Vaginal Fantasy Book Club discussion
Book Discussion & Recommendation
>
Why do we accept "rapeyness" in fiction?
I think a lot of it has to do with the environment within the book - time period, connection to reality, etc. Since the Iron Duke was steampunk, and so both removed from our reality, and also steeped in the Victorian period, it is a lot easier to distance yourself as a reader (the same can be said for Outlander, with the story taking place in the past, and the inclusion of time travel). There is also the separation of the reader from the material - since it is fiction, and not even pretending to be something else, it is easier to accept what happened. Also, the characters reactions to it make a difference for me. Since, as the ladies said in the hangout, we are inside her head while it is all going on, and we know that she is enjoying, at least partially, what is going on, combined with his reaction to it all later, it is easier for us as a reading population to forgive and move on.Not to say that all of this won't depend on the reader - questionable consent or rape can be a huge trigger for some people - but I think the circumstances in the book make the difference.
(I wasn't offended by it either, though I was annoyed by it's inclusion - I felt like it wasn't necessary to the movement of either the plot or their relationship)
For me it all comes down to character and world development. Rhys's overbearing nature fit in the world and was appropriate for his character. It did leave me feeling uncomfortable, which was really the point. He felt awful for what he did, and that came across. I do see how people would find it offensive, although I didn't find it so.
I think about this a lot, and the reasons we accept it are probably both cultural and hard wired. The four ladies (I don’t remember who said what) have pointed out that we accept things in fantasy that we would never accept in real life. And also that we are so independent in real life, that maybe it just feels good to let go and enjoy allowing a guy to be dominant in our fiction. I agree with both of these points. And some of the authors that have been mentioned as writing particularly rapey scenes, like Christine Feehan and Sherrilyn Kenyon, are some of my favorite authors to read. Heh. To be honest, I find that alpha male stuff unbelievably hot in my fantasy romance. But as mentioned above, it has to be within the confines of the characters and the story. The guy can’t have malicious intentions toward the girl, even if he comes off as too rough because he’s working through his own issues. He can’t want to rape or molest her against her will. He has to want her to enjoy whatever happens between them. And the girl has to be into the guy, even if she’s not ready to admit it for whatever reason.
The basic nature of the romance genre guarantees that they’re going to end up accepting that they’re crazy about each other and we’re going to get our happily ever after.
Can this fly in real life? Probably not. A guy like that, even if he turns you on in the bedroom, would probably be incredibly overbearing and make the rest of your life miserable. And of course no means no, and every guy (and girl) should know it.
But the bottom line is that sexuality is varied and complex. And if we, as readers, get turned on by fantasizing about dominant sexual partners, I don’t think we should feel like something is wrong with our desires, or be ashamed of it.
And that’s my long-winded two cents. :)
I agree with the ladies that have said that it is about the world and the characters. And yes, it is easier to accept things in fiction than it is in real life. For me, being able to see Rhys' remorse for what he did, help to make the whole scene more palatable. It also helped to see where Mina was coming from in her head.
In the Iron Duke the world is far removed from the reality I live in allows me to be able to just go with it, even when the scene makes me uncomfortable.
This is more of a general context answer so bear with me...Honestly, I think we've just become almost desensitized to it to a certain degree. At least in literature. With books set in a certain time period etc. it's almost...expected? I guess. And as a result people kind of have an, "Ok, so THAT happened." response to it.
And as someone (I believe it was Dawn) was hinting it, it's almost sexualized now to a certain degree. Authors try to play up to that kinda overtly kinky side of the reader that gets aroused by fantasizing over being dominated.
Do I think it's acceptable? ...It kinda depends really on how the author handles it. If they're spinning it like they're trying to say that this kind of behaviour is ok then HECK no. But if it's handled relatively sensitively and in a manner that presents the consequences of the action then....I guess? Maybe?
Until the last 2-3 decades of "women's fiction" we just called it sex. What people jokingly call 'bodice rippers' now were stories of 'No-don't-rape-me-hey-I-think-I-love-you through my formative reading years. It sounds ridiculous and horrific, but that was the formula of 'romance' writing in the early 70s. Back then there were no novels distinguishing wanted BDSM from straight-up rape. It was all just called sex.Only in the latter 80s when Harlequin came to the fore did that whole structure soften to a more feminine perspective on sexuality. Prior, despite being written by women, the approach to sex was still very masculine.
I've seen the romance genre become more sensitive to the distinction between rape and rough sex.At least now when it's rape we call it that, and we don't attempt to present sex as one-size-fits-all.
I enjoy this kind of sex scene in my literature but at the same time I realise that it's far from reality and not something I'd accept IRL. For me my concern would only spark if I thought a girl was reading this material and being negatively influenced by it to believe this was acceptable IRL. The hard thing would be knowing when and where that distinction is, but as long as it's being discussed like this I think it's being recognised. I think also that personal experience would influence your POV,my sister had some bad experiences and for her this type of book would be confronting.
I also agree with you all about the story context and character reactions influence how we'd view these situations.
For me, it's because most of the time we're inside the thoughts of both characters. Even though the female character is fighting it, inside she wants him and there's a reason she's pushing him away. In his thoughts, he truly loves her, etc... In real life, rape is a crime of power. Stealing someone's power over their most basic possession (themselves) and forcing them into a situation they don't want. It has nothing to do with love and desire.
