?!  Even the Telegraph article which inspired this blog was sent to EL James by a fan, with the words "you can use this as ammo."  Which she then retweeted to her millions of followers.  "Ammo," short for ammunition.  Ammunition against abuse charities, survivors and members of the BDSM community.  Because we're not allowed a voice.  It's inconvenient.  It's ironic that Rebecca Reid's article does the whole "take this away, lest women get dangerous ideas" scaremongering, when in fact, it's those who speak against EL James' books who are getting the "shut them up at once!" treatment.  And despite arguments to the contrary, most criticisms of our campaign (and seemingly me as a person) seem to centre around the idea that we're prudishly censoring women's sexual fantasies.

Fifty Shades has made erotica for women less of a taboo subject.  We agree that this is a good thing - I said as much on the radio only last week.  I'm a writer myself and my current novel (in the editing phase) has several graphic sex scenes.  I even know the proper words for "down there" and everything...  I think it's a genuinely great thing that women are embracing their sexuality.  I've read erotica on and off for years and it's brilliant that we don't have to be embarassed about it anymore.  More power to us ladies!  I simply think it's a bit of a let-down that it was this book that has brought the subject to the fore, considering that the sex scenes are interspersed with a woman being stalked, controlled against her will, crying because she's so confused and upset at the callous way she's being treated and feeling as though she can't judge her possessive partner's behaviour because he doesn't know any better.  

Which is rubbish.  Fifty Shades perpetuates two major abuse myths:

1) If a person has been abused in their past, they know no better and their behaviour shouldn't be judged.

2) If you love an abusive person the "right" way, they'll change for you and you'll live happily ever after.

And yes, I'm aware that the books (and now film(s)) are supposed to be a "fantasy."  But those myths have been utterly accepted and are now used against those who criticise Fifty Shades.  

"You can't judge Christian, he had an awful childhood!  You're fucking heartless if you call him an abuser.  And maybe your ex wasn't either."

That's a genuine comment made to me on Twitter a month or two ago, by a Fifty Shades fan.  I should add, it was made in response to my saying that his use of his childhood to excuse his behaviour had triggered me horribly, because that's exactly what my abuser used to say to me.  Take a moment to let that sink in: a fan of a fictional character was placing the imaginary feelings of that character above the feelings of a woman who was saying she'd been abused.  They were using the myth so helpfully perpetuated by EL James to tell me that maybe I hadn't actually been abused, because maybe my poor ex didn't know any better either.  If it was a lone comment, I'd dismiss it.  But I get comments like that - as does the Fifty Shades Is Abuse account - almost daily.  Several times a week, we get comments either on our Twitter, Facebook or website, or here on my blog, such as the following (all genuine):

"Ana could leave at any time.  She wants it, even when she says no.  No sometimes means yes."

"Christian only stalks and controls Ana because he really loves her.  Some men show it that way."

"Yes he's abusive.  Yes he stalks her.  Yes he manipulates her.  But none of that matters because Ana loves him and so he changes for her."

"BDSM is about controlling someone, whether they want it or not.  If they agree to be a sub, that's what they get."

"Are abusers not worthy of love?  Just because he stalks and threatens her, should we write him off?  He doesn't know any better!"

When we say that Fifty Shades normalises abuse (and abuse myths), we say it because we see it pretty much day in, day out.  Remember who these people are talking to; survivors of real-life abuse.  People who work professionally in the field, as Natalie does.  Real members of the kink community.  It doesn't matter whether it's "just a book" or not.  It matters that there are real people, with genuine concerns who simply want to have their voices heard, but are being shouted down by the book's author (who once had the gall to say that seeing abuse in her books does a "disservice to the women who really go through it," as though we aren't those women), the book's fans and members of the media.

Rebecca's piece then goes on to once again use horror films, suggesting that it's shocking that we've not complained about those, yet we complain about Fifty Shades.  Here's the thing, Rebecca:  Nobody is claiming that Saw is a love story.  No glossy magazine is running featured quizzes with headlines like: "Could YOU date Leatherface?"

