Vaginal Fantasy Book Club discussion
Book Discussion & Recommendation
>
Why do we accept "rapeyness" in fiction?
Sarge wrote: "So let’s reclaim slut; not let it reduce us, but elevate us. I AM a slut - I’m just not YOUR slut."This is empowering and also challenging. I don't know exactly how I feel about it, but thank you.
i know that by saying what im about to say I'll step on very thin ice, so pretty please, please understand I'm not going to approve rape ( rapists should be locked into an iron maiden and then impaled). After this introduction I'll cut to the chase: what makes alpha male's rape acts popular in VF is the afterwards; Real life rapist tend to disappear as soon as they done, while fictional ones (Rhys is a good exaple) do everything in they power to gain the woman's everything and this might appeal to readers
Kamil wrote: "Real life rapist tend to disappear as soon as they done, while fictional ones (Rhys is a good exaple) do everything in they power to gain the woman's everything and this might appeal to readers "Mmm..you're thinking a little narrowly and stereotypically of "stranger rape" (in which I am including the use of rape as a weapon during war), from the sound of it (and I apologise if I am misinterpreting what you intended). Stranger rape is rarer than "date rape" or "rape within marriage" or pretty much the majority of rapes, which are committed by someone known to the victim. If it's someone known to you - your partner, a former friend, a relative, a colleage - they generally don't just disappear from your life. Indeed, your entire life - work, home, family - may be meshed with theirs.
With that stated and set aside, I can see the point that you're making and I think it may be an extension of the myth that was discussed briefly in the last hangout, that of the "scoundrel changed by the love of a good woman". Personally I think that's a horrible, horrible trope and I'm sick of seeing it - it perpetuates the idea that "men just can't help themselves" and that women need to put up and shut up because somehow it's "natural"; if he says sorry then everything's ok. It's NEVER ok and it should never be accepted. Not only is it incredibly dangerous - justice is still hard come by for many victims - but I think it very much animalises or infantilises men, too...there's this idea that "bad boys" need looking after and "fixing" or "training" by a durn good woman.
Caroline wrote: "there's this idea that "bad boys" need looking after and "fixing" or "training" by a durn good woman."
MAJK wrote: "The "safe rape" justification - ... is a stupid excuse for a woman not willing to take responsibility for her sexual wants."
Sarge wrote: "what is really wanted is to be desired, and it's being miscast mentally as a desire to be taken."
For me this sums up the reasons why these women are writing a rape scene (apparently frequently) into their story. And it's all subconscious, all this genre needs is a bit of critical thinking from the authors, a little reflection on the meanings of their own thoughts...
With regards to rape in general - In my opinion it all boils down to control. If both parties have control (I understand this is offset in BDSM, but the sub will retain some through a safeword - an important point) then this is consensual sex. If all control is given over to one side and not the other, this is rape.
This distinction is important also in situations where the raped is accused of invitation to rape by flirting or revealing clothing. This flirtation is an invitation to consensual sex - to a situation where they still have some control - and when all control is lost, no matter how much invitation is given beforehand, this is rape.
Oh my, I've written my opinions as though they're the law! please note this is just my opinion on the matter =P
This is a fantastic thread and I love that this subject is being more critically analysed and not just disregarded =] it needs such exposure!
MAJK wrote: "The "safe rape" justification - ... is a stupid excuse for a woman not willing to take responsibility for her sexual wants."
Sarge wrote: "what is really wanted is to be desired, and it's being miscast mentally as a desire to be taken."
For me this sums up the reasons why these women are writing a rape scene (apparently frequently) into their story. And it's all subconscious, all this genre needs is a bit of critical thinking from the authors, a little reflection on the meanings of their own thoughts...
With regards to rape in general - In my opinion it all boils down to control. If both parties have control (I understand this is offset in BDSM, but the sub will retain some through a safeword - an important point) then this is consensual sex. If all control is given over to one side and not the other, this is rape.
This distinction is important also in situations where the raped is accused of invitation to rape by flirting or revealing clothing. This flirtation is an invitation to consensual sex - to a situation where they still have some control - and when all control is lost, no matter how much invitation is given beforehand, this is rape.
Oh my, I've written my opinions as though they're the law! please note this is just my opinion on the matter =P
This is a fantastic thread and I love that this subject is being more critically analysed and not just disregarded =] it needs such exposure!
There seems to be a movement afoot to replace, no means no with yes means yes ... i.e. you have to get complete consent before sex. Even in the case of the Iron Duke there was a complete mixed signal.
You are dealing with a woman there who has had sexual trauma, and a man who does not know how to deal with that and screws up royally. However, he is not without redemption.
