![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Here's something that has always puzzled me about our culture, and it appears to be world-wide not just Western Culture or in the US.
Why is a woman who has had various lovers or lots of sex called a slut or whore or tramp, but a man is not? Men are either called womanizer or playboy or bachelor. While women are called spinisters, tramps, sluts or whores.
Along with this question rise various others...
* Why does it matter whether or not you are a virgin? (I mean I can see why it might if you carry a STD or have AIDS, but other than that?)
* Why is a woman who has cheated on her husband a tramp but the man she cheats on him with - not one? Yet when a man cheats on his wife - the other woman is the tramp, not the husband?
2. Making my way through McNaught's Whitney, My Love - which is okay, but slow. I like the heroine, but the hero is a bit of an ass. It's revised edition - so some of the controversial bits have been changed or lessened. McNaught is a bit less risque than Rosemary Rodgers and Kathleen Woodliss - although in comparison to Maya Banks and Sylvia Day's contemporary boddice rippers, these ladies are rather tame in comparison.
I've noticed the modern romance writers aren't as careful in their writing and plotting as the writers in the 80s, nor do they appear to have editors or copy-editors.
I have however figured out why I'm suddenly fascinated by this genre - it's two reasons really:
1) The problems are solved through forgiveness, discussion, love and remorse. Not violence. Actually violence is depicted to be the problem not a solution. Or it makes things worse.
Rape = the guy loses everything. Etc. Revenge never goes well. No - healing can only take place by being kind and compromise.
2) The focus is on female relationships. How women relate to other women, to men, to children, and to their world - particularly when they have no power, or everything is predicated on physical power, so they are constantly fighting for their rights.
These two things I've noticed tend to be more prevalent in the historical romances than the contemporary romances. In contemporary romances - the writer has to go out of her way to make the female character weaker than the male or less powerful. Often does it with physical means - he's physically bigger and stronger than she is or has more money or wealth. Often both. This is interesting. In some romances, she's more powerful than he is and he's the one who is the weaker party. These are the contemporary romances. Often they are equals in power, neither more powerful than the other.
The difference between the two gives me hope.
There is also the weird ass Stockholm syndrome trope - which I don't understand the appeal of. And have not read - just reviews of, on Amazon and Good Reads. These novels have a misunderstood guy kidnap a young, lovely female, and well have his way with her - torture her, etc, until she manages to escape. But somehow, some way, she fell for him. And he can't stop thinking about her, so they reunite, she forgives him, and they fall in love.
It's an odd trope. I admittedly do not understand the appeal - I don't deal with torture well in stories, regardless of the genre or medium. So, I'm not sure what to make of this trope frankly. While my initial reaction is to judge the heck out of it, because I find it unsettling - I'm thinking there's a reason it's out there and like all things is most likely a reaction to something that is going on, or a means of dealing with a difficult trauma. Then again...it could also just be a somewhat naive and sick fantasy...and I'm over-thinking this. But I over-think everything, so this is hardly surprising.
3. Finished watching the mid-season finales of Nashville and Scandal. Yes, they are actually calling them "mid-season" or "winter-season" finals. First off it is NOT winter yet - it's still fall. The first day of Winter, I believe is in late December sometime around Christmas. Second...Mid-Season? It's been three and half months, maybe less.
But not to worry - there will be replacement mini-series in the time slot - that you can watch until they pop up again. Yes, just what we all need - more tv shows.
* Nashville was more enjoyable than expected. Is it wrong to wish that Avery would just ditch Scarlett and run off with Juliet - who inappropriately knocked on his door to tell him that she was in love with him? He'd probably be happier with Scarlett, who is admittedly growing on me, but I prefer Avery and Juliet. I love both characters, they are actually my favorite characters. (Although I admittedly like all the characters except for well the one they killed off...and a few supporting ones that hardly matter.)
Rayna's storyline has gotten markedly better since she broke things off with Deacon and split from her husband. Right now they are focusing on her starting a business with her sister. And the fling she had with Luke Wheeler - who is a realistic representation of the head-liner male country rock singers a la Garth Brooks and Tim McGraw (actually he reminds me a lot of Tim McGraw - although the actor was the guy who played Joe Dimaggio on SMASH) appears to be thankfully over. I preferred Liam, he was more interesting and more attractive. Luke's an ass.
Deacon's storyline has also gotten more interesting since he split from Juliett and Rayna and is now starting up his own career with help from Gunner. Gunner too has a better storyline now that he's hooked up with Zoe (one of the better additions), befriended Avery, and is no longer involved with Scarlett. Scarlett weirdly is a character who seems to suck the life out of any other character she is paired with. Her songs and style remind me a great deal of Jewel.