And yet we have Cosmo, Glamour mag and a whole host of others touting a man who stalks, manipulates, coerces, threatens and controls as some kind of romantic ideal.  And we have women nodding their heads and accepting him as such.  We have an author, rubbing her hands with glee as she promotes sex toys and claims that her books have saved people's marriages.  When you get to that stage, it's almost laughable to wheel out the "but it's just a book, guys" line.

Rebecca ends her piece by suggesting that the "mock-shock" over Fifty Shades (having sobbed into my pillow after reading the worst experience of my life romanticised, my shock is definitely real) has nothing to do with wanting the best for women and in fact, simply shames them for having fantasies.

Except... It is about wanting the best for women.  I won't say too much on the non-shaming bit, because Natalie and I have spoken about this time and again (research - it's not hard!) and we're pretty clear that if any woman wants to enjoy Fifty Shades, we're not stopping them or judging them, we're just asking them to read it with a more critical eye.  All we've ever done is ask for a discourse on abuse.  To raise awareness that in reality, the behaviour Grey exhibits is inexcusable and abusive.  To make very clear that he is not an accurate representative of the BDSM community.  To talk about why we have such high abuse statistics (that is shameful) and how we can educate young people on the warning signs to look out for.

It's not an insult to anyone's intelligence to say that emotional abuse in particular isn't easy to recognise in reality.  I lived through horrendous emotional abuse and not once did I stop and think "this isn't right."  I simply thought: "He doesn't know any better.  If I keep trying to love him the right way, he'll change.  I can fix him."  And of course I couldn't.  He was an abuser, choosing to manipulate and control me.  He fooled not only me, but family and friends.  Because abusers aren't all billionaires with private helicopters, but they are all very good at pulling the wool over people's eyes.

We say that Fifty Shades Is Abuse because stalking is abuse.  Coercion (through alcohol or manipulation) is abuse.  Threatening to hit someone out of anger rather than sexual arousal is abuse (NOT BDSM).  Controlling someone's life when they've actively asked you not to is abuse.  And yet we're being sold these things as part of a love story and it's being accepted without question.  It's fine to fantasise about Christian Grey - whatever floats your boat - but real people are justifying abusive behaviour (as evidenced above) because it's been marketed and accepted as romance.  Not just in the books, but in the glossy magazines, on websites and by every fan who's taken the time to tell me that I don't know what abuse is and that I need a damn good slap for being such a bitch to Christian.  And by every fan who's told me that maybe I shouldn't have walked away from my "poor" ex.  That?  That's the normalisation of abuse in action, my friends.

Whilst we might stand in a small minority,  raising our voices against this phenomenally popular franchise, we stand nonetheless.  We stand because we have to.  Because abuse is frighteningly common (far more frightening than people campaigning against romanticising abuse in fiction).  Because we owe it to ourselves to stop blurring the lines of what is and isn't full, informed, freely given consent.  Because we deserve great erotica, with fantastic sex scenes, with all the sexy, brooding billionaires you can shake a stick at - without the emotional and psychological abuse.  We deserve a different narrative than the frankly tired "hey, love the damaged guy even though he treats you badly and who knows, he might turn from a frog into a prince if you try hard enough!"

All of which brings me back to the idea of "real life."  Yes, most of us should be able to separate fantasy from reality.  But recently, I spoke with a young woman and her words really struck a powerful chord with me.  She told me that she'd read Fifty Shades and soon after, she met a man who reminded her - with his tragic back-story of abuse and his rather possessive and controlling ways - of Christian Grey.  Having loved the book, she was thrilled when they entered into a relationship.  He abused her.  She couldn't work out where she'd gone wrong; why wasn't this turning into a "love story?"  After many months of blaming herself and excusing his behaviour because of his past, she eventually left.  She tried to read book 2 in the Fifty Shades trilogy, but found it so painful that she couldn't get past chapter one.

