Last month at AAR I bemoaned the lack of assertive female participation in many a romance novel love scene, where all too typically, the heroine takes a passive role in lovemaking. That said, two weeks later, during an interview with Anne Stuart on Heroes on the Edge (the hero from her new book, Black Ice, defines this type of hero better than just about any other hero I’ve ever read), we touched on the topic of "forced seduction" of the heroine by the hero. When discussion moved to the ATBF Message Board, I mentioned that at times I find this type of scene very erotic.
Let me be entirely clear: there is no such thing as forced seduction in real life (and "no" always means "no"), yet the forced seduction/rape fantasy does exist, and for a variety of reasons. But judging by the activity on that message board as a result of that column and previous articles on the topic at AAR, either you understand the erotic power of such a scene or you don’t, and if you don’t, you also cannot fathom how any modern woman could possibly find such a scene sexy. And further, just as romance readers often feel we must defend their choice of reading material, those of us who’ve enjoyed a scene of forced seduction at least once found ourselves defending that – and didn’t like it.
I am horrified by rape scenes in books. On the other hand there have been occasional books featuring scenes of forced seduction that I found erotic in the extreme. It may harken back to the Zipless F_ck (the shocking and erotic first sex scene in Black Ice is one Stuart seems to catagorize as a variant of the ZF in our discussion), the fantasy of today’s "Superwoman" totally giving up control to another person and making them responsible for our pleasure, or some hardwiring that draws women to the most conquering of males. Regardless, I don’t have a problem separating the reality of the brutal rage behind rape from the fantasy triggered by certain forced seduction scenes. Stash a couple of silk ties in your bedside table and see what I mean.
One of our male readers confessed his total lack of understanding that reading of a man forcing seduction upon a woman could be erotic – my response was that, perhaps he can’t because he’s a man. After all, I don’t find sexy two women (or two men, for that matter) making love, and for men this is supposedly quite a turn on.
A bigger discussion point turned on the idea that it’s always a question of sexual politics. I came of age after the sexual revolution, in an age when women were not expected to be virgins (or to give "benefits" to friends). Sex was about giving love and getting love, and I think had a playfulness previously lacking. I concede that there is a cultural angle, but it’s more rooted in what Carl Jung believed to be the Collective Unconsciousness. That may seem to be simply a "tomato/tomahto" splitting of hairs, but I think not.
Among other arguments made was this one: If romances contain such scenes, than both men and women will be confused about real life boundaries. Doesn’t that infantalize women in the name of protecting us as potential victims? And unless a 21st century man is raised in the Taliban (in which case he’s not reading romance anyway) and/or has absolutely no contact with women other than as subserviant beings, I don’t buy it.
And then, of course, there was the "outsiders" debate, which goes something like this: "Don’t these scenes make it more difficult for romance to be taken seriously by ‘outsiders’?" Even though romance is a cash cow, because it’s written by women for women, suffers from the convention of the HEA ending (a literary horror of horrors), and is all about emotions, it’ll never be taken seriously. But – and this is more to the point – who cares if outsiders "get" it, particularly given how many people read romance? If you like it, who really cares if the person down the street likes it? Although, chances are, they do, or their best friend or sister does, so maybe now’s the time to knock that chip off our shoulders for good.
There’s a whole world of romance options out there. What you like needn’t be something I like, and vice versa. But the idea that any fictional premise is one we ought not be reading because it might damage us or others is something I don’t understand. It takes a certain amount of intelligence to be literate, and it doesn’t take a boatload of intelligence for an adult to separate fiction from reality.
TTFN, Laurie Likes Books
No related posts.
[...] work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
« “The Fantasy/Reality Split” | Home
5/21/2005
[...] work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
« “The Fantasy/Reality Split” | Home
5/21/2005
Laurie (or someone in the know), can you define “forced seduction” so that I’m sure I understand what you’re talking about? Is it just a euphemism? Is it a la Luke & Laura (not that that’s in a different category, just that it brought gazillions of viewers to General Hospital, including teens, as I was at the time, and may serve as a TV example.
Laurie, cancel previous comment. I have early-morning brain–didn’t notice the clickable link to the Anne Stuart interview on Black Lace. Off to find out for myself…
Melissa, a forced seduction is one that lacks the back-alley brutality of rape, but where the hero nevertheless doesn’t take the heroine’s “no” for an answer. Sometimes she wants it deep down, but won’t or can’t admit it, other times she doesn’t, but winds up falling in love with the hero anyway (and enjoying the sex, to some degree).
In all of the forced seduction scenes that I’ve read (and admittedly there aren’t many — I’m thinking specifically of a Christina Dodd scene and a Patricia Gaffney scene) the heroine’s body gives her away. No matter what she’s “saying,” her body is responding favorably to the hero’s advances.