Now this is something I can address. I’m not sure how much anyone here knows about D/s : Dominance and Submission – the general catchall for power exchange behaviors such as S/m (Sado/Masochism), B/D (Bondage and Discipline), etc. The central theme of “the lifestyle” is consent. Done within the proper limits, it basically boils down to the submissive offering the power of decisions in particular areas (anything from sex at this place and time, to offering complete control over all parts of their lives). to the Dominant who accepts the offered degree of power over the submissive. As a power exchange lifestyle, “rape” is a common fantasy scenario. One of the appeals of rape fantasy amongst submissives is that they can enjoy the psychological “out” of having any number of sexual fantasies made real, without the stigma of having consented to them (“You slut!”). By switching “no” to a safeword, it leaves them open to pretending to resist, and being able to say no, without it actually meaning no (with the emergency brake of their “safeword” if it’s getting out of their comfort zone). You can say “No, a thousand times, NO!” and your partner is free to ignore it. With the safeword in place, the Dominant can feel free to do as they please, without the toxic gameplaying of “She’s saying no, but she really wants it… or does she?”.So, the writer of a rapey scene is offering the reader a safe rape, because both the writer and reader know that it’s secretly the heroine’s desire, and the seeming rapist is actually sensitive on the inside. The “safeword” is knowing what’s really going on inside him, and the fact that it’s a story. The “safe monster” phenom. Vampires with souls, etc.
Them’s my two bits, at least. YMMV. (I don’t care for rape scenes, btw).
I think there is even a book called RAPE: a love story...
Jeffery wrote: "So, the writer of a rapey scene is offering the reader a safe rape, because both the writer and reader know that it’s secretly the heroine’s desire, and the seeming rapist is actually sensitive on the inside. The “safeword” is knowing what’s really going on inside him, and the fact that it’s a story. The “safe monster” phenom. Vampires with souls, etc. "This is not to say that this is a safe or sane philosophy, given how often intergender communication is based on some sort of telepathy that no one ACTUALLY has, but women still insist that a guy should "know...down deep". Despite the fact that I exited the D/s world some ages ago, I will say this for the formal practice: it is very clear on communicating boundaries and expectations. Done right, of course. Whichhh most people don't, which is why it's so dicey.
I think the whole rapey theme on male characters is a way to show how strong and determined the are, but I honestly think there are better ways to do this. For example, Harry Dresden; I consider him to be a strong male character, yet he's respectful to women, or at least from what I've read so far.
I figured the acceptance of the rapeyness comes from earlier rejection in a woman's life. Escapism into the realm of "this hot man wants me so badly he won't take no for an answer!" after the real life of "I thought that guy was hot, and he laughed in my face when I asked him out." Or maybe we're just all fed up with waiting for the guy to call us after the first date.
@Caitlin - interesting. Here I always thought women had the ultimate power: "Yes". Figured most guys (who haven't settled into a relationship, who are still in courting mode) were sluts for the chance to get some of that. Unless the pairing was seriously unbalanced, eg: age/social position's relative to each other.But I do agree: the "romantic" rape (vs the psycho power struggle reality of rape) is a fury of passionate desire. The problem with it is, if it is about shared passion, it's not about rape. I think it's a synaptic jump - what is really wanted is to be desired, and it's being miscast mentally as a desire to be taken. It ends up putting a positive wish to be wanted in the same basket with being violated, and that's just going to cause no end of confusion, both in the mind of the woman, and men who come a courting.
That impossible dichotomy would explain the "I want a vampire to love me". Trying to fit a supernatural debased predator that lives off of killing people into a chaste disco-ball glittery man-boy's body. Trying to fundementally alter the thing till it's 180 degrees reversed from what it really is. Vampire to boy-toy. Psychotic low-selfesteem acting out by abusing women, into a hot guy giving you the love you deserve.
Which explains it, but still makes it no more palatable to me.
I always think the moment you need to sustain on human blood, and live longer than you should, it's no longer human, and it has to affect the psyche, therefore, not able to think like a human... Ergo, to turn into something that might be human, but in fact it's more alien.
For what it's worth, I don't really accept rapeyness in fiction. I get irritated at best, and angry at worst. It's an overused trope to the point where it's become a cliche. I don't want to see women as passively accepting sex - I want to see them in active pursuit of their own fulfillment.
Hi all, new here.I wish I had the book to refer to, but I didn't read this scene as rape and was surprised others did. I know it's really annoying when other people look at a scene in romance that is obviously rape and refuse to call it that -- i.e., it's not rape because it worked for me -- so I'd love to hear more from people who did think it was rape.
To me, it was a misunderstanding of signals. Which, come to think of it, doesn't mean that it wasn't rape but that Rhys wasn't a rapist, if that makes sense. Sort of like the rape equivalent of involuntary manslaughter. The intentions weren't bad, but the person is just as dead.
Rachel wrote: "It's an overused trope to the point where it's become a cliche. I don't want to see women as passively accepting sex - I want to see them in active pursuit of their own fulfillment. "Here here. I had a conversation some time back with a ...less...complex coworker. He was lamenting finding a girl to marry. I voiced my doubt about that - he was young, well put together. He explained he had no trouble meeting girls, but club girls were okay to fuck, but not marry. He wanted a virgin. I asked why he wanted a virgin, that I preferred a woman with experience, who knew what she wanted and what to do. He snorted...and I prepared myself for an answer that I was sure was going to piss me off. "With a virgin, you get to teach her what she wants." Sure enough, I found my fist balled up, ready to punch him in his smug provincial domestically evil face. Every time I start to think we're living in the 21st century, all it takes is the rest of the country opening it's mouth and boom - we're back in the 50's again.