The Mayor on the other hand...is another story. I'm hoping that killing off his unlikable wife may liven things up a bit. Actually The Mayor and Rayna's father were always the weak links in the tale.
I do adore what they've done with Avery - his arc is amongst the best to date. And Jonathan Jackson carries it off well - he finally has a decent role to sink his teeth into, plus he gets to show off his considerable musical talent.
No good or memorable songs this week. And I think Will may have just committed suicide.
Which may come back and hit Layla in the butt. Layla is in for a big downfall - particularly when it comes out that she leaked Juliett's affair with Wentworth. I can't stand Layla - was sort of hoping she'd get killed. But I knew that it would be Teddy's new wife - although I found that odd, considering they went through the whole miscarriage/pregnancy lie storyline first - with no real pay-off. That's the thing about Nashville - it builds up the soap suds but doesn't really go in the direction that soaps normally do in this regard. Normally we'd have the annoying story about the wife's lie regarding her miscarriage/pregnancy and when it occurred come out - lots of angst, and then her death. But this round - he doesn't find out about the lie and she dies.
Scandal - now that was a well-written finale, they wrapped some things up, yet built up others - without leaving it completely on a cliff-hanger. My only quibble - Shonda Rhimes, honey, please stop putting musical scores over dialogue, it's distracting. Particularly loud ones. It's actually worse on Grey's Anatomy - where we got a musical score, dialogue, and a voice over. Television sound editing isn't good enough to handle that sort of hat-trick.
OMG moments? Include POSTUS and Jake managing to get the better of Roen - Olivia Pope's devilish father - culminating in fantastic scene between Joe Morton's Roen and Tony Goldwyn's POSTUS (FITZ). Morton's ranting monologue to POSTUS - is the black man's rant against the entitled privileged white male power trip. "You're a boy. I'm the man. You've had everything given to you. Wealth. Power. All of it. And you've not even made good use of it. You take it for granted. Because you've never really had to work for any of it. You don't know what it is like to earn anything or work for anything - so as a result you don't appreciate it. I've had to earn, work for, and obtain everything I've gotten. I'm the first man in my family to have a college degree, and my daughter was sent to boarding schools with the children of Kings!" In SCANDAL - Rhimes basically shoots a satiric torpedo at the white male power structure, underlining all the cracks in the foundation.
I love this series for how it cleverly plays with racial and feminist themes, underlying the racial and gender divisions in our country, along with sexual orientation. Cyrus Been, Mellie, James, Abby, Quinn, Olivia, Rowen, and Olivia's mother - are people who have struggled against the power structure, lying outside it, scrambling for a foothold - while people like Fitz, Jake, Huck, Charlie...all have that ready foothold. Scandal reminds me a great deal of Game of Thrones in how it plays with power, and shows people that we assume do not have power - have quite a bit, and can become powerful. And those who have been handed it, don't know what to do with it and often squander it - or take it for granted. And the abuses on both sides.
Also it questions our assumptions about race and gender - showing that people are just people. Gender and race is not the defining characteristic, we often make it out to be.
Rhimes does color and gender blind better than most.
Why is a woman who has had various lovers or lots of sex called a slut or whore or tramp, but a man is not? Men are either called womanizer or playboy or bachelor. While women are called spinisters, tramps, sluts or whores.
Along with this question rise various others...
* Why does it matter whether or not you are a virgin? (I mean I can see why it might if you carry a STD or have AIDS, but other than that?)
* Why is a woman who has cheated on her husband a tramp but the man she cheats on him with - not one? Yet when a man cheats on his wife - the other woman is the tramp, not the husband?
2. Making my way through McNaught's Whitney, My Love - which is okay, but slow. I like the heroine, but the hero is a bit of an ass. It's revised edition - so some of the controversial bits have been changed or lessened. McNaught is a bit less risque than Rosemary Rodgers and Kathleen Woodliss - although in comparison to Maya Banks and Sylvia Day's contemporary boddice rippers, these ladies are rather tame in comparison.
I've noticed the modern romance writers aren't as careful in their writing and plotting as the writers in the 80s, nor do they appear to have editors or copy-editors.
I have however figured out why I'm suddenly fascinated by this genre - it's two reasons really:
1) The problems are solved through forgiveness, discussion, love and remorse. Not violence. Actually violence is depicted to be the problem not a solution. Or it makes things worse.