Laurie, this is a fabulous column. One of the greatest things about fiction, and fantasy, is that it can be controlled. Any scenario can be written to make sense, to fulfill a specific desire, to “solve” a problem that isn’t so easy to solve in real life. In Pat Gaffney’s To Have and to Hold, for instance, which features one of those infamous forced seductions, the scene was absolutely key to the rest of the book. I didn’t particularly find it erotic, but I did find it heartbreaking and raw, and one of the best ways I could imagine to really define exactly who the hero and the heroine were at that point in the book. What happened to them subsequently was made all the more poignant when compared to those moments on the library sofa.
Melissa -
Luke and Laura was rape. Forced seduction, as I said in the column, is a convention that only exists in fiction and not real life, although it exists in fantasy as well. I don’t know if I actually coined the phrase, but it first came up in 1997 after reading A Well Pleasured Lady by Christina Dodd. So much “stuff” came out of my review of the book and subsequent column that we got about six weeks worth of material on it, generating a section called Rifs on P.C.
Amy’s got it more or less right in terms of her definition. In A Well Pleasured Lady, well, here’s what I wrote in my Desert Isle Keeper (DIK) review of the book: “Sebastian and Mary share a love that is not soft and sweet. Their coming together is marked by heads being smashed and the use of force. Their first unions are not politically correct and might offend some readers, but Sebastian has a point – he can only get through Mary’s stoney veneer through her lust. Politically incorrect or not, their love scenes are dazzlingly fulfilling.”
Dodd has actually used a forced seduction scene in two books I’ve read. We have a dual review of the other one at AAR. I wrote the “good” review, my second in command at the site wrote the “bad” review, and among her reasons for giving the book a D (I gave it a B-) was the forced seduction scene.
I think the only “rape” scene I’ve ever not absolutely hated was in a short story by MaryJanice Davidson, but the hero was a werewolf, so the “rules” were different. Had he been a man, I’d have hated it as much as I’ve hated all other rape scenes. I actually gave up on Catherine Coulter’s medievals after a baddie in one book raped a woman. That was bad enough, but when he turned up as the hero in a sequel, well, that was enough for me.
In the book where he was a rapist, he was a Norman, I think, taking control over an Anglo-Saxon keep. He didn’t rape the heroine. He raped her maid, purely to show his power as conqueror.
In these other stories, the forced seduction shows the power of lust, not the power of men, if that makes any sense, and I think that’s the critical difference. In other words, the man is simply forcing the woman to let loose for their mutual pleasure, not because he feels rage toward women, which is the underlying factor in true rape.
TTFN, LLB
Okay, I’ve read the interview, read Amy’s great comments, and for me, Laurie’s post is not a question of whether we find the concept of “forced seduction” offensive or not (and I’ll be the first to say that I do), but that just because we’re offended by something doesn’t mean we could/should say “this should not be an element in a romance.” Different strokes.
This is something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately–last night my husband and I got into a whopper of a debate about spanking (children–I’d better clarify!). I, personally, think spanking is wrong and would never spank my son, who’s almost 3 and tests me on an hourly basis. The husband said what’s wrong is for me to say that spanking is wrong. According to him, I can say that I think spanking is wrong for me/my child, but I can’t say that spanking itself is wrong, that I can’t impose my views on a subject/other people, and that by making a blanket statement about something, it veers from my opinion to a judgement.
Can you tell I’m procrasting from my WIP? Anyway, sorry to digress. It’s hard having an open-minded husband.
Rape is an act of power, of control, the man forceably proving his power over the woman. It has nothing to do with sex. Forced seduction is the man breaking through the woman’s societal barriers to find her sexuality.
The key is that in fiction, particularly romances, we the reader trusts the hero. We know that in the end HE is the right person and his actions aren’t those of a rapist but of a lover. We don’t have that luxury in real life, that’s why romances are fantasies.
Great column, great topic! The forced seduction fantasy in no way resembles rape and in no way indicates that women want to be abused, and it’s a very popular fantasy. Which doesn’t mean it works for everybody; it either does or it doesn’t. It’s not a right or wrong question, it’s just what pushes an individual’s buttons. And if you can’t separate fantasy from reality, you’ve got bigger problems than what book to read.
Several years ago, I read two marvelous collections of erotic short stories written by women for women. (Slow Hand & Fever) They explored all different aspects of female sensuality. One story’s author said that “Rape is ravishment defiled” and explored the ‘ravishment’ fantasy of many women. The encounter depicted in the book was clearly not rape, nor was it patterned after rape. In the seduction, the man challenged the woman’s initial reluctance and through the course of his seduction, they both explored more of her sensuality. By the time the story reached the point where, um, tab a was ready for slot b, there was no “I simply can’t resist any more” giving in — both man and woman embraced the ‘ravishment’ fully and willing.