Samantha wrote: "There seems to be a movement afoot to replace, no means no with yes means yes ... i.e. you have to get complete consent before sex. "Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that how it's always supposed to have been?
Caroline wrote: "Kamil wrote: "Real life rapist tend to disappear as soon as they done, while fictional ones (Rhys is a good exaple) do everything in they power to gain the woman's everything and this might appeal ..."I never wanted to justify rape and never will, but i just can't understand why it's acceptable in fiction and this myth is the only(however ridiculous ) explanation that seems plausible
Sarge wrote: "Samantha wrote: "There seems to be a movement afoot to replace, no means no with yes means yes ... i.e. you have to get complete consent before sex. "Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that how it's ..."
If i remember correctely; a woman has the right to say "No" even during sex and if the guy doesn't stop it's considered rape
Samantha wrote: "There seems to be a movement afoot to replace, no means no with yes means yes"
Or rather, where both words hold their meaning unless otherwise stated. Indeed, complete consent has always been the only acceptable notion in my eyes.
Or rather, where both words hold their meaning unless otherwise stated. Indeed, complete consent has always been the only acceptable notion in my eyes.
Sarge wrote: "Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that how it's supposed to have been? "Historically, no. Rape within marriage was considered impossible once you'd signed that line. Women as chattels, yes? God-given conjugal rights, once affirmed in the ceremony, could not be revoked. Still the case in some countries and cultures - it's either explicitly legal or quietly condoned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_... - it's worth checking out the laws of each country. I still can't make sense of the UK section of that.
And hey, there's that whole culture of marriage being forced on a woman after a rape. Or stoning her to death.
Here is another myth which may play a part in this debate: "Men are always up for it and never turn down a sexual opportunity. If they do they're weak or gay." I read a great piece on this last month, I'll try and dig it out later. Anyone think that also feeds into the alpha male ethos?
Caroline wrote: "Historically, no. Rape within marriage was considered impossible once you'd signed that line. Women as chattels,..."I meant here, and in the last several decades. I suppose I should have put "already" before the "supposed"...that might have helped. I grew up in the 60's, and even then the notion was if a girl said no, at any time, regardless of if she said yes first, that was it. At least on a social level (where I grew up, at least) - I'm sure the laws didn't support that at the time.
I don't know, I think we're still living through the seismic shock that is widespread birth control...the unlinking of sex and pregnancy is huge. It goes against thousands and thousands of years of human culture, culture which is still ingrained in our laws - not to mention religions. And it carries both equal rights and easier divorce in its wake. That's a LOT to get use to in 50 years! Society is still playing catch-up and I think that's maybe what we're seeing some of here...romantic fiction is mismatched to the ideal position (of no means no). And weird though this may sound, I think that may be useful because it's causing people to have these discussions about what isn't and isn't acceptable, and reshape sexuality.
Caroline wrote: "I don't know, I think we're still living through the seismic shock that is widespread birth control...the unlinking of sex and pregnancy is huge. It goes against thousands and thousands of years of..."Making the best of Future Shock? Alvin Toffler wrote a book in the 60's called "Future Shock" about how changes, even back then, were coming faster than people could properly assimilate - and it's only gotten worse since then.
The way I see it, at one time, changes came more slowly, and generations might go by doing things the same way their predecessors did them. Children would assume a certain role, then graduate into the next one, then the next , then the next, until they were now the parents, and their children would go through the same process. And it would be much the same experience, generation after generation – divided by age, but not by differing rules. When generation gaps would occur, it wasn’t just a division of age, but a division of how they saw the world, a divergence from their expected role, or their expectations of the world. The gap might bring about a change, or it might simply seal itself back up over time. But particularly in the 20th century, we started to see generation gaps more and more often. A vision of what the future should be. You would work toward it, and maybe get partway there. Problems started to arise as gaps followed gaps. One generation crafting a sculpture of their dreams, and the next instead of appreciating it, use it as a hammer to start building their future. And it’s true socially as well as technologically. What we’re seeing is multiple generations out on the playing field at the same time, each pursuing THEIR vision of the future. Look at the internet…these forums: at no other time in history would you find 16 year olds all the way up to likely a few 60 year old PHD’s conversing on a level field, as though they all shared the same experience, and yet both have been given the validation that their opinions carry the same weight. This isn't to say there is no validity in a 16 year old opinion, nor a guarantee of wisdom in the 60 year old. But historically, I think only Kid Christ was given a break for kibitzing when the old scholars were talking.
