Rape in Books

[Regina]

Suzanne you are right. Regardless of whether it was "understandable".

[Suzanne (Under the Covers Book blog)]

I don't really see why she put that in the book, it added nothing what so ever, and was never mentioned again! I think this was a case of rape being carelessly used.

[Regina]

Again I agree (lol!). I actually think Harris carelessly uses death and violence in her books -- all of her series (or at least in the three I have read). I like her books, but she seems to have things rise to violence and murder really quickly -- people are murdered and then replaced with other important characters. Sometimes I think it is too much.

[Suzanne (Under the Covers Book blog)]

I have gone off Harris a bit, I think her Sookie books are going downhill, and you are right, everyone does seem to just die off, I think she just doesn't know what to do with them after a while lol, and yet Sookie has this amazing luck and survives pretty much anything! I find it hard to suspend my disbelief sometimes! As for her other book I tried reading one of them, where a girl can tell how people died or something? But I just wasn't interested.

[Regina]

I really liked Harper, but it was while I was on the Sookie kick. But my the last one of the Harper sereis I was bored. I am reading her non UF mystery series -- Lily Teagran or something which ... hmmm.. interseting ( this is not a spoiler) the main character is recovering from an incredibly violent kidnapping and rape. I do like the series so far, but interesting that she needs the violence to definie her characters. Hmmm.....

[Suzanne (Under the Covers Book blog)]

There does seem to be a pattern emerging, I think I will just them a miss!

A book that deals with male rape and does it quite well, is Lover Awakened, with Zsadist. Ward definately doesn't marganlize it, also there is what happened to John Matthew aswell.

[Sasa]

Lisa wrote: "SPOILER ALERT:

I think it is good to be made to feel uncomfortable while reading a book. It means the writer is challenging me and I like that. Some things we don't think about because it is too..."

Oh my god...I didn't even know. I've read the first half of the first book and a few pages of the third book and I despised book!Bill immediately...he makes book!Eric and TV!Eric look like a puppy. I had no idea something like this happened. What book does it happen in?

[Heather]

Is it wrong that sometimes I enjoy the old bodice rippers? I know that rape is wrong, but there have been some romances that the hero raped the heroine and they fell in love and I enjoyed it. Rosemary Rogers is notorious for doing this. I do enjoy some of her books. I think it is really relevant because back then women were used like that. They were basically property. If a man/husband wanted to rape her - he did and if her wanted to beat her- he did. It was accepted during that time and I do enjoy a little realism in my books. That being said I do not enjoy contemporary rape books. The laws/rules have changed and it is no longer the norm.

One of my favoite soap couples started up as a rape. Luke and Laura. I was too young to watch the actual rape but it was written very well. The hero regretted his actions and hated himself for it and the heroine eventually forgave him and they fell in love and had children together. They didn't sugar coat the rape and they actually worked through it.

[Regina]

That is not realistic. A survivor can't work through rape and fall in love with the rapist.

Rape of a wife may have not been illegal, but it doesn't mean it was the norm.

[Heather]

Regina wrote: "That is not realistic. A survivor can't work through rape and fall in love with the rapist.

Rape of a wife may have not been illegal, but it doesn't mean it was the norm."

Men married 15 and 16 year old women back then. Today that would be stat. rape. That was normal back then. Women had no rights back then. They were property and basically sold to a man via a dowery. Rape did exist and it was basically accepted.

[Regina]

First of all. This is ridiculously broad as I am not sure when "back then" is, what country you are talking about, etc. There are numerous factors at play. Not every country/culture has an equivalent dowry. Some cutlures presesnted women wtih money to the groom -- so the groom was getting the wife and her money. Other cultures, men had to present the women's family with money. There is much antrhopoplgoical, historical and feminist analysis about this. There is no clean answer as to whether such systems of marriage were prejducial to women just based on the money exchange. Some academics argue that the money enpowered women and gave them status.

But to speak in very general terms, there is a difference between what was prosecuted as a crime and what every man did with his wife and the mother of his children. And rape was not accepted. Rape was and is in many countries still, considered a crime against the men in the woman's life -- her husband, her father, her brothers -- and depending on culture, time period -- the men "protecting" the women would seek out justice in different ways. So to say rape was accepted is not generally true.