@Jeffery - Did you punch him? But yea maybe that is why he won't ever find a girl to marry.(At least let's hope not...) It's sad but there are way too many people who refuse to change their thinking. Lucky for me I found a gentleman and he found someone who knew what she wanted!
As far as the main question I agree a lot has to do with the context of the situation. Plus, I think knowing it is just a story makes it more okay than if it would happen in real life. In our minds we can still differentiate.
I'm generally not willing to let 'it's just a story!' slide by as a good excuse for the rapeyness of a particular work. I've studied a lot of Joseph Campbell, and his work has taught me that it's never *just* a story. I think there's something to be learned by the fact that a lot of romance scenes are of the female character being overwhelmed by passion and giving into the male character; and not of a female character actively pursuing someone she finds attractive.
I understand what you mean, because whatever we read/watch/play does impact us in someway or another. But if someone reads a book about a murderer that doesn't mean that they think it's okay to go out and kill someone. Same with rapeyness, It's obviously not okay.
@Rachel - it may be a pendulum. Back in the late 90's, in San Fran at least, with all the money coming in from the first dot.com boom, saw young professionals embracing the symbols of their parent's generation: buying homes, drinking cocktails, smoking cigars. They didn't embrace the whole package, but there were elements, sigils, that made them feel they'd arrived. Not the "Me" generation from the 80's, ugly wealth, but the freedom and security of money, after the stigma of the 80's, the rejection of wealth for earthy healthiness in the 70's, and the rejection of their parent's generation entirely in the 60's. In fact, something like MadMen might have done EVEN BETTER back then. So you are seeing an element of "wanting to be 'weak' " as a reaction to the push for independence, and the demonizing of the masculine of the last 4 decades. Many men became more "sensitive" (often inorganically - as in: not a natural process) as per the request of the feminist movement, and it's left both sides uncertain as to where they should be, who they should be, particularly in regards to each other. I wrote about BDSM earlier, and one of the common "truths" about it is that many Dom/mes tend to for one reason or other be dealing with having felt powerless, whereas many submissives come from a situation where they are often in a position of authority, in control, making decisions, and seek a place where they aren't in control, a vacation from responsibility. So, the internalized desire to be dominated that occurs in "romances" may be a result of the decades of fighting to gain control, and having reached it, are finding they need a break.
It's a complex situation, where either of these factors could be significant, or neither of them. People's brains are funny.
@ Chloe: It's about context. Usually, if a book involves someone being killed, it's portrayed as a terrible crime which requires justice to be served. The characters who murder indiscriminately, or commit violent, remorseless crimes are generally written as unsympathetic characters and villains. So I would have less of a problem with 'rapey' sex scenes if, afterward, the characters reacted with 'that was not okay!' It's why I had such a problem with Gabriel's Ghost - it's not that [You Know Which Character] did what he did, it's that no one thought he was wrong. @Jeffrey: I'm not sure I buy the 'women secretly want to be dominated by men because independence is hard' argument. Especially because the reverse is not true; unless you know of Victorian or Renaissance writers I don't who liked to deal with themes of men being sexually dominated by women (in popular fiction, not erotica). And regarding modern BDSM - there are many, many male subs and female tops. Kink is a fairly complicated topic, and it attracts all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons.
My theory is that there's still a very large stigma against uninhibited female sexuality - an unattached woman who pursues sex in the same manner as a man is likely to get slut-shamed for it. Being tied up, or being overwhelmed by male passion, is a safe way out. The woman still gets to enjoy sex, but the feelings of helplessness also allow her to avoid taking responsibility for the act. So she's not a 'slut', the sex is something that 'just happened.'
Rachel wrote: "I'm not sure I buy the 'women secretly want to be dominated by men because independence is hard' argument. Especially because the reverse is not true; unless you know of Victorian or Renaissance writers I don't who liked to deal with themes of men being sexually dominated by women (in popular fiction, not erotica). And regarding modern BDSM - there are many, many male subs and female tops. Kink is a fairly complicated topic, and it attracts all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons."Actually, the Dom/sub thing wasn't intended to show a gender preference - the modern classic sterotype, in fact, is just that: Female Domme, male sub. None of what I said was intended as a global truth, but they are factors in many cases in the D/s community. Consider the pairing you pointed out: the problems of gender equality are still obviously present in the world (little slice of Rush Limburger, anyone?), hence a woman who has felt "powerless" in life, if she were D/s inclined, might well look for power in this venue. Again, not a universal truth, but it both addresses your example while supporting the suggestion I made.
I might put forward that the contemporary situation is very different than it was in the Victorian Era or the Renaissance - as you say, outside of erotica, the notion of any discussion of gender roles was simply not done. Doesn't mean it didn't exist - from Hatshepsut donning the ceremonial beard when she became Pharaoh to the wife with the rolling pin and the henpecked husband. It simply didn't have a vocabulary. Today, however, we discuss all aspects of our lives and recognize all manner of relationships. Consider that 150 years ago, a woman wearing trousers might be assaulted in the street and have no recourse because she "had it coming" for dressing like that. She could be arrested, or considered mentally unbalanced, and just might be..one of THOSE sorts of women. The love that dare not speak it's name. Today, it can be difficult to find a woman with more than one dress in her closet, if any. How far we've come...unless you're a man who wants to wear women's clothing. He can be assaulted in the street and have no recourse because "he had it coming" for dressing like that. He can be arrested or considered mentally unbalanced (there's a psychological term for it), and just might be..one of THOSE sorts of men. The love that dare not speak it's name. How far we have to go...