Rape = the guy loses everything. Etc. Revenge never goes well. No - healing can only take place by being kind and compromise.
2) The focus is on female relationships. How women relate to other women, to men, to children, and to their world - particularly when they have no power, or everything is predicated on physical power, so they are constantly fighting for their rights.
These two things I've noticed tend to be more prevalent in the historical romances than the contemporary romances. In contemporary romances - the writer has to go out of her way to make the female character weaker than the male or less powerful. Often does it with physical means - he's physically bigger and stronger than she is or has more money or wealth. Often both. This is interesting. In some romances, she's more powerful than he is and he's the one who is the weaker party. These are the contemporary romances. Often they are equals in power, neither more powerful than the other.
The difference between the two gives me hope.
There is also the weird ass Stockholm syndrome trope - which I don't understand the appeal of. And have not read - just reviews of, on Amazon and Good Reads. These novels have a misunderstood guy kidnap a young, lovely female, and well have his way with her - torture her, etc, until she manages to escape. But somehow, some way, she fell for him. And he can't stop thinking about her, so they reunite, she forgives him, and they fall in love.
It's an odd trope. I admittedly do not understand the appeal - I don't deal with torture well in stories, regardless of the genre or medium. So, I'm not sure what to make of this trope frankly. While my initial reaction is to judge the heck out of it, because I find it unsettling - I'm thinking there's a reason it's out there and like all things is most likely a reaction to something that is going on, or a means of dealing with a difficult trauma. Then again...it could also just be a somewhat naive and sick fantasy...and I'm over-thinking this. But I over-think everything, so this is hardly surprising.
3. Finished watching the mid-season finales of Nashville and Scandal. Yes, they are actually calling them "mid-season" or "winter-season" finals. First off it is NOT winter yet - it's still fall. The first day of Winter, I believe is in late December sometime around Christmas. Second...Mid-Season? It's been three and half months, maybe less.
But not to worry - there will be replacement mini-series in the time slot - that you can watch until they pop up again. Yes, just what we all need - more tv shows.
* Nashville was more enjoyable than expected. Is it wrong to wish that Avery would just ditch Scarlett and run off with Juliet - who inappropriately knocked on his door to tell him that she was in love with him? He'd probably be happier with Scarlett, who is admittedly growing on me, but I prefer Avery and Juliet. I love both characters, they are actually my favorite characters. (Although I admittedly like all the characters except for well the one they killed off...and a few supporting ones that hardly matter.)
Rayna's storyline has gotten markedly better since she broke things off with Deacon and split from her husband. Right now they are focusing on her starting a business with her sister. And the fling she had with Luke Wheeler - who is a realistic representation of the head-liner male country rock singers a la Garth Brooks and Tim McGraw (actually he reminds me a lot of Tim McGraw - although the actor was the guy who played Joe Dimaggio on SMASH) appears to be thankfully over. I preferred Liam, he was more interesting and more attractive. Luke's an ass.
Deacon's storyline has also gotten more interesting since he split from Juliett and Rayna and is now starting up his own career with help from Gunner. Gunner too has a better storyline now that he's hooked up with Zoe (one of the better additions), befriended Avery, and is no longer involved with Scarlett. Scarlett weirdly is a character who seems to suck the life out of any other character she is paired with. Her songs and style remind me a great deal of Jewel.
The Mayor on the other hand...is another story. I'm hoping that killing off his unlikable wife may liven things up a bit. Actually The Mayor and Rayna's father were always the weak links in the tale.
I do adore what they've done with Avery - his arc is amongst the best to date. And Jonathan Jackson carries it off well - he finally has a decent role to sink his teeth into, plus he gets to show off his considerable musical talent.
No good or memorable songs this week. And I think Will may have just committed suicide.
Which may come back and hit Layla in the butt. Layla is in for a big downfall - particularly when it comes out that she leaked Juliett's affair with Wentworth. I can't stand Layla - was sort of hoping she'd get killed. But I knew that it would be Teddy's new wife - although I found that odd, considering they went through the whole miscarriage/pregnancy lie storyline first - with no real pay-off. That's the thing about Nashville - it builds up the soap suds but doesn't really go in the direction that soaps normally do in this regard. Normally we'd have the annoying story about the wife's lie regarding her miscarriage/pregnancy and when it occurred come out - lots of angst, and then her death. But this round - he doesn't find out about the lie and she dies.