Now, generally speaking -- men were considered to have sexual rights to their wife and the concept of rape in marriage was nonexistent (again what time period???) -- how could a man rape his wife? To introduce this concept in the US was a very long battle waged by feminists and rape surivor advocates and was still being fought in the 1990s -- and not all states in the US hae equal laws in terms of recognizing marital rape. Even in this modern day and age, marital rape is nearly impossible to get charged and even harder to prove and thus get a conviction. But the legalities aside, the majority of men were not forcing their wives to have sex. But my point is, even in the 1970s through 90s when marital rape was not even on the books, it still wasn't standard for women to get raped by their husbands. Just because it was not a crime, doesn't mean that it was accepted. It could mean (doesn't neccesarrily mean) that people were willing to let these exceptions pass, but really just on a general basis it is hard to make assumptions.

Everyone married younger, they lived shorter lives. There was no concept of teenagers, people became adults in what we now consider teens. In the past 100 years our concepts of aging and maturity have greatly changed, thus our laws have adapted with them.

I do agree that violence against women has always existed in most western civilizations, along with others -- as it still does. And I do agree (if this is what you are implying) that standards as to violence against women have slowly been changing in some cultures. However, I do not think that a sampling of bodice ripper romance novels (not written for their hisotircal accuracy) are examples of what was sexy or common place between husbands and wives during the time periods they are supposed to represent. These books were written for consumption, not for historical accuracy.

[Heather]

I never said that they were historically accurate. A bit of realism doesn't = historically accurate. I am basically talking about the dark ages, viking ages, stuff like that. Fedualism reigned and wars and battles were constant. I am basically talking about Europe not any other part. We have different opinion, but rape was generally accepted. A women had not rights and it really couldn't be proved accurately. Yes there were people that wanted justice for women getting raped, but I am not talking about that.

[Regina]

What do you mean by realism if not historically accurate?

Women's rights aside, that really isn't up for disagrement, I still do not understand how the lack of rights equals that it is realistic to expect that women fell in love with their attackers? If you are saying that all women were raped and/or all men were rapists then I would love to see a historical text that states that b/c I have not heard that and would find that interesting. Is that what you are saying -- all men were rapists, all women were raped, i.e. it was normal for women to find being raped sexually arousing and/or fall in love with their attackers? Because now I am not quite sure what you are saying.

[Hiddenheart]

I do not have a problem reading rape scenes. I was raised on horror and gore and hardship. But, I am another person that agrees that it should not involve the hero, and that the girl doesn't just get over it.
I have several friends that will put a book down, even if it is the best book they've read, if they come across a rape scene. The Lovely Bones has a rape scene in the first chapter that is actually very mild compared to other scenes in different books that I've read previously. It just surprised me that they wouldn't just skip over it, and read past it. Instead, they put the book down for good. Although I believe that this is a bit extreme, I can understand their opinions.

[Suzanne (Under the Covers Book blog)]

See, I agree that the rape scene The Lovely Bones isn't pleasent, it isn't only rape but paedophilia as well, but it is such a good book and treats it sensatively.

[Sasa]

Regina wrote: "What do you mean by realism if not historically accurate?

Women's rights aside, that really isn't up for disagrement, I still do not understand how the lack of rights equals that it is realistic..."

When I was a Gender & Queer Studies minor, we took classes that delved deeper into these adolescent women/men relationships. We learned that a wife was not allowed to refuse their husband sex even if they didn't want it so, in essence, many women were raped (yes, a husband can rape his wife). Rape was only accepted because it could produce a child and back then (even today), people were obsessed about babies.