Not to mention the whole notion of gender roles is flawed when trying to establish equality, because it locks in a particular behavior set for genders, in which case neither gender will ever be equal so long as we define behaviors by gender, rather than preferences. Weak, strong, supportive, agressive, etc etc. That said, despite the progress made, the roles remain to a greater or lesser extent, alive in this country, depending on where you're at. They continue to influence us, in one way or another, if as nothing else, than a force to push off against.
As to "independence is hard", well, it is. Which is why the classic businessman/senator caught with a leash and dog collar on in movies and fiction supports the notion. I can suggest, that much like the american revolution, possibly the sexual revolution was pushed forward (as it had to - I'm not dissing it) by a subset and that it obliged many women to take on the independent role regardless of whether they might be happy with it. (how many times have you heard the argument of a woman who decides she wants to be a mother and a housewife, and is considered weak for it, and inversely, seen as making an independent choice, depending on who is discussing it). How a woman who wants that role, feels pressured to be more independent, against her natural inclination. Again, not a global truth, but an angle to consider. The whole fad of men recapturing their inner MAN (all caps, drumming circle optional) is an example of the reverse - men who weren't ready to try to behave civilized, feeling "pushed" to be something other than they felt they should be (again, not supporting the notion that ANYONE, male or female in the civilized world should behave anything but civilized). Why do you think the term "Political Correctness" is so demonized today. Whole sectors of society are still chaffing at being forced to behave like they should be walking upright - which just reemphasizes why it's needed in the first place.
All of this, is of course, conditional on the individual, their background, their community, their natural inclinations. Some women come to an independent spirit all on their own, just as some men are naturally inclined to subordination (nature). Some need help to find their way (nurture). Some are dogged and determined to remain just as they are (anywhere from free will to diminished capacity). And any hue in the spectrum between the two positions.
Trust me on this, I am not in any way defending rapeyness in books, but simply putting forward options for WHY some people find it acceptable. I deal in far too many grey areas to claim any of this as definitive, or fact. Though as a fun fact, as you brought up the Victorian Era, and an independent woman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charley_.... Charley was a local legend in my home town of Santa Cruz. A stage driver back in the gold rush. He rode hard, fought bandits, and was discovered on his deathbed, to actually be Charlotte.
willaful wrote: "To me, it was a misunderstanding of signals. Which, come to think of it, doesn't mean that it wasn't rape but that Rhys wasn't a rapist, if that makes sense. Sort of like the rape equivalent of involuntary manslaughter. The intentions weren't bad, but the person is just as dead. "Really? A woman saying "No! Stop!" and clawing at the guy's head and pulling his hair is a mixed signal? Tell me, what does a lady have to do to convey that she doesn't want to have sex/be raped?
Caitlin wrote: "Really? A woman saying "No! Stop!" and clawing at the guy's head and pulling his hair is a mixed signal? Tell me, what does a lady have to do to convey that she doesn't want to have sex/be raped?"I think there's a form you have to fill out, and get notarized...in advance of such time as you are planning to resist said rape...
Sarge wrote: "I think there's a form you have to fill out, and get notarized...in advance of such time as you are planning to resist said rape... "I've been doing it wrong! I will get right on this.
Are we talking regular notarized procedures, or Vogon-like bureaucracy here? If so, is there poetry involved?.
Caitlin wrote: "Really? A woman saying "No! Stop!" and clawing at the guy's head and pulling his hair is a mixed signal? Tell me, what does a lady have to do to convey that she doesn't want to have sex/be raped?"
Like I said, I don't have the book to refer to. If that is actually in the book, then I must have been blind or something. I'll have to rerequest it and read it again.
Okay, I was able to download it from overdrive. Yes, she does say no -- literally, "no." without exclamation points, and without saying stop -- and pulls his hair. After she has previously said "yes," and right before she says "I need it too much."
I'm not arguing that she isn't allowed to change her mind. I'm not arguing that she didn't feel violated or that she didn't have a right to feel violated. I'm saying that the scene as written shows a misunderstanding of signals. You're entitled to feel differently, but please use the actual text to make your point.
I would add, I think if someone asked Rhys if he had raped her, he would say yes without hesitation. He knows what he did. It just wasn't intentional.
I didn't read The Iron Duke as rape, but I see many others did. While I don't necessarily agree, I can see that others might have a different perception of the situations.General response: As for rapeyness, I really try to be sensitive about this subject matter when I talk about it. I realize that some people have had really bad experiences and aren't able to read these storylines without revisiting it. While I don't condone rape, I can read a story that has a forced/dubious consent scenario without being offended, so long as it is not a loud and clear rape. On a visceral level, I don't like the idea that a woman would be forced to have sex, or subject to any kind of violent sexual encounter, period. However, I don't necessarily read every scenario where the hero is pushing sexually against a reluctant heroine as rape. While I would never force anyone to read something they are not comfortable with or question their comfort zones, I don't think that readers should feel chastised if they don't have an issue with dubious consent, because not everyone has the same buttons.