Scandal - now that was a well-written finale, they wrapped some things up, yet built up others - without leaving it completely on a cliff-hanger. My only quibble - Shonda Rhimes, honey, please stop putting musical scores over dialogue, it's distracting. Particularly loud ones. It's actually worse on Grey's Anatomy - where we got a musical score, dialogue, and a voice over. Television sound editing isn't good enough to handle that sort of hat-trick.
OMG moments? Include POSTUS and Jake managing to get the better of Roen - Olivia Pope's devilish father - culminating in fantastic scene between Joe Morton's Roen and Tony Goldwyn's POSTUS (FITZ). Morton's ranting monologue to POSTUS - is the black man's rant against the entitled privileged white male power trip. "You're a boy. I'm the man. You've had everything given to you. Wealth. Power. All of it. And you've not even made good use of it. You take it for granted. Because you've never really had to work for any of it. You don't know what it is like to earn anything or work for anything - so as a result you don't appreciate it. I've had to earn, work for, and obtain everything I've gotten. I'm the first man in my family to have a college degree, and my daughter was sent to boarding schools with the children of Kings!" In SCANDAL - Rhimes basically shoots a satiric torpedo at the white male power structure, underlining all the cracks in the foundation.
I love this series for how it cleverly plays with racial and feminist themes, underlying the racial and gender divisions in our country, along with sexual orientation. Cyrus Been, Mellie, James, Abby, Quinn, Olivia, Rowen, and Olivia's mother - are people who have struggled against the power structure, lying outside it, scrambling for a foothold - while people like Fitz, Jake, Huck, Charlie...all have that ready foothold. Scandal reminds me a great deal of Game of Thrones in how it plays with power, and shows people that we assume do not have power - have quite a bit, and can become powerful. And those who have been handed it, don't know what to do with it and often squander it - or take it for granted. And the abuses on both sides.
Also it questions our assumptions about race and gender - showing that people are just people. Gender and race is not the defining characteristic, we often make it out to be.
Rhimes does color and gender blind better than most.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 12:19 am (UTC)Of course I'm not sure what the mistress did to prevent pregnancy - abortion? Did she give them away?
Or kept them and he supported them as well, as long as they didn't carry his name; or publicly acknowledged them; or sometimes the woman married another man...every sort of possibility you can imagine.
The thing is I'm not sure that "not impregnating his wife all the time" was part of the equation. The Catholic church forbade birth control, and at any rate infant mortality was so high for centuries that some couples had a child almost every year, even into the 19th and early 20th centuries
The wife was there to provide offspring, to run the household; the mistress was there for sexual pleasure; or for comfort and conversation. (some courtesans were known for their salons, for their wit and intelligence.) But the man could come and go at will.
And I'll even grant that there may often have been genuine love and attraction between the lovers: remember that until recently in the West, arranged marriages were common; it was an economic exchange, but also important to carry on the family name and the line. Having multiple children was crucial to that because a percentage of them were likely to die early.
Even in the 20th century - my mom and her husband came from (Catholic) families with 5-7 siblings; growing up my three sibs and I were considered "a large family".
You look over history and you begin to see how horribly the people in power handled that power and abused it. Men ditched their responsibility and turned women into property.
And I've been looking for decades so - yes, absolutely.
The irony though is that turning women into property HAS by and large been men's responsibility, not the opposite. Think of the bible - if a man "raped" a virgin she was damaged goods, a shame to her family and unmarriageable so the rapist was obligated to marry her (how often men actually did so is another question.) And not to bring in any particular issues in a particular fandom *shifty eyes* but I think this is at the heart of the "Why is rape considered worse than murder?" arguments. Because historically it WAS - for centuries. And I think that we carry a lot of those ancient beliefs with us to this day whether we are aware of where they come from or not.
And it continues today of course (I've seen it in my own life since childhood) and especially lingers in the way children are still treated as property ("what I say in my house goes" etc.) The assumption is that what parents do with or to their children is nobody else's business unless and until a line is crossed and - this is the key thing - made public.
Have you read Susan Griffin's "Women and Nature: The Roaring Inside Her"? It quotes from old texts written by men over the centuries about how to tame and control the natural world and explicitly draws the parallel to how women have been treated likewise.
http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Nature-The-Roaring-Inside/dp/1578050472
no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 02:32 am (UTC)Going by my own family's experiences...my paternal grandmother (who was Irish Catholic) was a devote Catholic. She practiced the rhythm method and it didn't really work. She ended up having 12 kids, one was born stillborn. Before the last four were born - the doctor's told her she should have a hysterectomy, but the miscarriage had been rough. But her priest told her it was against God's design ...a clear example of what you state above.