No, these women did not find the rape sexually gratifying. In fact, many women only married back then because they had no choice. They weren't allowed to have an education, they weren't allowed to have a paying job, and they weren't allowed to exercise any rights that were given to men. How else would they survive in a female-hating era (I personally think we're still living in it)? For financial stability, they married. The only women who were able to survive on their own were women who came from wealthy families but even they couldn't survive if they were to fly from the nest. So the sex was just something else they were required to provide. Honestly, they're not that much different from how a lot of wives are treated by their husbands today: sex slaves, gardeners, cooks, babysitters, seamstresses, bakers, etc...24/7. Women married young so that they were ensured financial stability in the future and so that they wouldn't destroy the family name by not having children (baby obsession!!).

The majority of the women who married back then DID NOT enjoy being sex slaves to their husbands. People can have their own fetishes. It's a disgusting and unrealistic fetish but they can have their own fantasies of bodice rippers. But don't FOR A SECOND call it realistic. It's insulting to rape victims to have this bullshit being treated as a sexual fantasy, for women nonetheless. Just because it was accepted back then doesn't mean it was right and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean the women enjoyed the rape.

**the last bit was not directed to you; I was talking to both of you (Regina) and thought I'd give my 2 cents :3

[Regina]

I hope I didn't imply that historically women enjoyed rape bc I was stating the counter.

[Pamela, Moderatrix]

Okay, I know this is a sensitive topic that people have very strong opinions about. Keep the discussion civil, please. Do not deride or insult anyone else's opinions, kinks, or fetishes.

[Sasa]

Regina wrote: "I hope I didn't imply that historically women enjoyed rape bc I was stating the counter."

No, I know what you were implying. I was siding with you.

[Sasa]

Sabrina Fair wrote: "Interesting topic.

Here are my thoughts on rape scenes, I don't like reading them, but as long as I feel there is a purpose to it and I do feel disgusted by it, then I am usually OK with it. If I ..."

I totally agree here. We were studying de Sade and...yes, he is very twisted and sadistic (also masochistic).

[Ann aka Iftcan]

I too had to study de Sade--for an abnormal psychology class. He's the reason for the word SADISTIC in the English language. He wrote his little "masterpiece" while confined to an insane asylum.

[Pamela, Moderatrix]

And let's criticize the books, not the people who read them. I don't care for de Sade personally, but I know several people who appreciate his work, and none of them are twisted individuals. Heck, we read about stuff that other people might think is twisted and weird. So keep it to the books, please.

[Michelle]

interesting topic indeed, and as a matter of fact, one of my major pet peeves as regarding PNR/UF when it's mishandled. SPOLERS ABOUND AHEAD.

re: "bodice ripper" style romances of the 60s-80s, and the prevalence of "rape turns to love" stories therein - while we're on a historical accuracy quest, i want to toss out the idea that female sexual pleasure is not something that was invented a mere 15 years ago. women of any "back then" that you care to think of had enjoyable sex lives...just sometimes they had to go outside of what was considered proper to do so. think 'dangerous liasons' - the marquess bonks whoever the hell she wants, quite delightedly throughout, until she is busted by society when everyone finds out. a bodice ripper written in the 60s may be about 1700s france, but it's intended audience was a 1960s american. mores pendulum back and forth just like hemlines do, so if at the time, the writer thought that his/her average reader would be appalled at a heroine going out there and getting herself some hot lovin', that scene gets written such that the heroine is forced into enjoying all this passion. thusly, the character isn't a bad bad slut, and by extension, the type of woman who would read these books isn't either.

which brings us back to the PNR/UF topic at hand...

re: anita blake - TDF, i give unto thee a resounding "ditto" on that analysis. LKH painted herself into a corner writing a character who was distinctly uncomfortable with sex in general and promiscuity in particular, so to branch out into more erotic places with the series she had to come up with a way to make this prudish chick enjoy getting laid. i ***despise*** the whole "the ardeur made me do it" cop out. a date rape drug is still a date rape drug when it's called mystical power of woo-woo.

so far, then, this is rape to "allow" female characters to enjoy sex - that way, the character can be portrayed in a sex scene without being a dirty slut. this kind of crap drives me absolutely insane.

i think the other gratuitous reason heroines get raped is to either build the character up or else tear them down, simply as a plot point. bruce wayne gets to become batman by watching his parents get killed, but kick-ass heroines get forged by being sexually assaulted (examples: The Scent of Shadows, Dark Destiny). in the opposite direction, an ass-kicking heroine can be brought down a peg if an author doesn't want her to come off too confidently flawless via rape as plot point (recent example: Storm Born, which i was rather enjoying up until the wtf metaphysical rape at the end).

yes, rape happens and it always has, exactly like murder does/has. plenty of good books involve murder (for example, or any other violent crime), so i don't believe that rape is an off-limits plot device. it's just getting to the point where it's a predictable trope in the genre - i'm starting to expect that SOMEWHERE in a series of books, it gets inevitable that my heroine is going to get raped. and that also makes me absolutely insane.