Sometimes I can be repulsed by a sexually aggressive hero, and sometimes I like it. It depends on the situation and how it is written. Some authors write sexually aggressive heroes I can't stand, and some authors I actually seek out because they show the passion and the powerful love behind the hero's feelings towards the heroine.
"Pain lashed through his scalp as she pulled at his hair.""'Please, Trahearn. No more. I can't feel this much, I can't-'"
"He pushed her relentlessly, relishing every muffled cry, every sobbing moan."
If you don't have a previous relationship with someone where they've explicitly told you "Don't stop if I protest, here is a safe word we can use instead", continuing on when you're in a situation like the one above is rape. Someone can be aroused, say no, and if you continue, it isn't "crossed signals". It's rape. That's why so many people laugh at men who claim to have been raped by woman. "Well she couldn't have done it unless you wanted it." Some times, our bodies betray us. And any time we excuse behaviour like this, we make another rape victim that feels as though he/she didn't fight back hard enough feel as though they deserved what happened to them, because their body betrayed them.
Arturo wrote: "Are we talking regular notarized procedures, or Vogon-like bureaucracy here? If so, is there poetry involved?."Bwa ha ha ha...that was awesome. I know I'm not the only one who got that.
On a serious note, though, I don't know about the rest of you, but I was taught that "no" meant "no" and nothing else. I don't care how aroused I might be, if I said no and a guy didn't stop, I would be instantly furious. I realize that books are a form of escapism and that different people have different responses to those kinds of scenes, but how can we expect men to know that "no" does indeed mean "no" if the majority of fiction aimed at women (not just scifi/fantasy/romance) contains that sort of behavior? "No" should be perfectly cut and dry; if an author wants a rapey-type scene, there are plenty of other words that can be used to imply restraint, self conciousness, concern, indecisiveness, etc.
I read a LOT of historical romance novels, and it always, always, always aggravates the heck out of me when it comes to the seduction scenes and the women "let it happen" like some said earlier in the discussion. One might argue that in that era, women were so repressed that the man MUST push in order to get the women to do...what they want them to do...something they clearly don't want...where was I going with that? Oh right, the man must make some sort of push to get the women to feel their sexuality. However, since the majority of the heroines in these romance novels are written with very contemporary personalities and ideals, shouldn't they also be enlightened enough to say no? No matter how different than the historical-norm they may be, that characterization is always suspended when a man comes into the room. Gross.
It is pretty clear that any time there is a romantic scene, respect is pretty much thrown out the door. No matter what kind of hero you have, which is pretty darn sad. And yes, I may continue to read romance novels, but I skip those scenes in every book, because they make me lose respect for the characters on both sides.
I didn't read The Iron Duke, but don't even get me STARTED on Gabriel's Ghost...
AnnaBanana wrote: "but how can we expect men to know that "no" does indeed mean "no" if the majority of fiction aimed at women (not just scifi/fantasy/romance) contains that sort of behavior? "No" should be perfectly cut and dry; if an author wants a rapey-type scene, there are plenty of other words that can be used to imply restraint, self conciousness, concern, indecisiveness, etc. "THAT is basically what I've been trying to say. Trans-gender (not transgender, mind you) communication can be muddy enough, without the narrative world tossing on an even denser coat of obfuscation. One of the reasons I got into the D/s world was that I had repeatedly walked away from situations that I learned in retrospect I would have been welcome to pursue, but I stepped away from because on the surface they gave all the outward signs of rejection, and i have always been keen to respect people's boundaries. In D/s, well, kosher D/s, everything is agreed upon up front. However, it takes a lot of work, and carries a lot of responsibility for the Dom/me. Having spent a few years on both ends of the crop, I finally walked away from it too. Too many bells and whistles. These days, my primary kink: sex as an extension of mutual expressed affection. Imagine the weird sex that emerges when two people like each other and are invested in mutual pleasure. What sort of freak does that make me?
As to the repression of the "age" - it's true and not true. In the Victorian age there was certainly a civil social order, in public. But behind closed doors anything could happen. Much of the codified behavior of D/s CAME from that era. Strong independent women, compassionate and supportive men, wild positions, et al. Even 40 years after the death of Victoria, in the an era that most modern people would find sexually "repressive", Dr. Marston created the character of Wonder Woman. Based on his work in developing the polygraph, he came to (incorrectly) conclude that women were more trustworthy than men, and that appreciation lead to a lifelong respect for women...to the point he lived with two of them for the rest of his life. Polygamy is a touchy subject even in the modern era - can you imagine what it would have looked like back then if it had been common knowldge? And we're not talking about a religious nut living away from the eyes of men. So, don't simply go on the argument that the repression of the age is a limiting factor on sexual freedom. A brief study of history will show that any sort of relationship is possible in a historical setting, so long as it works within the bounds of the world it's set in.
I may have to stop reading these books, and just enjoy listening to the podcast, because the relationship gameplaying is all too familair and makes my teeth itch. I'm sure most people don't have perfect relationships, but is a toxically unrealistic fanstasy about "safe rape" any healthier than a dewy eyed perfect romance? It's like Pentecostals: the notion that holding a venomous snake and not being bitten as proof of God's devotion, is akin to believing that a man who rapes you is actually falling in love with you. You're goning to have to endure a lot of rapes before you find that man, if ever.