Forced seductions work for me under very limited circumstances:
1. The book must be very, very well written as a whole.
2. I must like the hero.
3. The hero, at some point, must feel bad for what he did and grovel properly to the heroine.
4. It must be important to the story in some way–usually to provide insight into the hero, and contrast the way he was and how he treated the heroine in the past vs. how he treats the heroine now.
5. I have to be convinced that the hero will not do the same thing in the future. Ever. Unless in the context of sexual role-playing at the request of the heroine.
In that sense, the forced seduction scenes in To Have and To Hold, A Well-Pleasured Lady, Shadowheart and Only With Your Love worked really, really well for me. The heroes started out rather… well, maybe not brutish, but certainly somewhat brutal, and the forced seduction worked because it served as a demonstration of the kind of person he was vs. the kind of person he comes.
Outright rape in romance novels, on the other hand, is different for me. Whitney, My Love, for example, was very distasteful to me because not only was it clear that Clay was forcing sex on Whitney because he was angry and he wanted to hurt and violate her in the most primal way a man can hurt a woman short of killing her, Whitney ended up grovelling to Clay instead of the other way around. The combination of the two are NOT acceptable to me. And by the end of the book, I had the nastiest feeling that he’d do it again in a heartbeat if she pissed him off royally again. Not a very good feeling to have about a supposed hero.
Same thing with The Flame and The Flower. Hero rapes the heroine twice in quick succession. The first time he mistakes her for a prostitute and her struggling as her feigning reluctance/sexual roleplay, so I forgave him that one. When he violates the heroine a second time, though, even AFTER finding out she’s gently-reared and a virgin, and does so without even a blink of remorse, I flipped ahead to see if the hero ever grovels and feels horrible about what he did, etc. Couldn’t find the scene so I tossed the book aside. Couldn’t stomach it.
However, these two books are enormously popular, so they must speak to a lot of people. And you know, good for them. I don’t get it, but hey, a lot of people don’t get why I think polyamory and group sex in erotic romance novels are sexy and romantic. As for the whole “confusing the poor befuddled romance reader” issue: Please. Anyone who reads romances with forced seductions or rapes and changes their moral values accordingly probably needs help with their psychotic break from reality.
To me, both of these almost completely negate the entire point of a well-written forced seduction. Keep in mind that the way I, and I believe many others, see it well-written there means the author has set up the characters and the situation in such a way that these actions are necessary on the part of the hero because of the character traits of the heroine.
So first of all, he usually has nothing to grovel about . . . unlike where true rape is involved. And no amount of hero groveling is going to make me accept true rape in a romance. In the case of Sebastian in A Well Pleasured Lady I don’t even remember him groveling at all. Possibly apologizing for thinking the wrong thing but definitely not for his actions in the love scene. I’d have to look that one up to make sure, though.
Second, the insight gained is usually into the heroine’s character, not his, and it’s usually supposed to be that way. She is the one normally changed the most by their interaction on this level. I also don’t believe it is simply coincidence that quite a few of these cases involve wounded, possibly even tortured heroines and relatively well-adjusted heroes, at least in comparison to their heroines.
The one aspect where I will concede that this is about the hero is where it makes us as readers view him in an ambiguous light, i.e. is he the villain or the hero? This, however, is nothing new to romance either and I’m not simply talking about the “bodice-rippers” of the 1970s. Ambiguously seductive heroes are integral to Gothic romances and always have been. For that matter, Dracula is very much a case study of forced seduction at the darkest level imaginable. If anything the true cases of forced seduction nowadays are more an evolution of the form from almost completely sexually powerless heroines to ones who can at least fight back on an equal footing. Whether or not the author makes us believe The hero is A hero by the end of the book is what can make or break readers coming away thinking it not simply seduction but something else that’s just plain wrong.
I will also admit, being an Alpha female, to having found some “forced seduction” a turn on. I grew up on Catherine Coulter, but like Laurie, I couldn’t take them any more. I can’t recall which book it was, but it was a Medieval and Rose—- in the title. The hero rapes the heroine. No doubt. So, I had to put those away. But, I suppose, my biggest personal problem with the forced seduction is that the hero does not truly know that the heroine truly “wants it”. He only thinks he does because she’s turned on. But you can be physically turned on, and emotionally/ mentally definitely saying no. And today when the statitics are that 1 in every 4 girls will be sexually assaulted, and that 1 in every 10 men will knowingly or unknowingly commit some form of sexual assault, I think it is an issue to take very seriously.