I am not - even a little bit - suggesting that all fans of EL James' novels are going to experience what this woman did.  But by normalising abusive behaviour and idealising an abusive man, we're only making things that bit harder for those who do.  We need to talk about abuse openly and we need to get rid of ridiculous myths about abusers not knowing any better or changing with the love of the right person, once and for all.  Only when we work on the facts, will it matter less what we put in our "romantic" fiction.  Until then, I will proudly speak out as part of the Fifty Shades Is Abuse campaign.

We're not prudes. We're not pro censorship.

And we're not going anywhere.

Fifty Shades and the Fifty Shades Is Abuse Campaign: Dispelling the Myths...

Yes, I kept this newspaper clipping.  I wrote it, so... 

Okay, let me just apologise first.  This blog was written for the Fifty Shades Is Abuse website - homepage for the campaign (of the same name) I co-run.  Unfortunately, the website is hosted by webs.com and try as I might, I literally can't get Webs to upload the content to the website's blog.  Confused?  Yeah, so was I.

So what follows is the blog I spent all afternoon writing.  Should Webs ever start behaving, I'll upload it there.  Until such time... Here it is!

Sometimes, when we’re in the middle of something we’re passionate about, we can get carried away and lose sight of the fact that not everyone is on board with us. We can dig in our heels and refuse to listen to outside opinion.

That is something we DO NOT want to do with this campaign.

To that end, we do enter into conversation with our critics. We do listen to opposing views. After all, nothing changes if two sides don’t listen to one another. So we make it our business to engage with some of the less-abusive Fifty Shades fans who contact us, in an effort to explain who we are and what we’re about. Sometimes we change minds. Sometimes we at least encourage someone to consider a different viewpoint. And sometimes, with regret, we pull away from the conversation. There’s no use in shouting words into a vacuum, after all.

With only a month to go until the release of the first Fifty Shades movie, we’re receiving a lot more attention – both positive and negative – than usual. And as always, we’re responding to some of that negative attention, in an effort to explain why we feel the way we do and what we’re trying to achieve through this campaign. Or, to put it another way, to dispel some of the myths that surround Fifty Shades Is Abuse.

With that in mind, we decided that now would be a good time to dispel those myths here, providing our supporters (and ourselves!) with a handy link to send to those who insist on perpetuating them. We’re also going to use this blog to focus on some of the abuse myths put forward both in EL James’ trilogy and by fans of it. But first, let’s settle some of the untruths regarding this campaign...

“You’re prudish – you’re equating BDSM with abuse because you don’t know anything of the lifestyle!”

We get this one a lot. Fans of the books know that the BDSM aspect is the part of the trilogy that has provoked the most interest and, in some parts, controversy, so it’s almost understandable that they make the leap from the campaign title – “Fifty Shades Is Abuse” – to the idea that we’re anti-BDSM. That could not be further from the truth.

We are in no way, shape or form against consensual BDSM. Indeed, we have all kinds of people from within the lifestyle who follow and support our campaign. Dom(me)s, subs, switches... You’ll find plenty on our follower list. The reason? They believe, as we do, that the lifestyle has been offensively and dangerously misrepresented by EL James’ trilogy. From the tired old trope of the man only into BDSM because of some tragic, painful past (and who needs to be “fixed”), to the “Dom” using alcohol and manipulation to coerce a completely naive young woman into agreeing to become his sub; the story throws the BDSM community under the bus.

Fans make a huge mountain out of the importance of consent to Christian, but the fact is, they’re reading what they want to see. Yes, Christian hands Ana a contract and talks about the importance of consent, but when it comes down to it, there is precious little – something which many from the lifestyle itself have highlighted as extremely dangerous. Case in point? Whilst discussing hard limits, Christian deliberately gets Ana drunk. She can’t give full, informed consent in that state and were he a reliable Dom (or just a non-abusive person in general), he would know as much. She also asks him not to control every aspect of her life and he ignores her and continues to monitor her whereabouts and even tries to buy her workplace so he can keep an eye on her there. She tells him “no” during sex in chapter 12 of book 1 and he continues. In book 2, when she tells him she wants to talk, rather than have sex, he tells her “don’t over-think this” and carries on. In book 3, she tells him she’s too tired for sex. He tells her he wants it, so they’ll have it. Ignoring her lack of full consent in this manner has nothing to do with BDSM and it’s an insult when fans insist that it does. Ana never signed the contract; he is not her Master. And even if he were, a lack of consent would never be ignored in a healthy BDSM relationship.