So the rapey issue, even the consensual sex issue – we’re not only seeing it through a cultural prism, or regional prism, but an experiential prism, both in age and education. Decried here, supported there, deconstructed, retro-nostalgia’d, sound byted, South Park’d. Is there ANY reason we should be debating the fact that in many of these books, women have sex forced on them? Particularly, PARTICULARLY when the only mitigating factor is the character secretly wants it: if the guy doesn’t know she secretly wants it, and he does it anyway – he’s a rapist. Because there is no difference for him between a woman who secretly wants it and a woman who REALLLY doesn’t want it – he just assumes they all want it. That, my friends, is a rapist. Period.
The idea behind Yes means Yes is that it has to be explicit i.e. it has to be said, not just kissing and groping and eventual love making. It is an interesting idea to teach to my son.
@Samantha Well, I haven't heard of this movement before..
People communicate with their bodies all the time, and when we feel further clarification (at least in sexual situations) we use spoken language. This movement seems to want to invalidate body language then?
People communicate with their bodies all the time, and when we feel further clarification (at least in sexual situations) we use spoken language. This movement seems to want to invalidate body language then?
I hope this movement comes with a guide...maybe some scripts?"I propose that we commence coital proceedings. Do you consent?"
"Consent given - you are clear for foreplay."
"Commencing foreplay in t-minus 3, 2, 1 - Foreplay commencing."
While it sounds all civilized, it likely will cut into the romance something powerful, particularly because one of the excuses someone listed for accepting rapeyness is that men have become so cautious - that they wanted someone who was more direct and determined. I suppose one of the "I'm tired of having to ask/initiate..."crowd.
I seriously don't get why some people think that getting a 'yes' out of a potential partner is somehow unromantic or unsexy. "You look so hot right now, I want to drag you into my bedroom and screw you all night long. How about it?" "That sounds amazing! Do you like oral sex?" "God, yes. Let me get out the condoms." There, in ten seconds, I wrote a script about getting consent in a sexy way. I'm sure there are a bajillion more.
Rachel wrote: "Rachel | 40 comments I seriously don't get why some people think that getting a 'yes' out of a potential partner is somehow unromantic or unsexy. "You look so hot right now, I want to drag you into my bedroom and screw you all night long. How about it?" "That sounds amazing! Do you like oral sex?" "God, yes. Let me get out the condoms." There, in ten seconds, I wrote a script about getting consent in a sexy way. I'm sure there are a bajillion more. "I can think of one reason: because I've never said anything remotely like that to a prospective partner when I wasn't doing a skeevy bar douchebag imitation for laughs.
You are right, of course; it's just on the face of it, it sounds rather formal. No need to get testy.
I don't know, I think it is quite easy to say yes passionately and fervently. I actually tend to say it a lot ^.~ You don't even need to get formal about it, and yes when partners know each other then it is easier to read each other, but the first time ... not so much.
Samantha wrote: "I don't know, I think it is quite easy to say yes passionately and fervently. I actually tend to say it a lot ^.~ You don't even need to get formal about it, and yes when partners know each other..."
The problem isn't the "yes", it's the proposition. In 35 years, and 2 score women, I doubt a definitive declaration of intent ever started a sexual relationship - defering "can we try later?" or "I'm not there...yet" from her have delayed, and yes, the odd "no" has stopped proceedings, but me actually stating the moral equivalent of "do you want to have sex?" I don't remember ever saying. It _has_ started the odd subsequent instance... from "are you accepting visitors?" to "BRB?","BRB" (heh...that was during a dungeon run with friends which was boring, and we were playing side by side...just hit us both at the same moment - a quickie while everyone else was selling vendor trash and making repairs). But the actual initiation usually grew out of a progression from kissing etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/17230648There's a good example of why we need "yes means yes" instead of "no means no".
This does not support the 'yes means yes movement' because the girl in the advert clearly says no, to quote: 'The girl says, 'I don't want to' but he carries on anyway.' This is a 'no means no' advert.
The fact that such an advert exists, I think, alludes to why some believe the lines to be blurred. I believe that public education is atrocious anyway, but especially when it comes to sex and drugs. We're not taught at a young age where the line is, instead the issue has to be dealt with with a tv advert...
The fact that such an advert exists, I think, alludes to why some believe the lines to be blurred. I believe that public education is atrocious anyway, but especially when it comes to sex and drugs. We're not taught at a young age where the line is, instead the issue has to be dealt with with a tv advert...
Oops, sorry, I was referring to this bit of the article:"Newsbeat watched the advert for the first time with 19-year-old Tasnim, which is not her real name.
When she was 14 she got into a relationship with someone who would regularly beat her to make her have sex with him.
"They don't listen," she says. "Then they say, 'Oh, I never heard you say no. You never said no. You were OK with it.'""
