When I was thirteen my I went to Barnes and Nobles with my mom and she gave me permission to buy one book. Since there weren't any new Gossip Girl books or any of the other trash I liked when I was thirteen, I picked up a historical romance novel that looked pretty good. I believe it was called "The First Princess of Wales" and it was about Joan of Kent, a real historical figure. The story inside seemed to have nothing to do with Joan's life, though. Joan and her husband Edward, The Black Prince, were a very romantic couple in real life, and he married her despite a lot of opposition and it seemed they were very happy together. No where in the history books does it mention a rape. But in the novel, Edward kidnaps and brutally rapes the underage Joan (in real life she was older than him but in the book he's implied to be significantly older than her), and she responds by falling head-over-heels in love with him.
Of course, after that I put down the book, disgusted. It seemed really wrong. I wasn't really a feminist at age thirteen, but everything I'd been told about rape made it seem like it'd be really offensive for women who had gone through that for it to be portrayed in that light. I told my mom what I'd read, and she wasn't the least bit surprised. "You used to see that kind of thing all the time in romance novels when I was your age." She even told me there was a couple like that in a soap opera she used to watch called General Hospital. He raped her, but the ended up married with children and are still together in the show. In fact, they actually have a large fan base online even today.
For some reason, that plot device seems really degrading to women. Going back to the medieval belief that women are possessions to be "taken" by men. That book gave the impression that Joan had only resisted because she needed to be "broken" and that once that happened she became a docile woman eager to return Edward's affections. The book was set in the thirteen hundreds, but it was written about a supposed "great love story". In real life, if a woman falls in love with a man who rapes her, it's Stockholm Syndrome and the victim would probably need therapy to get over it. If not, it certainly wouldn't develop into a normal or healthy relationship and she wouldn't love him in the same way women normally love men their involved with. It seems like a dangerous message to spread and a mentally unstable young man could even see it as a sign he should rape the object of his affections. Why would anyone think rape is romantic?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Why is rape romantic? .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/7768
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
I think you nailed it when you said "That book gave the impression that Joan had only resisted because she needed to be "broken" and that once that happened she became a docile woman eager to return Edward's affections."
A rape which wins a woman's affections sounds like a masculinist fantasy to me:" Let me break her with my MIGHTY AND IRRESISTIBLE PENIS! She will love my penis SO. MUCH. that she will want to marry me!"
I checked out the General Hospital link that you put up and I couldn't believe it! So...Luke loves Laura SO. MUCH. that he just can't stop himself from fucking RAPING her?! And then she not only DEFENDS but ENDS UP WITH HIM?! What message are they trying to send?!: "Well, rape really isn't that big of a deal, and, actually, it's really just an act of passion gone wrong. In the end, it's a great way to "win" a woman!"
Ugh, that kind of stuff really makes me feel sick. It is so disgusting and offensive it is literally giving me a headache. I think it might explode.
What really interests me is not so much that people write this stuff (I think you nailed the why of that, btw) but that women actually BUY IT.
And I have to say, I think the rape fantasy continues to be so prevalent because it absolves us of any desire on our part. If we're raped then we have no control over the situation, and if we enjoy it, well, no one has to know. Of course that fantasy has nothing whatsoever to do with real rape because it's not something we have any control over (it's not that guy we think is cute and he doesn't do stuff to us in a way we actually like). But the fantasy keeps selling books...
A few years ago I caught a bit of a Luke and Laura centric episode of GH and in it they were going through a bit of a break up and she was crying and yelled, "How could you say you love me and then rape me!" (I'm paraphrasing). So it was address but I don't know to what extent, I didn't finish the episode. If anyone knows of it then please tell us more.