You need only read “Meet Fifty Shades,” which EL James wrote from Christian’s viewpoint, to see that his first reaction when Ana falls into his office is to want to hit her out of anger, not arousal. Indeed, in book 2 of the Fifty Shades trilogy, he even tells Ana that if she doesn’t eat, he’ll hit her in public “and it’ll have nothing to do with my sexual gratification.” In other words, he doesn’t want to give her a consensual spanking. He just wants to hit her because she’s annoying him.

That’s not BDSM. It’s abuse. And we haven’t even talked about how the majority of Grey’s most abusive behaviour takes place in a non-sexual scenario. Much of his abuse is emotional and psychological. The fact that it crosses into sexual and physical abuse at times is just an extension of Christian’s already-abusive tendencies. Our pointing it out is in no way a damning indictment against BDSM as a whole.

We’re not remotely anti-BDSM. But we are against it being misrepresented and used as a cover for abusive behaviour, as it is in Fifty Shades.

We would recommend that anyone wanting to know more about the lifestyle speaks to someone involved in it, reads books on the subject, visits a club and finds out the facts. Because unfortunately, it would appear that EL James didn’t.

“You’re just projecting your own experiences onto Fifty Shades and that’s not fair!”

Sometimes, we reference our own experiences of abuse, as part of highlighting the dangers of real-life Christian Greys. This has led to some fans telling us that we’re “too obsessed” with what happened to us to be able to “understand the love story” that EL James has written. Others have told us that we’re projecting our own experiences onto Ana and Christian’s “healthy” relationship and coming up with a “sick, twisted opinion” on it as a result.

Casting aside how utterly offensive these comments are, they are also completely wrong. The simple fact is that we don’t have any need to project anything onto Fifty Shades. The abuse is there in black and white; not because we’ve imagined it, but because EL James wrote it there.

I don’t have to have personally been stalked in order to recognise that following a woman thousands of miles away when she’s asked for space is invasive and wrong. I don’t have to have been stalked to know that a man already knowing not only your address, but your bank details, medical files and the addresses of your family members is morally reprehensible, not “hot.”

I don’t have to have personal experience of someone I loved and trusted manipulating me with “I can’t help the way I behave; I don’t know any better...” to know it’s a massive, steaming pile of bull, being used to convince a person to stick around and feel responsible for “curing” their abuser. As it happens, I do have experience of that and I mention it only to explain the truth of the situation, not to make the campaign about me, or to justify seeing abuse in Fifty Shades when it’s not actually there.

We’ve written many times about the different types of abuse in Fifty Shades and the dangers of romanticising them, so I’m not going to list examples here, too. You can find them on our website, should you wish to look. But you can rest assured that the examples of abuse are taken directly from the books. Not made up to suit an “agenda” (a recent accusation by a fan), or exaggerated because we’re so over-sensitive because of our pasts, but direct quotes from the books that reference abusive behaviour – be it stalking, manipulation, coercion, threats, isolation or unwanted control – that EL James actually wrote in black and white. We don’t project our own experiences onto the books. The author did that for us.

“You’re telling people what they can and can’t read! That’s against free speech! You’re advocating censorship!”

Wrong. We’ve never called for a ban on the books. We’ve never insisted that all copies should be burned. We’ve never said that nobody should be allowed to read them, or that nobody should see the film.

What we have said is that romanticising abusive behaviour in fiction is highly dangerous and leads to abuse being normalised or missed in reality (emotional and psychological abuse in particular is so insidious that many who experience it don’t even realise they’ve been abused until much later).