Mikki wrote: "This does not support the 'yes means yes movement' because the girl in the advert clearly says no, to quote: 'The girl says, 'I don't want to' but he carries on anyway.' This is a 'no means no' adv..."in the advert (the moment the guy sees himself) we catch a glimpse of the girl and she's fighting against it
Back to the "in fiction" part of the original topic: So ... do we accept rapey-sex in fiction because its a very real, very common place facet of our lives, and makes fiction seem more realistic? Do we accept it in fiction in a bid to romanticise/explain/justify something that's horrific in the real world? Do we accept it in fiction because there's no way to screen your fiction for non-rapey-sex?
What about a separate (or it could be combined, but separate might help it get by the "no sex ed!" contingent) "relationship" class in high school? Dig in and help offset the traditional bad sources for relationship data that kids get their information from: failed adult relationships around them, the toxic peer examples, etc. Sort of a primer for interpersonal communication. No means no, yes means yes, game playing is just going to make things worse for everyone involved, and ultimately, don't be a dick (for BOTH sides).
I've been following this discussion for a while now and it's interesting to see both sides of the coin, so to speak.I jut wanted to pose a question to the "no" means "no" people.
Have you ever been offered chocolate(or other delicious yet unhealthy treat) by someone else and had the following conversation...?
"Here, have a chocolate"
"No, I shouldn't"
"Go on, it's just 1, it won't hurt"
"But.. no, .. I'm on a diet."
"Are you sure?? Here, it's really good"
"No.. "
"..."
"mmmoorophemmm that's good, thanks"
I'm not saying "no" is a dirty word. But those no chocolates always taste the best. :)
I think the 'rape-esque' scenes do have a place in fiction. And depending on how well it's written, they can be fun to read.
Obviously, fiction does not always translate into reality.
Lisa wrote: "Have you ever been offered chocolate(or other delicious yet unhealthy treat) by someone else and had the following conversation...?"Here, have a chocolate"
"No, I shouldn't"
"Go on, it's just 1, it won't hurt"
"But.. no, .. I'm on a diet."
"Are you sure?? Here, it's really good"
"No.. "
"..."
"mmmoorophemmm that's good, thanks"
I'm not saying "no" is a dirty word. But those no chocolates always taste the best. :)"
See, i hear "no, I'm on a diet", and my hand closes up, and I put the chocolates away - if a friend is struggling with a diet, I'm not going to be part of the problem.
Would it be as cute and conspiratorial if it was "Here - it's just one little drink", to an alcoholic?
exactly I agree, if a friend says they're on a diet, or the like it's only disrespectful to persist.Not to mention, even the most avid dieter caving to a morsel isn't going to be mentally scarred from a single treat, nor will it damage the friendship.
rape... that kind of leaves a lasting impression.
forgive me for what i'm about to say but the choclate analogy is worth a rat arse. In the case of candy in the end if one gives in and it's eat it will be a choice one is ready to face ( if the person is on a diet she/he will run an extra lap to burn the calories) but during a rape there will be no way one could deal whith having what's yours and yours alone violated. I personally accept rape in fiction because it historically speaking happens and at times gives a drive to the plot ( in Merlin's legacy it was the reason for Amber's alienation). i don't enjoy those reapy scenes at all and in my head i keep hoping the author made it quick and didn't waste too many characters on it
Caitlin wrote: "Oops, sorry, I was referring to this bit of the article:
"Newsbeat watched the advert for the first time with 19-year-old Tasnim, which is not her real name.
When she was 14 she got into a relati..."
So, yay for victim-blaming?
Lisa wrote:
"Here, have a chocolate"
"No, I shouldn't"
"Go on, it's just 1, it won't hurt"
"But.. no, .. I'm on a diet."
"Are you sure?? Here, it's really good"
"No.. "
"..."
"mmmoorophemmm that's good, thanks"
Wow, worst analogy for rape ever, here's a better one:
"Here, have a chocolate"
"No, I shouldn't"
"Come on, everyone will think you're on a diet"
"I am...at least at the moment..."
"Are you sure?? Here, it's really good"
"No..."
*other person shoves chocolate down their throat*
Then, of course proceeds with all the various excuses for why they did that.
"Newsbeat watched the advert for the first time with 19-year-old Tasnim, which is not her real name.
When she was 14 she got into a relati..."
So, yay for victim-blaming?
Lisa wrote:
"Here, have a chocolate"
"No, I shouldn't"
"Go on, it's just 1, it won't hurt"
"But.. no, .. I'm on a diet."
"Are you sure?? Here, it's really good"
"No.. "
"..."