I take it more personally becaue I have a friend who kept saying no. Not firmly, I grant, but no. And her boyfriend kept pushing the boundaries. So, my biggest concern is the mentality that it may promote. But like I said above, I’ve found some of the scenes to be very hot, and also, I don’t believe in censorship on any level.
I just blogged about something similar but in the mystery field. You can find my thoughts on censoring writers there.
There are two points I’d like to make here. One is: forced-seduction stories are not responsible for rape. Rapists are responsible for rape. To point the finger at a romance book that contains a forced seduction scene as being responsible somehow for rape is ludicrous. We’ve all read Orwell’s 1984, are we tempted to become totalitarians? Blaming the fiction we read for our crimes is like saying “The Devil made me do it!”, it conveniently shifts responsibility off onto someone else. It’s just like blaming a book for a murder: if someone is determined to murder and uses a method they read in a book, it’s not the book or author’s fault. The murderer would have simply found some other way to do it. If forced seduction offends you, there’s a simple way to solve the problem: don’t buy it and don’t read it. ‘Nuff said.
The other point I’d like to make is, what we’re talking about is books largely written and almost totally consumed by women. You could make the argument that this is an outgrowth of feminism, women opening up the dialogue about cultural expectations of sex and shattering the stereotype that women only like passive, gentle sex. The books are written, bought by (mostly) female editors, and sell to an (almost exclusively) female audience.
Last point: If this phenomenon involved male writers, male editors, and a male audience, it might be a completely different, but it doesn’t. It’s all about us girls. If it didn’t sell to women, the editors and publishers wouldn’t buy it.
“To me, both of these almost completely negate the entire point of a well-written forced seduction. (…) So first of all, he usually has nothing to grovel about . . . ”
Huh. Well, our opinions differ vastly then, because a forced seduction is still a forced seduction, and the hero still has to feel bad about forcing the heroine, in my opinion. Dude’s still being a jackass, even if he’s a SEXY jackass.
“Second, the insight gained is usually into the heroine’s character, not his, and it’s usually supposed to be that way. She is the one normally changed the most by their interaction on this level. I also don’t believe it is simply coincidence that quite a few of these cases involve wounded, possibly even tortured heroines and relatively well-adjusted heroes, at least in comparison to their heroines.”
Again, I don’t agree. Only With Your Love, Shadowheart and To Have and To Hold all feature extremely dark, disturbed heroes. I can’t remember too much about A Well-Pleasured Lady, to tell you the truth–I remember feeling that the scene worked in terms of the hero’s character, and not feeling angry with him, so it very well may be that I just inserted a false memory of him grovelling. I do know that in the other three books I mention, the hero feels VERY bad about the shabby treatment they dish out to the heroine and they attempt to make amends later in the book.
It occurs to me that the difference may be more in the tone of the books overall rather than the tone of the hero or heroine. Of the four books Candy mentions, I’ve only read one of them and I do tend to stay far away from truly dark/angsty romances. And dark/angsty heroes, too, for that matter.
How much that plays into what feelings I take away from the forced seduction scenes I have run across, I don’t know. I do know that I’ve never mistaken them for reality whether I liked or hated them, which is what I think Laurie was getting at in her original post.
Other issues and topics aside, I’ve never understood worrying over how what we read affects us so much that we think something shouldn’t ever be in a book of any type. If that was a major consideration, I’m not sure how some of the “classics” would ever get approved for pre-college reading lists. To read (or view) and even “enjoy” something in a work of fiction isn’t the same thing as approving of it in real life. Doesn’t matter whether we’re talking murder and mayhem or love scenes.
Candy -
When I think about the most effective forced seduction scenes I’ve read, the hero is pretty well unrepentant about his actions. And, in a way, that fits because quite often these are men who aren’t necessarily “nice”.
In the ATBF wherein I interviewed Anne Stuart, one of the things I mentioned I liked best about the hero of Black Ice was that he was a hero on the edge, and that he stayed that way throughout the course of the book. He didn’t become a cuddly teddybear because of the love of a good woman. Instead, he was true to himself, and all the more sexy because of it. Now, the scene in Black Ice that I found shocking and erotic isn’t quite the same type of scene as the ones in Dodd’s books, but all the heroes are similar in that they don’t apologize for what they do.
When a hero is a major pr_ick in a romance I’m usually all for his groveling. But if his behavior toward the heroine is part of this fantasy, to apologize for it would be to negate the whole episode, and in my mind would turn the man into a…well, since we’re in mixed company, I’ll say “wussy.”