What we have said is that romanticising abusive behaviour in fiction can, and from our experience has led to an even greater problem with people believing myths about abuse (more of which later), which in turn causes people to be blind to the very red flags they should be looking out for.

What we have said is that Fifty Shades could be used as a starting point for a public discussion on abuse – what it is, how to recognise it and where to get help – seeing as it depicts an abusive relationship with frightening clarity, yet millions of fans see it as “true love.” Something which is indicative of the fact that we have a long way to go when it comes to abuse-awareness...

As a writer, feminist and human, I am passionately pro free speech. Always have been, always will be. I even believe in the right of other people to ridicule my beliefs. And I believe in my right to speak out against something popular, however much fans of Fifty Shades might dislike me for doing so.

We’re not calling for book-burning. We’re not calling for bans. We’re not telling anyone what they can or can’t read or watch. We’re trying to raise awareness and start a discussion on a subject that very much needs to be brought to the fore.

“What about other books?! You can’t criticise Fifty Shades and not anything else!”

This is an interesting one. Taste is subjective; I might find something offensive, but someone else might not. There are, certainly, several books and films littered throughout history (and on modern shelves, too), whose themes are deeply questionable and could easily be deemed to glorify abuse.

To be clear, we stand against romanticised abuse in fiction full stop. Romanticising abusive behaviour in fiction normalises it in reality and can blind us to the signs.

However, Fifty Shades went past being “just a book” like so many others a long time ago. It went past being “just a book,” when the “find your own Christian Grey” dating sites appeared and when almost every women’s magazine refused to hear a word of criticism against it and began promoting Grey as “the perfect man.”

The trilogy has sunk deeper into public consciousness than almost anything that preceded it. When fans are sending us messages every week, defending Grey and in many cases abusing us personally for speaking against the series, it’s indicative of just how seriously this particular piece of Twilight fan-fiction has been taken. And when something with the potential to be dangerous is taken that seriously and becomes such a deep part of the public consciousness, then it makes sense for an abuse-awareness campaign to focus on it.

We’re not saying that any other book or film that romanticises abusive behaviour is okay. We’re saying that this campaign was set up around Fifty Shades because the trilogy encapsulates so much abuse, it was impossible to ignore. We’re saying that whilst Fifty Shades is so universal, it makes much more logical sense to use it as a starting point for a discussion on abuse than any other book that came before or after it.

“You’re just jealous of EL James!”

Ahahahahahaahaaaaaa. Ahem.

There are so many English errors in the entire Fifty Shades trilogy that I genuinely wouldn’t even know where to begin if I tried listing them all. The writing is appalling. Honestly, completely appalling. I say that as a writer myself. I would be embarrassed to put out a trilogy that was so hideously – and vainly – unedited. So if you’re talking about writing ability, I am not jealous and having read some brilliant pieces by the Fifty Shades Is Abuse campaign-founder, Natalie, I am certain that she isn’t either.

We’re not jealous of EL James’ wealth. Neither of us are that shallow. Nor are we envious of her fame.

Let’s also not forget that EL James is the writer who deliberately set out to make it look as though there was no criticism of her books coming from genuine abuse-survivors, when she told an interviewer: “People who see abuse in my books are doing a huge disservice to women who really experience it.”

Here’s the thing, EL. I experienced it. Natalie experienced it. Hundreds of our followers experienced it. We have several abuse charities following us who deal with those who experience it and they see abuse in your books, too. Where’s your answer for us?

So no, we’re not jealous of EL James. To suggest that we’d create a whole campaign centred around a subject as personal and important as domestic abuse, simply because we’re suffering from petty jealousy is ludicrous and offensive.

"EL James didn't deliberately write about abuse.  You're demonising her!!"

Wrong again.  Unless she's a deeply sick individual, I highly doubt that EL James sat down to write a novel that would romanticise an abusive relationship.  After all, Twilight has some of the same abusive patterns as Fifty Shades of Grey does and we know that EL's story started life as fan-fiction.  She was probably just taking some of the behaviours from Twilight and, unfortunately, bringing them further into the spotlight.