[Regina]

Michelle I do agree that sexuality and what is erotic is not stagnant, and thus changes over time. For example, wasn't it just in the early to mid '90s that the women on women scenario became mainstream in media, music, movies -- etc as an erotic image? (sidenote -- isn't interesting that in female authored UF and PNR or erotica that this scenario is absent. From what I have seen the majority of same-sex relationships or sexual encounters are m/m.)

I love the theory (obviously not the culture behind it happening ...) and agree that rape in bodice rippers may have been a way to get the character to have sex, express sexuality and write some sex (and thus have readers read some sex). And that these bodice rippers are more of a reflection of the time and period during which they are written -- than of the time they are written about.

Is that what happens to Anita?! She isn't even choosing to have sex?! I am about to start book 4. How dissapointing.

[Aurora Serenity]

TDF Pamela wrote: "Okay, I know this is a sensitive topic that people have very strong opinions about. Keep the discussion civil, please. Do not deride or insult anyone else's opinions, kinks, or fetishes."

Well said.

[Suzanne (Under the Covers Book blog)]

I haven't read all the Anita Blake series as I didn't like the first 3 books, but call me cynical, but to me it sounds like she just wanted an excuse to write erotica, so she used a plot device so she could get Anita to start having sex straight away, in as many ways as possible. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it sounds like from what I have heard and read, she completely changed the series from being an UF to sex with a bit of plot thrown in. I am sure people will disagree, but that is the impression that I got.

[Bobble]

Rape is tossed around way too casually as if it were something to easily get over, like a pimple that has long since healed but there remains a slight scar.

I wish to never read any book that includes rape as a part of the plot. A Reliable Wife The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo It is a cliched plot device that often lends nothing to the value of the story.

The older I get, the more I recognize the amount of violence against women that exists today. Why do so many female authors choose to propagate misogyny?

[Regina]

I think dragon tatoo is different as it is a critique and attack against violence against women and gender bias. But I can see how it would be perceived differently.

[Ann aka Iftcan]

Suzanne--I agree with what you said about her deciding that was a good excuse to change over the Anita series to erotica. Personally I think she should have just started another series and NOT ruined the Anita one, but again, that's just me. I haven't read anything of hers since the second Merry Gentry book and I believe it was the 7th Anita book. I'll read her OLD stuff--you know back when she actually had plot lines, stories, characters that were more than just blow up sex toys. . .But the recent stuff--nope, sorry. I have no probs with her writing erotica if that's what she wants to do, but I don't have to read it, and I wasn't happy with what she did to the Anita books. So, I express my displeasure by not spending my money on her books.

[Suzanne (Under the Covers Book blog)]

That's what I thought, and if she didn't want to carry on writing about Anita, she should have brought the series to an end and concentrated on her erotica one. I didn't really like the Anita Blake to begin with, so I stopped at book 3 (the libaray had them!) there are so many in that series no aswell, I always get a bit suspicious about really long series as I find after a while the books get a bit stale and predictable.

[Alicia]

Personally I don't like to read about rape or watch rape scenes in movies.

[Sandra J]

I'm with you on that one, Alice. I can see where rape is sometimes necessary to a plot. The rape/murder in Lovely Bones is essential to the book. But generally speaking, if I know there's a rape of a main character that occurs in the book, I'll skip the book.

[Pat aka Tygyr]

I agree, Alice. Sometimes rape is essential to the story, but I skip over the descriptions in a book and close my eyes at the movies until it is past. For me it is too much info!