TTFN, LLB
“…and if you don’t, you also cannot fathom how any modern woman could possibly find such a scene sexy.”
You can
A shrink, for example, can understand any motivation, light years away from his own.
As for forced seduction, my opinion on that is simple–it is a guilt-free ride. Not my fault. He made me do it. I resisted, mommy, I was a good girl!
Plus, being so wanted that he cannot control himself, or cannot back off, or cannot consider the consequences, raises the woman’s self-esteem, in a way.
This is an old, old tradition. As a matter of fact, about a half of romance stories, with or without forced rape, feature the hero stalking or harassing the heroine into a love affair. The sort of actions, which might lead him to serious attention from the police if he weren’t such a studly muffin, and she didn’t secretly want him so. A female fantasy of wanting male attention, with the guarantee he is truly handsome, of course. cool:
To me, forced seduction is as good as rape. I’m the card-carrying member of the anti-club
Why? Because, like one lady above noticed, it is a story of a man “breaking through the woman’s societal barriers”–breaking through her attitude, her ideas, her whatever–it is mental rape in my book. Basically, it is a case of a stronger-willed person forcing a weaker-willed person into making a choice they had not initially wanted to make, at least not fully.
On the other hand, I’d like to see a man who’d dare forcibly seduce me. Without the help of a loaded gun, that is
To me, forced seduction is as good as rape. I’m the card-carrying member of the anti-club
Why? Because, like one lady above noticed, it is a story of a man “breaking through the woman’s societal barriers”–breaking through her attitude, her ideas, her whatever–it is mental rape in my book. Basically, it is a case of a stronger-willed person forcing a weaker-willed person into making a choice they had not initially wanted to make, at least not fully. How does it feel–living with the thought that you might not have chosen what you have chosen, if there were no pressure?
On the other hand, I’d like to see a man who’d dare forcibly seduce me. Without the help of a loaded gun, that is
sorry for double posting… my computer must be disagreeing
I loved Laurie’s article, and I’ve seen the discussion at AAR but never commented before. The thing is, I’ve enjoyed some forced seduction scenes. I’m not saying that it’s all I want to read, and I don’t even know what makes some forced seduction scenes work for me while others have me wishing I could erase what I’d read. I just know that I don’t want to feel wrong for enjoying something in my own imagination.
James Patterson wrote 1st to Die, a bestseller that’s going to be a TV movie. I couldn’t stomach even the first chapter, (killer’s POV, he murders a bride and groom, then has necrophiliac sex with the bride). Okay! I was done. Now, my very good friend loves horror movies and books, she even enjoys her own nightmares of terrifying things. She doesn’t condone anything like that in real life or wish to live through them. I wouldn’t want to censure her entertainment and I wouldn’t expect her to hide what she enjoys reading or make excuses. It’s what she likes. She finds it fascinating or thrilling or whatever. Good for her, even though I don’t get it. I know that sexual abuse and rape is very real, and if that happened in my life I’d never read a forced seduction again, just like murders happen in real life, and family members of murder victims doubtless don’t enjoy those kinds of stories either.
When those who don’t enjoy forced seductions scenes at all discuss their reasons, I can often see their point even if I don’t agree. It’s freedom of speech to let everyone express their opinions. But when some people start with the “When will publishers stop publishing books with rapist heroes? No means no! We need to vote with our wallets!” I feel like that isn’t so much an expression of an opinion as it is a desire to censure mine. Romance is different for everyone. Like several people have already said, different strokes for different folks.
“I do know that I’ve never mistaken them for reality whether I liked or hated them, which is what I think Laurie was getting at in her original post.”
I’ve never mistaken forced seduction scenarios as something I’d enjoy or find acceptable in real life either (unless in the context of consensual role-playing). All my requirements for what “works” for me in fictional forced seduction is just that–what works for me in fiction. Forced seduction in real life–well, dude tries it with me, he better have a metal jockstrap in place, is all I’m saying.
“When I think about the most effective forced seduction scenes I’ve read, the hero is pretty well unrepentant about his actions. And, in a way, that fits because quite often these are men who aren’t necessarily “nice”.”
Hmmm. See, I think I’d like at least a LITTLE repentance. I like my heroes to be strong, not outright power-tripping assholes who refuse to acknowledge that they’ve been power-tripping assholes.
“But if his behavior toward the heroine is part of this fantasy, to apologize for it would be to negate the whole episode, and in my mind would turn the man into a…well, since we’re in mixed company, I’ll say “wussy.—
Is William reading these comments? Dude, sorry if we offend thine delicate ears!
