He was always asking for the riiiiiiiiiiight girl to arrive into his life and the prick had her EVERYDAY at work at the bank, she was just LOVELY, she would care about him so much, but of course that doesn't match the list of a bondage, russian marrying prick.
shareHe's just inept.
shareWow. So you have the ability to say who should get involved with whom, eh? Doesn't matter if that person doesn't find the other attractive or interesting or compatible. You, based on a few minutes of seeing them together, can make this determination, eh? Amazing.
shareActually, I think he WAS a bastard!
At no point did John think fit to tell his bride-to-be that he was a bondage and spanking fetishist. He just made a few vague comments on his video about 'having a few bodies under his patio - not literally of course' and left the rest to her imagination. When was he planning to let her know that he was a perv? When she was totally up-rooted from her home country and unable to call things off without being deported? Sure, the woman turned out to be just as opportunistic and cynical as John ever was, but HE didn't know that. She could have been a convent girl for all he knew! John was trying to trap her. Nothing more, nothing less.
If a man wants to spank Nicole Kidman (and let's face it most of us would), he should at least have the common decency to let her know in advance...
How do you know he was intending to force his fetish on her? Perhaps he would have suggested it and if she wasn't OK with it, he would have just let it go.
shareJohn shipped her over from half-way across the world, safe in the assumption that she spoke no English and would be totally beholden to him for any communication with others and for all her basic needs. John was a total and absolute perv. For him bondage and spanking was not a playful once-in-blue-moon bedroom game, it was the core of his sexuality. Is it credible that he was just trusting to luck that his 'birthday girl' was as kinky as he was? What he did was PROFOUNDLY unethical! If she were the woman he assumed her to be, she would have felt lost and eager to agree to anything to avoid being sent back to a country on the brink of bankrupcy and social colapse. As far as I'm concerned there is no 'informed consent' in such a situation.
Let me ask you this question: if you were a city councilman and an official representative of the Highly Respected Italian-American Businessman Johnny 'The Hatchet' Visconti visited your office and urged you to consider supporting his bid for various lucrative city contracts, all the while casually complementing you on what a lovely wife you have, and how fortunate you both were to get your children into such a good school, though it muust be real bitch for her to drive them drive them back and forth with the gas-milage on THAT model of car, would you be inclined to think that he would just 'let it go' if you weren't OK with it?
John was a good-looking young guy with a nice house and a well-paid job. If he had wanted to pick up a female Submissive (or even a Switch who was prepared to put the Domme side of her sexuality on hold for a while) he wouldn't have had to go very far to find one. There are clubs and internet sites which specialise in bringing people together for just such relationships. Why didn't John go to them? The answer is simple, he didn't want to enage with these women as equals. That is why he imported a girl who he believed would would be all at sea without him to put a roof over her head. At this point in his life, John was just a creepy control freak. Sorry, but he WAS a bastard!
OK, so as it happened his new bride WAS pervy too. Not only was no harm done, but two unhappy people found love and fulfillment through kink. Spankos of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains! I'm GLAD there was a happy ending!
Still, that final redemption does NOT make John's behaviour at the start of the movie OK!
It's been awhile since I've seen this movie at this point, so perhaps I'm forgetting some aspect of John's character that you're picking up on. I'd have to go back and rewatch, lending a more critical eye to his actions to really respond to this, but my impression was that he was shy and/or awkward in social situations and that's why he chose to go with this mailorder bride arrangement. Just because someone is good-looking (in your opinion), has a good job, etc., doesn't mean they don't have personality/social issues, which is presumably why some people avail themselves of such services...not to trap women, dominate them, make them their slaves/playthings, etc. Personally, I think a lot of your assertions about him are prejudicial and assumptive. If they were true, then I wholeheartedly agree that he's a bastard. I just don't necessarily believe all those things to be the case.
shareI appreciate your sincerity, Jevicci, but I still think you are just making excuses for John's behaviour. Though it is true that by the end of the movie our protagonists had redeemed themseves and emerged as a brave and loyal couple, the pair of them began the story as a pair of callous and mercenary arses. One was no better than the other. She wanted to rip him off for every penny. He wanted to use her for a sex-toy - regardless of her own likes or dislikes.
By the way, before you label me prejudicial and assumptive about John due (I assume) to his sexual orientation, I suggest you check out the 'Secretary' board thread entitled 'A Long-Awaited Celebrity Coming Out', and the Adrienne Shelly board thread entitled 'Tanya Quinn in Homicide: Life On The Street', both of which were begun by me. You will find them of some interest I'm sure. Especially the first, as it has a direct connection with the female lead of 'Birthday Girl'.
For myself, I must admit that I too am rather shy and awkward in certain social situations. I am also broke, middle-aged and have the look of a Florida death-row inmate. Neverthess, I am also sitting somewhat uncomfortably because last week I visited the London Alternative Market and puchased a sturdy leather paddle, which was later applied to me with much vigour at a private party by Miss Kitty, the LAM's House Domme.
We all have issues in our lives, Jevicci, but for some of us the 'bought-and-paid-for slave-girl' is just a harmless fantasy and NOT an objective reality. For John, I'm not so sure...
The correct term is simp.He clearly was a weak man with no life skills or critical thinking. No real man would spend money on one of these brides. It shows he has low standards and needs to rely on money for.A real man would know how to find a decent women who can be a wife and mother not one of these hookers
share