"mmmoorophemmm that's good, thanks"
Wow, worst analogy for rape ever, here's a better one:
"Here, have a chocolate"
"No, I shouldn't"
"Come on, everyone will think you're on a diet"
"I am...at least at the moment..."
"Are you sure?? Here, it's really good"
"No..."
*other person shoves chocolate down their throat*
Then, of course proceeds with all the various excuses for why they did that.
Sarge wrote: "See, i hear "no, I'm on a diet", and my hand closes up, and I put the chocolates away - if a friend is struggling with a diet, I'm not going to be part of the problem."I think you missed my point.
Have you ever said no to chocolates, but then reached for them after they were offered to you again..? Everyone has! And did the chocolate taste just that little bit better with a slight hint of guilt?
Guilty pleasures are delightful in their own way.
It is after all, just fiction. And fiction should not inform you of reality. And, can I just say, I'm extremely wary of any instances of censorship just because it's immoral/unethical/politically incorrect.. Who decides, and where does the line get drawn? (although I think this ties in better with the YA thread).
Anyhow, going back to PointyEar42's post. I can understand that the rapey scenes might not be to everyone's taste. But they're common enough in Fiction, so I gonna guess they're to someone's taste.
I think all we can do is actively promote the more tasteful, and better written/no rape books. Who knows, authors might notice a change in what the readers want, and cater to that.
Lisa wrote: "Have you ever said no to chocolates, but then reached for them after they were offered to you again..? Everyone has! And did the chocolate taste just that little bit better with a slight hint of guilt?Guilty pleasures are delightful in their own way."
So, I could indulge myself, fictionally, with say, being a commandante at a prison camp where we indulge in medical experimentation, and eugenics? What naughty fun. If rape is just a "guilty pleasure"...why not murder? Torture? Too much? Okay, take all these “not rape” scenes, and write them from the point of view of the rapist… watching these weak women struggle and finally submit, relishing their pitiful weakness. The soul searing hopless howl that follows every inch of your passage into their bodies. Their vaginas, their anuses, finally yeilding with blood to you. Their tears. And finally the vacant numbness in their eyes as you break them to your pleasure. [sarcasm]How freakin hawt is that?![/sarcasm]
If you are indulging in a rape fantasy, then call it that - the problem arises when people attempt to justify it as something benign. Because that then suggests that rape is actually an acceptable part of conventional sex. If it's a D/s fantasy, then label it such. Own that you enjoy power play - there's nothing wrong with that. It's a story, it's fantasy - it doesn't obligate you to actually accept it in a real life situation. But you do have to recognize that it is NOT an acceptable real world behavior.
[Pardon me if I was overly graphic up there].
I think that most of us don't accept "rapeyness" in fiction, but I'm starting to see the bright side: generally people tend to avoid topics like racism, cancer, rape and pretend those things don't exist. While as long as someone writes about them, the topic will be remembered and people might think about prepering themselves in the eventuality it would happen to them. i know it's a naive', almost candid point of view, but let me hope there is something that can be done against this plague
A few years ago, this ad was pulled from South African tv after airing for only a few days, if that, as men apparently found it offensive.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VbEkV...
Another version - watered down, featuring a male celebrity, talking about sports - was also aired with little to no criticism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS_N_M...
Kamil wrote: "I think that most of us don't accept "rapeyness" in fiction, but I'm starting to see the bright side: generally people tend to avoid topics like racism, cancer, rape and pretend those things don't ..."True... but it's one thing to confront rape in fiction, and another to mask it as a good thing and call it something else.
PointyEars42 wrote: "A few years ago, this ad was pulled from South African tv after airing for only a few days, if that, as men apparently found it offensive.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VbEkV..."
Reminds me of a line from "Batman: Year One" - the woman who will be Catwoman, is looking out of a window, her "John" tied to the bed behind her. "Know what I hate about men?...I've never met one." Then of course, she see's a fledgling Bruce Wayne, fighting in the streets below.
Excellent commercial - I had no idea it was so bad there.
Those stats are probably why, when you talk about "rape fantasies", most of the women I've ever met look at you strangely and wait for you to translate the phrase into English. The USA stats for around the same time period are 1 in 4 which, considering the relative sizes of our populations... scary numbers everywhere and that doesnt even factor in attempted rape and under-reporting.Of course, Southern Africa is home to truly delightful rape related issues, like the idea that gang-raping a lesbian will knock that culturally-unacceptable behaviour right out of her. Oh yes, they'll admit that that was their thinking to a camera crew. Can you wrap your brain around any part of that?
At least this makes it quite clear why I don't seem capable of understanding how even a fictional character can go from rapist on page 45 to love interest on page 78 without a prison term and therapy in between.