See, I don’t think apologizing for being a prick is an act of a puss. I think it takes extraordinary bravery, strength and self-awareness to look back, see that you’ve acted like a jerkface and be properly repentant. (WHY is it that people tend to associate apologizing and acknowledgement of wrong from men with emasculation? Interesting to think about, non?) I think it takes a lot more cojones to do that than forge ahead exactly as you are. I certainly didn’t think Justin, Allegreto or Sebastian Verlaine were any less manly for acknowledging they were jackasses. They still kicked mucho, mucho ass, and Justin certainly remained pretty piratical till the end, even when he settles down with Celia.
It’s a matter of different fantasies, of course: My fantasy involves the hero putting the heroine through the wringer then finding the balls to apologize for being a such an ass, and I can understand that other people don’t care so much about the apology aspect.
I think this is where the split really comes into action. I can admit I have never enjoyed things in romantic fiction that I wouldn’t have enjoyed in real life, and vice versa. The idea of “I love to read about it but I would never do it in life”… I can grasp it intellectually, but I can’t relate emotionally.
That said, I find the censorship appalling. Crime novels didn’t make anyone a murderer if those people did not have such tendencies to begin with, I don’t think any kind of forced sexual fantasies employed in romance novels will make anyone a rapist in any higher degree than it had been expressed in their personality before. Though it perhaps might give them an idea that women like and expect such a behaviour… hmm… interesting issue.
This conversation, like the ATBF, is really fascinating. However, can somebody point to where the cries for censorship come in? I’m trying to remember the ATBF conversations, and while I recall there were some posters who wished rape/forced seduction/etc. would disappear from the genre and strongly felt that it was wrong to use, I don’t recall anyone actively calling for censorship of the device. And censorship how exactly? Like preventing authors from writing it or publishers from releasing books that included it? I don’t get how that would work, much less how that equates to censorship.
I’m confused whether we’re talking about people calling for censorship of a particular device–when we all know publishers look at the bottomline over the occasional offended email–or whether statements against the device are being taken for calls for censorship. What am I missing?
Yeah, but if one carries that logic over to other genres we’d have to assume that murder scenes imply people like/want to be murdered, wouldn’t we?
“Yeah, but if one carries that logic over to other genres we’d have to assume that murder scenes imply people like/want to be murdered, wouldn’t we?”
Not necessarily–how many mysteries/thrillers have you read in which the murder victims ultimately enjoyed being killed or tortured, and the killers ended up being the heroes with a happily-ever-after ending?
People usually don’t enjoy being murdered, ask to repeat the process one more time, and don’t marry their murderers… do they?:-)
So it’s not an issue of having some kind of behaviour in fiction, but of, well, endorsing it. Usually, when controversial issues are handled in such a way, the book becomes controversial in nature, and regarded as such. But when they are regarded as a socio-behavioral norm… Let me give you an example
There is a famous, or infamous, novella by a rather famous author which features a werewolf hero raping a woman when they are stuck in the elevator together, because she is ovulating, and she is maybe his mate (I’ll admit to my memory being a bit fuzzy about this point), so his breeding/mating instinct overcomes his good manners. The book being a paranormal fantasy, of course his instinct is supposed to be a valid reason, and not a “call the police, press the charges, put into jail” kind of reason
The question is… if he were human, just a normal guy who is stuck with a girl, and suddenly wants her so much, he rapes her–nothing metaphysical to explain his lack of self-control–would the readers accept it? And, at the end, is there really much of a difference? I’d say it is obvious that the speculative nature of his, well, nature, is there to make the whole situation more plausible.
People usually don’t enjoy being murdered, ask to repeat the process one more time, and don’t marry their murderers… do they?:-)
So it’s not an issue of having some kind of behaviour in fiction, but of, well, endorsing it. Usually, when controversial issues are handled in such a way, the book becomes controversial in nature, and regarded as such. But when they are regarded as a socio-behavioral norm… Let me give you an example.
There is a famous, or infamous, novella by a rather famous author which features a werewolf hero raping a woman when they are stuck in the elevator together, because she is ovulating, and she is maybe his mate (I’ll admit to my memory being a bit fuzzy about this point), so his breeding/mating instinct overcomes his good manners. The book being a paranormal fantasy, of course his instinct is supposed to be a valid reason, and not a “call the police, press the charges, put into jail” kind of reason
The question is… if he were human, just a normal guy who is stuck with a girl, and suddenly wants her so much, he rapes her–nothing metaphysical to explain his lack of self-control–would the readers accept it? And, at the end, is there really much of a difference? I’d say it is obvious that the speculative nature of his, well, nature, is there to make the whole situation more plausible.