Rape has a place in fiction (see: Jacqueline Carey's series), but I think of it more of a trial for a character to go through than foreplay :/
I am very confused by this topic, myself. The weird thing is that is creeps/scares the hell out of me to even TRY to imagine being raped but on the other side I do like reading stories that involve this. I guess, that's what you could call a guilty pleasure.I have had, I would say, light experiences with molesting and such at a young age and it effect my sexlife for a while (I would even go this far and say, it still does) and yet, I don't feel offended when reading about this kind of stuff.
I do sympathize with people who feel reminded of personal experiences but I also read a lot about the phenomenon that, especially those people go looking for rapey stories and really enjoy them. I have been researching (or at least trying to) about this discrepancy but have yet to find an explanation. There are a lot of women who say that this is a fantasy or them.
I guess, that means what people commented on before: there is a strict line between fantasy and reality. Fiction or fantasies are helpful to explore something without being endangered.
Also, this is my opinion and my feelings about reading something like that: you can enjoy it without actually "giving yourself up" to someone else, as you would in a real roleplay (like S/M and/or D/s). People like me might have fantasies that they are embarrassed of (namely the rape thing) or are afraid of getting weird looks for, even insults. Also there has to be a whole lot of trust on both sides which I, myself, never experienced THAT much so I would ask or even talk about those fantasies.
As for fiction (again, only my opinoin, of course): you feel with the character, you feel the danger, you might even have the same mixed feelings about the situation, but at the same time your are save. It's not happening to you. At the end of the day you can close the book and all is good.
On kind of a side note: As you can see, I am clearly the submissive kind... I guess, but I also noticed something the girls talked about in one video... When playing games like Leisure Larry (at least they talked about the game though) or other kinds that are sexual and you are put into the dominant role, I don't feel with the victim. Depending on the game, sometimes not at all. My goal is to get the "mission" done. I even find myself swearing, if I (sorry for the pun) screw up. It confuses me a bit. It's not like I'm sitting here raping cartoon characters all the time, mind you. lol
@Jeffrey - That's where the distinction between what a woman (anyone, really) wants in the bedroom doesn't mean that's the treatment she wants in the rest of life. So many men just don't get that distinction, and that's where the core of concerns around rape mentality lie.Yes, many people enjoy rape fantasies. The thing is, the fact that it's wanted AND a fantasy makes it not rape. Again, it's men who can't distinguish those two that are the crux of the concern. And these guys do exist. Spend 10 minutes on Fetlife and watch them defend that women want to be raped, and/or that there is no difference between rape fantasy and rape.
Kelley wrote: "@Jeffrey - That's where the distinction between what a woman (anyone, really) wants in the bedroom doesn't mean that's the treatment she wants in the rest of life. So many men just don't get that ..."I'll take that bait, sexist though it be.
In the last, say, 20 years, usually when you see the D/s lifestyle portrayed in film/tv/fiction (outside of romance /erotica - both of which are targeted predominately towards women and specifically are about love/sex) the dominant has been female. This character tends to serve the purpose of either being a villain, or a foil to one of the main characters’' provincialism ("Loosen up - It's a healthy expression of sexual exploration"). However, if it's a male dominant, they are treated as a "sicko", who is either the villain, or a red herring who the main character still tries to punish in some way or other. Why is this? Because fiction that is sympathetic to a male figure exercising power over a female, is considered endorsing the subjugation of women. It would be decried as perpetuating negative female stereotypes, and the reader/viewer would be directed towards more positive role models for male/female relationships, whereas the dominatrix would be lauded as a kick-ass independent woman.
If there were a genre of fiction that was targeted specifically towards males the way romance is towards women, that featured "rape positive" behaviors from the rapist's point of view, there would be no understanding that it is just a mental fantasy and/or just in the bedroom – the male reader would be seen as a rapist waiting to happen. Don’t think so? Put a rapee positive romance novel in a woman’s cubicle and have it discovered by a male coworker, and there’d just be some eye-rolling. Put a rapist positive “romance” in a man’s cubicle, and have a female coworker discover it, and he’d be down in HR getting a lecture, if not fired, in nothing flat. The romance novel rapist is understood by the reader to be offering fulfillment for the main character’s secret desire – the reverse would not be seen so charitably.
Goose, meet gander. Gander, meet…hey…knock that off…
Sarge wrote: "Kelley wrote: "@Jeffrey - That's where the distinction between what a woman (anyone, really) wants in the bedroom doesn't mean that's the treatment she wants in the rest of life. So many men just ..."I've read this WHOLE thread through about three times now and something interesting stands out to me. A few things in fact
1) The excuse that it isn't really rape because she is in love with him and doesn't know it - There are many real life rapist who do believe exactly this about the woman and use it to justify their actions to themselves.
2) The "safe rape" justification - (discounting B/D & S/M because in my experience those leading those lifestyles make a choice- I'll get back to it) is a stupid excuse for a woman not willing to take responsibility for her sexual wants. That's just crap. Why do you NEED an out? Because big bad society will call you a slut? Well then ladies - even one of us needs to think this conversation through because until we stop pretending we need an excuse to be who we are we are never going to see real equality.
So we think we need an out to dodge responsibility for sex we want - unfair to men much?
We call that girl at the office a slut because she doesn't need an out and goes for what she wants - Hypocrite much?