That said, it's not as though she hasn't been made aware of the abuse in her books.  Abuse survivors have contacted her.  Abuse charities have contacted her.  Her response is to block them on Twitter, so that they can't burst her precious bubble.  That's not the reaction of a mature writer who listens to valid concern.  It's the reaction of a rather vain person, so deeply in love with her own creation that she's willing to ignore, criticise and minimise those who have anything negative to say about her work.

People from the BDSM community have also spoken out, trying to explain to EL James that she has misrepresented their lifestyle.  And she has blocked and ignored them, too.

Let's also remember that for all her cries of "it's just my fantasy!", EL James is happy to sell Grey as the perfect man to anyone who'll listen.  She's been more than content to put her name - and that of the Fifty Shades brand - on endless pieces of merchandise, including BDSM-related sex toys, which doesn't exactly do much to dispel the idea that she's selling her "fantasy" as some kind of poorly-researched how-to guide.

I'm a writer.  I understand being precious over your work.  But I can't - and won't - understand anyone calling themselves a writer, who is prepared to utterly ignore and in some cases publicly insult those who come to her with very real concerns.  When you put anything into the public domain, you have to take ownership of it and that involves admitting when you've made mistakes and presented something which could be seen as dangerous or offensive.  

EL James is not prepared to take ownership of her work, unless it's to accept praise.  We aren't demonising her.  But we do seriously question her judgement in this area.

All of which leads me on to the abuse myths that Fifty Shades has itself managed to perpetuate. Abuse is a subject that many people know little about. In some ways, this is understandable. It’s not a pleasant topic and when faced with something so unpalatable, it’s fairly common to develop an “it’ll never happen to me” attitude.

Except it could. And blinding ourselves to the signs is potentially dangerous. On our Twitter page, we often talk about the “abuse myths” or “abuse tropes” in Fifty Shades and why they’re so unhelpful. So here, we’ve chosen to tackle a few of them. And yes, every single myth you’re about to read has been sent to us at some point by a Fifty shades fan, in defence of the series...

“He doesn’t know any better!! You can’t blame him for his behaviour, because he had a terrible childhood. He needs help, not judgement.”

We are in 100% agreement that Christian needs help, just as all abusers do. But an abuser will not change unless he or she recognises that they have a problem and needs to change. Christian sees nothing wrong with his behaviour, in spite of claiming “I’m fifty shades of f*cked up,” as an excuse for it.

And guess what? It’s not an excuse. There is never an excuse for abusing another person. The events that took place in a person’s life prior to their decision to stalk, manipulate, threaten, coerce, isolate, harm or forcibly control someone else, do not negate the abusive effect of these behaviours. My ex told me that he couldn’t help his behaviour towards me, because he’d been abused as a child. I believed him. I stuck around, trying to help him. Only when I realised that actually, he was an adult, with a circle of friends (including couples in healthy relationships), a job in which he had responsibility and several remaining family members, did I come to the horrible conclusion that he knew how he ought to treat me. He simply chose to be abusive instead and used his past as a convenient excuse.

Christian – and men like him – may be troubled and need some help and support. But it does not ever excuse their decision to behave abusively towards their partners. Christian’s sad childhood is no more an excuse for stalking or controlling Ana against her will than my ex’s was for abusing me.  An abusive, or tragic past might go some of the way towards explaining a possible propensity to abuse as an adult, but it doesn't excuse it.  EVER.

Think about it logically: If a guy butchered his own children and it turned out that he’d been beaten by his parents as a kid, would you spare him a prison sentence, because of his sad past? If a man raped a woman, would you let him off if his mum had died when he was little? Abuse is a crime. No amount of tragedy in an abuser’s past excuses it. It’s a common myth that we can explain away certain abusive behaviours if we find something in the abuser to be sympathetic about. EL James has perpetuated that myth and as a result, we have fans contacting us every week, telling us we’re being unfair, because poor ickle Christian – who owns a billion-dollar company, which he supposedly runs single-handedly – just doesn’t know how to be a big boy. Rubbish.