So, for that race of beings, such a behaviour is a cultural norm. You will find many similar developments in romantic erotica. Vampires who have it in their blood to hold down the female and have sex with her, etc. Aliens who kidnap the females and use them as sex pets, because it is the cultural standard in their world. Notice how those more extreme behaviours are practically often veiled by the fantasy/speculative shroud of a “different culture.”
People usually don’t enjoy being murdered, ask to repeat the process one more time, and don’t marry their murderers… do they?:-)
So it’s not an issue of having some kind of behaviour in fiction, but of, well, endorsing it. Usually, when controversial issues are handled in such a way, the book becomes controversial in nature, and regarded as such. But when they are regarded as a socio-behavioral norm… Let me give you an example.
There is a famous, or infamous, novella by a rather famous author which features a werewolf hero raping a woman when they are stuck in the elevator together, because she is ovulating, and she is maybe his mate (I’ll admit to my memory being a bit fuzzy about this point), so his breeding/mating instinct overcomes his good manners. The book being a paranormal fantasy, of course his instinct is supposed to be a valid reason, and not a “call the police, press the charges, put into jail” kind of reason
The question is… if he were human, just a normal guy who is stuck with a girl, and suddenly wants her so much, he rapes her–nothing metaphysical to explain his lack of self-control–would the readers accept it? And, at the end, is there really much of a difference? I’d say it is obvious that the speculative nature of his, well, nature, is there to make the whole situation more plausible.
(I hate this computer)
so, for that race of beings, such a behaviour is a cultural norm. You will find many similar developments in romantic erotica. Vampires who have it in their blood to hold down the female and have sex with her, etc. Aliens who kidnap the females and use them as sex pets, because it is the cultural standard in their world. Notice how those more extreme behaviours are practically often veiled by the fantasy/speculative shroud of a “different culture.”
Now, take the level of intensity down a few levels, make everyone human…and voila, a classic forced seduction scene.
What does that tell us? Maybe that the authors are afraid of being accused in providing endorsement for a certain kind of controversial sexual fantasies?
And if the female readers can separate fantasy from reality–can the male readers do it?
On one hand, it is pretty offensive to assume they can’t.
On the other hand, weren’t the men told for ages that romance as a genre encapsulates all female desires?
And, by the way, Laurie–some women find the idea of two men or two women together quite sexy. So I don’t think it’s a gender issue.
“I grew up on Catherine Coulter, but like Laurie, I couldn’t take them any more. I can’t recall which book it was, but it was a Medieval and Rose—- in the title. The hero rapes the heroine.”
Was it Rosehaven? Not only does the hero rape the heroine, but the other women in the household chastize her for being too proud to submit willingly, thereby deserving what she got. Double-dipped yuck on a stick.
As for To Have and To Hold, although those early scenes between Sebastien and Rachel were incredibly difficult for me to read, I can’t imagine the book without them, and feel that Sebastien’s overt repentence (even as he’s trying to make lame excuses, all the while knowing they’re lame) pumped up his masculinity for me in a big way. His self-awareness is a central part of his appeal to me, even in the early parts of the book. And his acknowledging the jerkiness of his actions made me feel much more that he was effecting his own “redemption,” which in turn just made him more powerful to me as a hero.
Okay. Let’s say, Ms. A doesn’t enjoy forced seduction. Ms. B does. Ms. B loves role-playing this out with her significant other. She is stating, in no uncertain terms, that she has a forced seduction fantasy(or call it rape, if there’s no difference to you). A secret desire that she would never want in real life. She wants to leave the fault with the male, or feel dominated, or pretend that the guy is a werewolf in heat so she can feel safe that it would never happen in real life, or for whatever the reasons, she finds this erotic. Can males separate fantasy from reality? Should Ms. B take into consideration the message she’s sending to the participating male? She’s not endorsing rape. It’s fantasy. Not reality. The guy she’s doing it with likely has fantasies that he wants to remain fantasies also. If Ms. B decides to write a book about this, or read about this, she’s exploring this in a different way. Ms. A, or Ms. X or Y or Z may disagree. It’s pretty interesting how differently everyone’s mind works.
Laurie, I’m writing about a similar topic in my post on Sunday–about how people believe that fiction can hurt us. Great post, and thanks for bringing up the topic.
I’ve said before on other forums that I really miss the old 80s books. And I really, really do. I miss the over the top plots and I miss the larger than life characters and, yeah, I miss the forced seductions.
It’s not one thing that makes me like these, but a combination. First, it’s the relief of (for a time, in a book where there’s no real danger, and vicariously through the heroine) NOT having to be ‘responsible’. Sometimes, I think a woman’s life just gets tired. You are responsible at work — usually for a TON of things that the men let go. You are responsible for the food at home. You are responsible for the kids, and the clothes, and the way you look, and paying the bills….and it’s exhausting.