Mikki wrote: "Caitlin wrote: "Wow, worst analogy for rape ever, here's a better one:"I think we have 2 very distinct topics at hand here and people are getting muddled between the 2. I realise these topics are extremely personal so these discussions can get heated.
I just wanted to clarify in saying it was not my intention to convince people that rape is acceptable.
And my analogy was not meant to equate chocolates with rape, to make rape palatable, or to justify any kind of victim blaming. So please don't jump to any more crazy conclusions.
I only wanted to explore the idea behind why an author would include a scene with awkward/forced sex. Sometimes it's bad writing, because the author is determined to get the 2 characters together. Sometimes it's just the author exploring the idea of giving into guilty pleasure.
I don't know. That's why I'm throwing the question out there.
PointyEars42 wrote: "Those stats are probably why, when you talk about "rape fantasies", most of the women I've ever met look at you strangely and wait for you to translate the phrase into English. The USA stats for ar..."Let me make this clear - while I spent some time in the D/s world, on both ends of the crop, I personally don't find the notion of rape fantasy either pleasurable, or even particularly healthy. But it IS an established behavior, not something I made up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_fan...
I merely make the point that if one is defending rapeyness in books, own it: it's rape, and if it is a secret turn-on, a fetish, deal with it, call it what it is, and don't try to make it out as something benign.
I commented once on this thread already, and I keep reading the new comments and telling myself not to touch it again with a ten foot pole. But I can’t seem to help myself. Let me preface this by saying that rape is a horrible, unforgivable crime. I’m betting everyone who has replied to this thread agrees with that. Personally I wouldn’t be opposed to considering torture and death as a possible punishment for it.We can post all day long about how awful rape is, but my problem with this entire argument is that I don’t believe that the sex scenes in the types of books we are discussing constitute rape.
The scene that Sarge wrote above constitutes rape. It actually made my stomach turn and my throat tighten in misery when I read it. That one was particularly bloody, which isn’t always the case. A rape scene that took place between a husband and wife, with more psychological than physical violence, would have made me feel just as ill.
But in the fantasy romance books I’ve read that are accused of being “rapey”, that complete lack of concern for the woman's happiness isn’t there. The men may be dominant and pushy, but they are not rapists.
Maybe I feel compelled to defend my taste in novels because I don’t want to believe that I’m being duped into perpetuating some insidious form of making rape acceptable. All I can say is, I know rape when I see it. I know the shame and anger that follows it for a lifetime afterward. And the “alpha male” sex scenes that keep me coming back as a reader aren’t about that.
MaybeMaeby wrote: "Obviously there's a big difference between fiction and reality. Just because we accept the rapey-ness of these type of novels does not mean we condone it in real life. If you don't wanna read the..."
Although I agree that authors should be able to write whatever they want to write, I think it is only human to react to aspects of a story that bothers us. Personally, the context makes a huge difference for me, and I will allow more in fiction that I would in real life. However if I get caught in a story and some aspect of it upsets me, I am likely to express criticism and not simply say "Oh, I am experiencing values dissonance--I will read something else instead."
Sarge wrote: "Caitlin wrote: "Sarge wrote: "I apologize...no offense was intended. "Ohh I wasn't rape joking. I find any frivolous use of the term deeply offensive, particularly the ease gamers feel in using the term as a threat or comparing their game loses using the term.
I know this is a late reply but it sprung to mind as I caught up with this post.
It amazes me how people will use rape as a threat or insult when they get mad about stuff. I was at a concert, and the people behind us (who were drunk and stoned and complete a-holes the entire time) were pissed because we were standing during some of the songs. Now, granted we were in the seated section, but out of our entire section I'd say above 90% of the people were standing as well. So we were not the only ones and were not just being jerks the whole time. Anyways the guy is cussing us out and yelling and at one point says "I hope you get raped after the show."
Now, I normally don't let people get to me but for someone to wish that upon someone else is just, it's sad and frightening that people can be that way. It basically ruined the night for us.
Sorry for the kinda going off topic, but I do find it interesting that there are people who are desensitized of this. I obv don't feel it's okay, and in books as established I believe it's mostly context, however I would still not say I agree with it, but it is fictional so I'm not going to get overly worried about it either.