Manipulation is a key part of abuse. Getting your partner to think that you’re some poor, troubled person who simply can’t help their actions because they’ve never been shown any different, is a hugely common tactic. Why? Because it works.

This is the point at which fans point to Doctor Flynn and insist that Christian is trying to get better. Nope. EL James did about as much research into the kind of therapy Christian would need as she did BDSM. As a result, Flynn is highly unrealistic; a doctor who breaks his oath in order to tell Ana that she’s “doing wonders” for his patient (subtly putting responsibility for fixing Christian on her shoulders rather than his own – more of that later) and who never questions Christian’s behaviour, but enables it.

Frighteningly, whilst the doctor’s character and behaviour is unrealistic, the situation isn’t. Lundy Bancroft – author of “Why Does He Do That?” a book about men who abuse – explains that many abusive people will use their therapy sessions to justify their own behaviour, or to look for sympathy and a reason to blame others, rather than examine their own actions. My ex did the exact same thing, even going as far as to tell me that he used his therapy sessions to explain that he couldn’t help his behaviour; it was everyone else in his life that was wrong, not him. Consequently, I believe my ex is almost certainly still abusive. And so is Christian.

“But her love cures him in the end. They both have to learn, compromise and make sacrifices and that’s what a relationship is about.”

Sure, relationships are about compromise. But tell me: What does Christian sacrifice? His need to control? No, he still dictates to Ana as to when she can see her friends, whether she takes his name when they marry and he attempts to control a whole lot more besides. Does he sacrifice his need for BDSM when Ana expresses a dislike for some aspects? No, because he coerces Ana into going back on pretty much all of her hard limits. The only person who really makes an effort at compromise is Ana.

All of which is beside the point, because this is yet another dangerous – and offensive – abuse myth. The thought of the myth that love can “cure” an abuser being readily accepted by EL James’ fans is genuinely frightening, because this is a manipulative trap that so many people who experience abuse in real life fall into. I did.

When you love a person who has been treating you badly, you want to believe their promises that they’re going to change. When they tell you they can’t help their behaviour, you want to believe that and try to support them in “getting better.” Abusers fixate on that and will encourage their partners to believe that they – and only they – can help them to become a better person. This manipulation causes many people to stay in abusive relationships, thinking that if they just love their abuser the right way, they can get things back to how they were at the start of the relationship, before it all went wrong. Of course, an abuser will always move the goalposts so that there is no “right” way, but the abused person – already manipulated by this point – doesn’t know that and will often keep trying, to the detriment of their own mental and emotional well-being.

Ana – partly because of Christian’s manipulation and partly because of the poorly researched Doctor Flynn – believes that it’s her responsibility to “fix” Christian. It’s not. It’s his. In a healthy relationship, there’s nothing wrong with supporting a partner whilst they work on their issues. But this is not a healthy relationship and Ana is taking all of the responsibility, leaving Christian with none. Her love alone can’t “cure” Christian’s abusive tendencies anymore than love can cure abuse in reality.

By perpetuating the “love cures abuse!” myth, EL James is not only setting her readers up for a potentially dangerous fall, but offending the many women who found the strength to walk away from their abusers, having realised that they couldn’t change them and that staying put them at emotional or physical risk. Perhaps our love just wasn’t good enough, eh EL?

“Ana stays, so the abuse from Christian can’t be that bad. I mean, women who keep going back to an abusive man are pretty much complicit in the abuse, really. If it was that bad, they’d leave.”

From a Fifty Shades standpoint, let’s remind ourselves that within the trilogy, Christian tells Ana (book 1, I believe) that no matter where she ran, he would find her. He even chillingly jokes: “I can track your phone, remember?” All of which negates his promise to let her go when, in book 3, he thinks she’s leaving him. He’s already threatened to stalk her to the ends of the Earth if necessary, so why should we believe that he’s suddenly changed his tune?!