For me, the kids are now grown and the house pretty much runs itself and I don’t have an outside job anymore, but the stresses of a responsible life get you down. I don’t enjoy fuzzy, funny, ha-ha books — never have. But, I do enjoy tense, exciting books with the occasional moments of ‘you aren’t responsible, you CAN’T be responsible, I won’t let you’.
Of course it only works if the guy in question is the to-die-for hero that the heroine secretly wants more than anything in her life, even if she doesn’t know it.
That, I think is the fantasy — the guy you really WANT just taking over everything. And it IS a fantasy, not ‘real life’. Not something I want in ‘real life’ (well, except maybe as play LOL)
Second, the forced seduction (along with ANY big dramatic scene) makes the fiction more interesting. It creates conflict in a scene where it’s hard to put conflict. A scene that’s just ‘oh honey, I love you so much. Kiss kiss. Sex’ gets REALLY boring if it goes no longer than a paragraph. Happy happy sex is interesting to DO, but it’s usually boring to READ. ANY scene that doesn’t have conflict in it is boring to read. So, sex scenes where the tension can be kept high are just more enjoyable and memorable book moments. Forced seduction certainly isn’t the only way to make a sex scene more interesting — but it is ONE way.
Thirdly, forced seductions contribute to the tone I like in a book. As I said above, I don’t like nice sweet, happy books. I like books that bite, that are edgy and controversial and difficult in places. So, the books that have these sorts of scenes are often books where I’m just more interested in the hero and heroine and story than in some other books.
Do I like books without these scenes? Sure. LOTS. But, this is the sort of book that draws me, so I’ll read it. I’m greatly enjoying Anne Stuart’s Black Ice right now, for example.
So, for me, it’s a package deal. I like the sorts of books where these scenes CAN occur, I like my fiction a bit larger and gritter than many readers, and I can get into the fantasy of being stripped of responsibility. But it’s just fiction. To each their own.
As for the ‘but that will confuse people’ — puleeze! Are we morons? God help us if the fact someone likes to read books about serial killers is suggesting they want one to visit them! Or that liking to read about aliens invading means they expect ET any moment, with an alien uzi. What we read as fiction is enjoyed precisely because it IS fiction, safe. And if it were any genre but Romance there wouldn’t even be a discussion.
There are people who can’t separate reality from fantasy and they need help. But the average adult — male OR female — knows the difference.
–June
I know the censorship term has been bandied about in some of the comments to my piece, and I think the concern from those quarters is this: By suggesting that such scenes perpetrate real violence against women because men and/or women can’t distinguish between fiction and reaity, it’s a hop, skip, and a jump from suggesting that such scenes out not be written as a result. As to how censorship in this instance would actually work, I don’t think anyone suggested it that far along, just that the *idea* of censorship was something they were against.
TTFN, LLB
Julie -
I look forward to reading your column. I’d actually written an entirely different column, on a completely different topic, several days before deciding it would not be nearly as interesting as writing about this subject. I’m glad I changed my mind, because this has been a very interesting discussion.
TTFN, LLB
Artemis, which is why it is such a boggy point. It would have been too simple to state that people cannot separate reality from fantasy
So at the end, I think it is all a matter of how your brain is wired. As a friend of mine said on another list, “if you don’t viscerally understand the difference between rape and forced seduction, you don’t. If you do, then you do.”
I think it goes back to the basic personality traits. Some people dream of control taken away, along with responsibility. For others, losing control is a nightmare, rather than a fantasy. For some, forced sex is a method to free a woman from her inhibitions and responsibilities. For some, it is perceived as humiliation for a woman.
I think it’s like water and oil, forever unable to mix
And I agree with the poster who said it makes for edgier books. Though I’d for once love to read an edgy books which wouldn’t gain egdiness by making a woman too weak to fight.
Artemis, which is why it is such a boggy point. It would have been too simple to state that people cannot separate reality from fantasy.
So at the end, I think it is all a matter of how your brain is wired. As a friend of mine said on another list, “if you don’t viscerally understand the difference between rape and forced seduction, you don’t. If you do, then you do.”
I think it goes back to the basic personality traits. Some people dream of control taken away, along with responsibility. For others, losing control is a nightmare, rather than a fantasy. For some, forced sex is a method to free a woman from her inhibitions and responsibilities. For some, it is perceived as humiliation for a woman.
I think it’s like water and oil, forever unable to mix
And I agree with the poster who said it makes for edgier books. Though I’d for once love to read an edgy books which wouldn’t gain egdiness by making a woman weak.