I think rape is romanticized also because women are supposed to like "sex" (although rape is NOT sex)sexual desire and "sex" is supposed to be a man's realm and women were to lie back and think of...whatever got them through it. So women were to resist sex at all costs (especially if they didn't want to get pregnant) and it took a "real" man to show her whatfor and as Julia pointed out, men believe that their sexual might and penises will become irresistible to the women. A possible explanation for women who write these kinds of romance novels is that they are absolving their characters (and probably themselves) of responsibility and the stigma of being a "bad" girl who not only likes sex, but wants it.
I was never one for watching the soaps, but I knew all about Luke and Laura from "General Hospital". Those two have been named as one of TV's most romantic couples numerous times - even though he raped her.
I know writers who write rape fantasy for their erotic romance novels, and I honestly just don't get it. I also don't get why that fantasy is so popular - with women, yet. I've had one writer try to explain the fantasy to me. It sounds more like submissive BDSM than rape, which is also something I just don't get, but at least I have a "whatever suits you" attitude towards submissive BDSM. There is trust, giving in to feelings of helplessness (for the sub), and consent in that sort of thing (and I think in the rape fantasy) that doesn't exist in real rape. Rape is entirely different. Real rape is nothing like the rape fantasy. I know they are different, but neither have any appeal for me.
I'm speaking on behalf of the women who do have similar fantasies, and aren't ashamed of it.
To me, a rape fantasy is not about it happening in real life. It's not about wanting real rape to happen, it's not about believing real rape is okay or any of those misconceptions. It's individual to the woman, but for me personally, but it's about being dominated and taken control of.
The whole romance-novel section of the book store is dangerous. I recently read four borrowed romance books from the 1990s and every one of them had submission of the woman to the man as the driving force behind the relationship.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for rape fantasies and power play in the bedroom but I have a real problem when it's a plot about men who need to "tame" their women.
I have half a mind to find some romance novels that make some kind of real-life sense, but on the other hand, maybe I should just stop reading them all together.
"A rape which wins a woman's affections sounds like a masculinist fantasy to me:' Let me break her with my MIGHTY AND IRRESISTIBLE PENIS! She will love my penis SO. MUCH. that she will want to marry me!'"
Yes, I see a lot of this. What first came to my mind just now is "Gone With the Wind" - via
Striking Chords and Touching Nerves: Myth and Gender in Gone With the Wind by Vicki L. Eacklor
http://www.imagesjournal.com/2002/features/gwtw/text2.htm
"Once one realizes that Rhett's need to dominate Scarlett pervades their every encounter, the infamous (apparent) rape scene, potentially so offensive from a feminist perspective, becomes less eventful though no less disturbing. Initially having asked myself if what occurred upstairs was really a rape, I now believe this question to be less relevant than two related observations. First, the entire relationship, modeled on rape as it is, renders that one scene more symbolic than offensive reality. Second, this Rhett/Scarlett relationship, with rape as its dynamic model, portrays for viewers the prototypical romance, leading to the logical and dangerous conclusion that romance and rape are indistinguishable. Scarlett's high spirits in the morning-after scene, apparently denoting satisfaction, reinforce both this view of romance/rape and the corresponding myth that women, despite their protests, want and need to be conquered."
Important to note regarding "rape" fantasy, of men or women:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_sex_fantasy
"Those who have forced sex fantasies seldom wish to actually be forced into sex. The difference between a fantasy and a real life situation is that in the fantasy, the person remains in full control of what happens and maintains their power."
Men may for example, joke about being taken by female teachers, bosses, or other female authority figures based on news stories, but that is only because they have already assessed these women's appearance favorably - they would not accept advances from a strange woman or one they consider unacceptable - say a 60 year old teacher instead of a blonde 24 year old.
I watched General Hospital when I was a kid (or rather my mother and grandmother did so I did too) and I remember the whole Luke and Laura thing right from the beginning. I was too young to understand what rape was but the show certainly presented it as just another form of sex.
What's even more disgusting is that the actress Genie Francis (Laura) was like 15 when she started working on the show. I know Laura was supposed to be older than 15 but, nevertheless, Luke raped a woman who looked like a teenager and then later they fell in love. It's like a childmolester fantasy.