We teach our daughters to worry more about how they look, & their reputation (in regards to sex) than about clear communication and talking with their partners - Failed parenting much?
Really Ladies, the fact is that if we as a gender can't take responsibility for what we want and communicate it clearly then we make it harder to separate the guys who would take no for an answer if they could be certain from the guys who would strip us of our control for the sheer pleasure of humiliating us. Not all men are predators.
How about a self assured female lead who knows what she wants? Or a shy female lead who learns to be assertive (without a guy raping her first)?
3) The posters who mentioned consequences - YES YES YES - When we can see the consequences on both sides then we have story truer in human experience.
4) Posters who said Rape should be take out entirely - unfortunately, check out history and current events Rape is a favored weapon in wars, and struggles throughout the globe. It is used a a tool for subjegation, humiliation, and intimidation. Pretending it doesn't exist is no more realistic than the raped heroine who suddenly falls in love with the bastard who raped her.
If it's in a book - it should be relevant to the story and integral to character and / or plot development. If you could remove it without changing the story then it didn't belong there in the first place. It's there to sell books the way the Go Daddy girls sell hosting...
Posting a triggers warning isn't a bad thought though and I agree with that
5) Escapism / Fantasy rape - this links back to what the gentleman (I call him that on purpose - read his posts) mentioned regarding B/D S/M - this is a lifestyle and you aren't generally inducted the way Porn would have you believe. You get a choice, communication is key, and while the phonetics of your refusal change from NO to a safeword - you accept responsibility for your choice (or should) by agreeing to accept the terms of this life / play style. So again we come back to Women & men taking responsibility for their wants and for their actions.
Sarge has it right when he says:
"Put a rapee positive romance novel in a woman’s cubicle and have it discovered by a male coworker, and there’d just be some eye-rolling. Put a rapist positive “romance” in a man’s cubicle, and have a female coworker discover it, and he’d be down in HR getting a lecture, if not fired, in nothing flat."
So here's what I am hearing:
Some say - rapey scenes are ok for (see reasons above)
others say - rape is rape end of story
My thought - Rape is Rape and there should be consequences on both sides. Women should be able and allowed to (read: no slut shaming) express their desire for sex and they should accept responsibility for it.
There are still plenty of steamy sex scenes you can have with an alpha male and a female who clearly says what she wants - ask my hubby ;)
My two cents
*~ MAJK ~*
Let me also get in that to everyone who is participating in this conversation THANK YOU. It's conversations like this where everyone is sharing ideas with no name calling that really enhance this book club.I enjoyed hearing what every single one of you had to say whether I agreed with you or not.
Great Topic Vicky!
:: cheers for MAJK ::You touched on something I've been trying to figure out how to say. While I understand that rape fantasies are common among women, it's not one I particularly share. It's also not the *only* fantasy that women have. So why are there not more romance scenes involving those fantasies and kinks? I'd *love* to read more books where the heroine was a far more active participant (seriously - if anyone has any recommendations, do tell!!).
And 'rapey' doesn't mean 'female submission', either. Phedre, in Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel's Dart trilogy, is exceptionally submissive. But she's still able to effectively communicate her desires and draw her own boundaries - and when those boundaries are transgressed, the reader is horrified.
I haven't read The Iron Duke but I have followed this thread with great interest, since it's such an important but heavy issue. I don't have anything to add to the discussion, but I do want to join in with a thank you to all who are taking part in the discussion. Caitlin and MAJK, you have spoken the words I couldn't find and I agree on pretty much everything you've said. Also, I'll echo the wish/need for a trigger warning. I know people who are survivors of sexual violence and I've seen how sudden exposure to a rape scene in fiction (tv/movie/books) affected them. I can't imagine what it's like actually being in that position, but what I've seen 'from the outside' is enough for me to never wish that on anyone. One small warning can make a huge difference.
MAJK wrote: "My thought - Rape is Rape and there should be consequences on both sides. Women should be able and allowed to (read: no slut shaming) express their desire for sex and they should accept responsibility for it."I wish I could be as eloquent as you. *bows*
MAJK wrote: " 1) The excuse that it isn't really rape because she is in love with him and doesn't know it - There are many real life rapist who do believe exactly this about the woman and use it to justify their actions to themselves.That’s what I was trying (poorly) to say about muddying the waters between men and women.
2) The "safe rape" justification - (discounting B/D & S/M because in my experience those leading those lifestyles make a choice- I'll get back to it) is a stupid excuse for a woman not willing to take responsibility for her sexual wants. That's just crap. Why do you NEED an out? Because big bad society will call you a slut? Well then ladies - even one of us needs to think this conversation through because until we stop pretending we need an excuse to be who we are we are never going to see real equality.
So we think we need an out to dodge responsibility for sex we want - unfair to men much?
We call that girl at the office a slut because she doesn't need an out and goes for what she wants - Hypocrite much?
If you’ll pardon a little indelicacy, this touches on something I’ve felt strongly about for some time. Do you love having sex with your mate/partner? Does the thought of it get you all fidgety? Does it have the same effect on them? Do you go out, do your job, care for your kids, do the shopping, etc…? Guess what: you’re a slut…and your mate better be too, otherwise he’s wasting you. You SHOULD be a slut for them, and they for you. It has no bearing on anything else in your life. It doesn’t affect how good a CEO you are, how good a school teacher you are, how kind, compassionate, caring you are. It’s about doing something that feels really good for you, and in turn doing something that feels really good for the person you ostensibly love, and NOTHING ELSE. As Dorothy Sayers says in “Busman’s Honeymoon”: “The worst sin - perhaps the only sin - passion can commit, is to be joyless.”