Katinka wrote: "I think it is a guy thing using rape as an insult or threat. I used to play WoW a lot, and it was so common for players to talk about raping dungeons or raid bosses or the other faction in PvP. I c..."you just got a bad crew to play whith. Althgrough i remember when i was playing DDO, during a quest that went really really really bad, my guild leader said << we're getting raped hard>>. i think it was the only situation i found the word funny
However returning to fictional rape, reading Trudy cadavan's "the rogue" i found it disturbing how some female mages used rape as a way to drain magic from males
I need to get out the soap box for a bit, because in a strange way this whole "inappropriate use or words in WoW" just had me take a step back and look at it without any attached emotions.First off, I don't want to justify or downplay rape. Personally, I think that cutting it off is one of the nicer things that should be done to rapists.
Anyway, I find it interesting. The whole concept and point of WoW is essentially to kill a ridiculous amount of beings for personal gain. "Invading" dungeons and slaying everything inside to steal their stuff. Yet, some kids abusing the word "rape" is a big deal?
And from here you get to the unavoidable question: how come killing is perfectly fine hero-behaviour, but rape can make someone stop reading? How come that forcing sex on someone is considered so much worse than ending a persons life, permanently?
It doesn't take much to justify the slaughter of a bunch of people, especially in a fictional context. They're the "enemy", they're "evil", they drop great loot.
Yet, we have a big problem accepting whatever excuses an author comes up with for rape, including "she secretly wanted it".
Isn't it kind of weird, how we are extremely sensitive to one awful thing, while we simply accept another awful thing to be a fundamental part of modern entertainment and regularly depicted as "cool"?
I'm not saying we are too sensitive. Just wondering if we aren't suffering from a seriously screwed up perspective, when it comes to our entertainment.
Also, the dictionary gives these definitions for "rape":
6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
So, talking about "raping a dungeon" would actually be a perfectly appropriate use of the word (though I doubt that those using it are actually aware of it).
But now you limit it to killing justified by war. Let me give (or make up) some examples of "killing for entertainment".The Joker's pencil scene in The Dark Knight. It would seem the typical reaction was between "cool" and "lol", with maybe a little bit of this overused clip. Sure, he was the bad guy, but who actually went "oh my god, that monster, that was horrible"?
Or, badass hero enters building full of thugs. One gives him lip, he snaps his neck to make a point. We accept that he is the "good guy", we may raise our eyebrow, question if it was really necessary. But 1min later we get a big action scene where he gets to beat everybody up and break a few more necks, and by now we don't care anymore and at most judge the fight choreography.
Running over a few dozen people in a car and going postal in a mall? It's just a game. Having a really bad sex scene with stiff animations and still dressed characters? Outrage! (okay, no rape here, but still)
Impaling what is technically a friend to gain the enemies trust? Sure, why not. Life is tough, and he wanted it anyway.
In fact, we seem to have little issues with seeing people impaled or having pointy objects shoved into their bodies, as long as the shoving isn't happening in a particular part of the body.
We are perfectly fine with killing for the sake of entertainment. It's everywhere and accepted by almost everyone. Nobody would ever think to put up a warning that somebody will be shot in this movie and it might trigger traumatic memories in people who lost someone that way or maybe got shot themselves.
Why do I have a hard time stomaching a faked rape in a movie, yet gruesome deaths mostly just have me notice how the effects are over the top?
About a bullet to the head being better than getting raped:
Now, I can't picture what it would be like to be a woman and much less being raped, but being faced with a choice between getting raped or getting killed... shame and psychological scars vs. having my entire future, hopes and dreams taken away and just ceasing to exist?
I think, I'd still consider the traumatic experience as the lesser evil. And that's coming from someone who generally considers his life firmly in the "sucks" category. Even if I might never get over it, with time it will most likely stop occupying my mind at every waking second and I will get to enjoy many moments in life. But it kind of requires to still be alive in the first place.
Some movies and games are labeled to warn of violence. Why is rape different from other forms of torture? For most people the invasion and violation is so personal that it is obviously not just about the physical pain. It's simply a deeper level of trauma, and the broader social implications are distinct from other kinds of violence. Most men would much rather admit to having been beaten up or tortured than admit to having been raped. There is a reason for that.While personally I would rather survive a rape than die for my honor (or just die quickly), rape is much worse than simple torture. In the context of entertainment, because it sexualizes the violence, it disturbs me more that straight up fighting or gore. I can't stand most torture scenes either (fighting is different). "Sexy" or sensationalized rape scenes freak me out in a way dead bodies in a story never can, even though I know it's just fiction.
As for using "rape" for looting (or wining a sports game in real life--e.g. "The Hawkes raped the Tigers last night."), it seems to minimize the impact of the word. Although arguably in the case of raids "rape" may be technically correct, it still seem really insensitive to use it in gaming. Words like "moron" or "retard" may be technically correct to label persons of low IQ, but the negative connotations of such terms make using them outside a clinical setting insulting to many people. Using "rape" in the context of having fun carries similar problems, even for those who enjoy playing at fake violence or who are sublimating aggression through sports.