It’s a grotesquely common myth that people who go back to their abusive partners are somehow to blame for the abuse they suffer as a result. The blame for abuse lies squarely on the shoulders of one person: The abuser.

The myth takes no consideration of the level of manipulation and fear being used on the abused person. The abuser may threaten to kill the abused if they leave. They may threaten to kill themselves. They could manipulate family and friends into thinking the abused person is going crazy and needs to stay with them for their own protection. They could restrict the abused person’s access to their bank account or their car, thus making escape much harder. The abused person may be terrified that leaving could make things a hundred times worse.

Or the abuser could try a different tactic. They could make a hundred promises, swearing on their life –or even their children’s lives – that things will change. And with enough “evidence” (through charming behaviour, attention, gifts etc) that the abuser means what he/she says, the abused person may believe them.

The fact that people sometimes stay in – or go back to – abusive relationships does not make it their fault when they are abused. Ana’s decision to stay with a man whose temper she openly admits to being afraid of (chapter 6, book 3) does not mean that there is no abuse in her relationship, or that she is responsible for it.

The level of victim-blaming thrown by Fifty Shades' supposed fans at our campaign has been atrocious.

“Well, she stayed, so if he shouts at her and hits her, it’s not like she didn’t know she had it coming.”

“If she didn’t want marks all over her chest, she shouldn’t have taken her bikini top off on honeymoon. She knew what he was like.”

"He warned her to run.  She chose to stay.  After that, whatever he does to her, she only has herself to blame."

Victim-blaming is one of the most common, yet most damaging problems society has when it comes to dealing with abuse. And fans sending statements like that are only making it worse.

“It’s a fantasy – Grey is rich, gorgeous and sexy. Real-life abusers aren’t.”

Yes, that’s true. All real-life abusers have to go around in their “I’m An Abuser” t-shirts, with the pit stains on display. They’re usually hideously ugly, stone broke and terrible in bed. Of course no Fifty Shades fan is going to fall for an abuser – they’re incredibly easy to spot!

Um... No. Guess what? Abusers look like ordinary people. They could be rich and powerful. They could be the best sex you’ve ever had in your life. They could be the best-looking people you’ve ever laid eyes on. But they’re still abusers.

The myth that all abusive people are somehow recognisable is as ludicrous as it is dangerous. We already had Fifty Shades to “thank” for the legions of adoring readers willing to overlook hideous behaviour if it’s displayed by a fictional character who’s rich and sexy. Now, we have those same fans contacting us to tell us that abuse is super-easy to spot in real-life and that you’d never find a man like Christian Grey who was actually abusive.

Except... My ex was the hottest guy I’d ever seen in real-life at the time I met him (an opinion that has since been thoroughly revised). I thought he was gorgeous. I had friends who thought the same. And at first, the sex was definitely the best I’d ever had. Neither fact made him less of an abuser, but they did help to blind me to his abuse. Just like fans are blinded to Christian Grey’s abuse by his good looks and ridiculous wealth. Are we all really shallow?! No. We just have this stupid idea – perpetuated by books like Fifty Shades – that attractive, rich people are the good guys. An abuser must be really easy to spot, because he or she will undoubtedly be physically repugnant, grubby and nasty.

The reality is that abusers are skilled in the area of charm. They will put across a version of themselves that they know you’ll fall for. What would be the point of revealing themselves to be abusive right away? Nobody would want to be with them!

It’s time we got away from this utterly foolish societal belief that abusers... Well, look and act like abusers. More often than not, they don’t. That’s the whole point.

Fifty Shades of Grey has perpetuated these myths and more. That’s why we need to speak out. Not because we’re hysterically calling for books to be burned, or because we have any desire to police what people read, but because myths about something as already misunderstood as abuse are dangerous. We need facts. What we don’t need is a man who stalks, coerces, threatens, intimidates, controls and manipulates being presented as some kind of romantic hero. Because he isn’t.

He’s an abuser.