I used to call my girlfriend at work, after a …good morning, and remind her of what we’d done…where her mouth had been, what I’d been doing to her. And I could see her in my head, going into a meeting, the eyes of her coworkers on her…did she blush, wondering if anything was showing, did they know, as it was fresh in her mind again, or was she even more fiercely confident, as if to say “Hell yeah I did that – and you should see what I’m going to do to him when I get home! Maybe twice!”
So let’s reclaim slut; not let it reduce us, but elevate us. I AM a slut - I’m just not YOUR slut.
If it's in a book - it should be relevant to the story and integral to character and / or plot development. If you could remove it without changing the story then it didn't belong there in the first place. It's there to sell books the way the Go Daddy girls sell hosting...
The Go Daddy Girl is the Hooters for geeks.
Posting a triggers warning isn't a bad thought though and I agree with that
Warning: may contain antiquated depictions of male/female relations. Side effects may include: hurling the book out of the window, then the sudden realization it was on your Kindle…
5) Escapism / Fantasy rape - this links back to what the gentleman (I call him that on purpose - read his posts)
Ouch…last time someone accused me of that was when I excused Clinton for lying to congress about Monica. “He did what was appropriate. A gentleman doesn’t embarrass his wife by making his indiscretions public”.
My thought - Rape is Rape and there should be consequences on both sides. Women should be able and allowed to (read: no slut shaming) (love this term) express their desire for sex and they should accept responsibility for it.
There are still plenty of steamy sex scenes you can have with an alpha male and a female who clearly says what she wants - ask my hubby ;)
Amen, to all of the above. The truth will out.
I have a safe word... and my safe word is "No!"
I use it when I want you to back away from me before I pepper-spray you, o creepy stranger/creepy uncle AND I use it when I'm retaining water and the object of my lust needs to get their hands off my boobs because they're painfully sensitive and I'm about to start crying from the bad-pain. See how that's not actually a mixed signal? It means, in both cases, wait for it... "No". I want to kick the crap out of anyone, real-life or literary- who doesn't back the fuck off when they hear those words, even if it’s only (in the latter scenario) to assess the situation and realise you've pushed an otherwise consenting partner past their limit and they just need a moment to calm down before forging ahead- as The Iron Duke should have but didn’t. I put the "rapey-sex" label to that scene stemming from the glaring fact that he didn't even pause when she freaked out.
"Safe, Sane, & Consensual" really needs to become a mainstream concept and it should certainly be a part of a book that claims to have a romantic bent, the way birth control is now a normal thing to take into consideration in so many romance-themed novels. I can understand how it can fit into a storyline, particularly a historical one, but not when romanticised as merely being part of a forceful personality, certainly not in a novel written in the last 20+ years.
I would love to see some comparisons of the ages of writers vs the amount of rapey-sex they write (and the age of readers vs the amount of rapey sex they’re willing to read, because I don’t know any women 25-35 who think that anyone other than themselves are in charge of their sexualities). I’d also love to see a book or scene described as “rape-friendly” instead of “rapey-sex” to see if it gets the same amount of justification and acceptance.
Sarge wrote: "Posting a triggers warning isn't a bad thought though and I agree with that Warning: may contain antiquated depictions of male/female relations. Side effects may include: hurling the book out of the window, then the sudden realization it was on your Kindle…"
That's a bit insensitive. Trigger warnings about rape scene are a good idea, because a person who has been raped in the past would love a heads up that there is material in the book that can trigger terrible memories at an unexpected time. I don't think it's something to make a joke about.
Caitlin wrote: "That's a bit insensitive. Trigger warnings about rape scene are a good idea, because a person who has been raped in the past would love a heads up that there is material in the book that can trigger terrible memories at an unexpected time. I don't think it's something to make a joke about. "Wow...REALLY...we're doing this...now? After all the pussyfooting around people minimizing the offensiveness of rape in here, and my LENGTHY posts on the danger of people fantasizing rape as not just entertainment but a turn on... and...
I apologize...no offense was intended.
Sarge wrote: "I apologize...no offense was intended. "I'm sorry if my comment made you feel singled out. I'm just a bit frustrated in my life outside of here also where my friends make rape jokes and laugh at the idea of trigger warnings.
Vaginal Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Assassin's Honor (other topics)Speak (other topics)
Personally, I wasn't offended by the scene from The Iron Duke. I can also recall similar situations in other books I've read (Outlander, for one) that haven't offended me while reading. But taking a step back and thinking about the situations, I would absolutely be offended (and then some) if someone in the real world were in that situation today. No means no and rape is rape.
So I got to thinking about why I wasn't offended by scenes like these in my reading. In The Iron Duke it worked within the confines of the story and the characters, in Outlander it was representative of the time of the novel. Then I remembered a contemporary book I read about a teenage girl who was sexually abused by her step-fathe. I was definitely offended by that book (not in the sense that I stopped reading it, but I hated the step-father).
So my question is - what is it that makes these scenes acceptable in literature? Is it the setting? The characters? Is the author's ability to justify the situation within the confines of the story a factor? It it a general desensitization of our society towards sex/violence in media?
What do you all think?