Maybe it seems hypocritical to embrace gaming as a way of blowing off steam, but to object to causal references to "rape" in a similar context; however, I do find the later disturbing. Somehow fun "rape" is just more personal and insulting from my POV. I think there should still be some lines that are not crossed in a causal social setting.
Alex wrote: "But now you limit it to killing justified by war. Let me give (or make up) some examples of "killing for entertainment"I've always assumed that being inured to violence as a species is half the reason we don't make any serious moves towards stopping it being committed. When something horrific becomes routine fodder for entertainment, we stop punishing it appropriately or acting effectively to stop it from happening again. I think a lot of us are protesting the over-use, mis-use, or justifying of rape in fiction because it "normalises" torture and makes it just another bad thing that happens to other people, so why not joke about it or trivialise it or romanticise it. Heck, people survive it so it can't be that bad, right? Wrong. The act takes away your control, your basic human rights, your hopes for a life free of horrible memories, of being touched without flinching, of really trusting anyone, of knowing you are safe... and that's barely the start of the list of what you'll carry around forever. Surviving and living can be two very different things, which is why it's so hard for some of us to see the logic in the rapist today=romantic hero tomorrow trope.
Rapey sex/dubious-consent sex in the books we've been reading (the romance genre) seem to try to normalise the act for the very reading target market most likely to experience it, who are experiencing it, and yes, I think we should all be kicking up a fuss over it.
Murder as a necessary act? If I had access to the TARDIS I'd probably go back in time to kill Hitler too. Rape as a necessary act? I dare anyone to think up a single example, let alone come up with so many examples that accepting and normalising it is justified.
Katinka wrote: "I didn't say I condone gratuitous violence. I agree with Alexander Skaarsgard's opinion that it's strange how Americans are less tolerant of nudity in TV shows like True Blood and more tolerant of ..."Some might say, that we are the just the opposite. Not quite as prude, but less accepting of violence. I remember Felicia at the panel talking about us having porn on TV. I'm still not sure if we just have different thresholds for porn, or if she accidentally hit the pay TV channels.
Also, who didn't like the Hulk-Loki scene? It was over the top comic-y, yet the only logical outcome for this kind of situation.
But even though, I believe that violence is much more accepted in general.
It's funny how you bring up that video game thing. One of the things I thought about bringing up is how sneaking up on a person and getting an "instant kill" button with a fancy animation would prompt a "cool" or "neat". Replace it with an "instant rape" button and the only reaction would be wanting to shove those discs up the backside of everybody involved in the game.
Of course, one serves kind of a purpose, whereas the other would only cater to a hopefully small number of individualy in dire need of professional help.
My point is, that when detaching yourself from the emotional aspect and judging only the consequences, killing would seem like a much worse thing to do to a person. Sure, the psychological consequences of rape are much worse, mostly because being killed by definition doesn't have any.
Why isn't that how we feel about it? Did we get so out of touch with what it means to kill someone? Is it "overexposure"? "Natural"? Because we eventually die anyway?
Tangled, I pretty much agree with all you said. I have been very deliberate with my use of "retard" (though I wasn't aware of a similar situation with "moron"). And I definitely don't intend to be artificially outraged by violence in games or movies.
Sometimes I just like to take a step back, flip the switch on my emotions and try to see things from a purely rational perspective. Sometimes you get interesting insights, sometimes (like in this case), you're just getting more questions.
PointyEars42 wrote: "Rape as a necessary act? I dare anyone to think up a single example, let alone come up with so many examples that accepting and normalising it is justified."
An example that isn't extremely far-fetched and based on clairvoyance? Not really. But since you bring up the TARDIS.
Imagine you would know for a fact that having a child with a particular woman would result in the person finding a cure for cancer, AIDS or in some other way saving millions of lives. Yet she is completely unattracted. To bring it closer to the example of killing Hitler, let's also pretend she is a comparatively horrible person.
Yes, it's a very stupid and absurd scenario, just to end up with two scenarios of saving a lot of lives. One involving to kill, one involving to rape.
Interestingly, I wouldn't hesitate to kill Hitler, yet I'd have serious issues with raping his female equivalent.
Vaginal Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Assassin's Honor (other topics)Speak (other topics)
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..."
Ohh I wasn't rape joking. I find any frivolous use of the term deeply offensive, particularly the ease gamers feel in using the term as a threat or comparing their game loses using the term.
Trigger words aren't JUST about rape, so if I was being insensitive, rest assured, it was offending more than just rape victims. So I do apologize.