Think of the bible - if a man "raped" a virgin she was damaged goods
That's why the complaint that it is worse than murder has always unsettled me a bit. Romance novels are fascinating because the rape does not taint the woman or hurt her long-term, if anything its the guy who raped her that suffers and he really does suffer for a bit. What's also interesting is how they examine the whole being ruined and taken care of bit - often that's the conflict in the story, the woman refuses to be blackmailed into a relationship because she's ruined or to be taken care of. In the one I'm reading now - in a fit of rage and jealousy, the hero forcibly takes her virginity (he basically rapes her), she flees - telling him that she never wants to see him again. Yes, he's ruined her. They aren't married. So filled with remorse, he lets her go, and gives her a huge settlement - so she can marry someone else or support herself. It's an interesting solution that the writer came up with. (It's a romance - she forgives him eventually...etc.)
But see how the crime of rape is in some respects diminished? He didn't turn her into a victim. He didn't win. Or get his way. Instead he lost. The exact opposite of the historical text which states - the woman marries her rapist to avoid being called a slut.
And btw...that slur continues to this day. In numerous cases - the rape victim's sexual history is put on trial. She's ripped apart as a slut, as asking for it, as leading him on, as a tease. In short it was her fault. And if she got pregnant, well that's on her. A lot of woman are under the false assumption that when a guy gets ahem stirred up, he can't control himself or stop. Which is so untrue. Hello, he has a hand. Slap that monkey. But in a lot of erotica and romance novels - it's underlined that he can't control himself or he's in physical pain. (It makes me laugh - because I think, what, dude, you never learned to masturbate? Really?)
Female and male sexuality is so different. I vaguely remember one critic remarking in their review of the French film about two lesbian lovers - that women want to devour each other, they look at sex as consuming,
while men see it more as physical expenditure or thrusting, forceful.
That's why rape tends to be a male act. Yet, there are equally horror tales about being devoured. When I collected folktales and stories - a few were male jokes about the female vagina devoring the penis or strangling it.
American Horror Story:Coven and Neil Gaiman's American Gods - both have scenes depicting this happening to a male character. He fears being "consumed" by her, while she fears being impaled or having something ripped away.
Have you read Susan Griffin's "Women and Nature: The Roaring Inside Her"? It quotes from old texts written by men over the centuries about how to tame and control the natural world and explicitly draws the parallel to how women have been treated likewise.
I haven't. Thanks for the link. I think this is actually true. Weirdly, Buffy actually delved into that metaphor in its 6th season - with a lot of rape imagery. Willow ripping magic from the earth. The demon bikers. Etc. And Willow's use of magic in S6 was very masculain - she would rip things from people. While in S4, S5, and S7, it was the opposite.
And we do rip things from the earth. I work a great deal with environmental engineers for my job - and there is a lot of remediation, excavating, and testing of soil which has been contaminated and raped by humans to build railroads, etc.
I have thoughts about this...
Date: 2013-12-17 08:46 pm (UTC)that priest was mostly likely sincerely concerned for your grandmother's mortal soul. But what a horrible thing to say, what a horrible choice, which is no choice: "you don't have a say in what happens with your body because it belongs to God/the Church, to your husband/father etc. If you exercise autonomy, you will be damned for eternity as a sinner and judged a bad wife and mother besides."
So filled with remorse, he lets her go, and gives her a huge settlement - so she can marry someone else or support herself.
WHAT???
see how the crime of rape is in some respects diminished
YES. I understand that for a lot of women, it IS a fantasy. I DON'T understand the appeal of it at all. If we were all able to separate the fantasy from the reality there would be no problem; but we're not. The two bleed together IRL: "This is what women really want" "She was asking for it" etc. And the fantasy was proceeded by the reality that we've discussed; I think in some instances may reflect a wish to return to a supposedly "simpler" time. it makes it that much harder I think to look at the fantasy and see it as exactly that, an entirely separate entity.
Do men also have rape fantasies? men are trained to be in control of their bodies and to be totally knowledgable about sex; it seems reasonable to me that they'd have fantasies of the opposite, but that doesn't seem to be the case that I'm aware of? Maybe that's the root of horror/monster stories, the "vagina dentate" as a literal monster, woman as devouring femme fatale. She was a figure extremely popular in art and literature in the late 19th century, partly reflecting male fears of emancipated women; the fact that Joss/DH featured a flying dentata monster (penetrated by Spike's spaceship - funny, not) in the S8 comics reminds me of how Victorian Joss (and many men are) in his attitudes towards sexuality.
Hello, he has a hand. Slap that monkey.
*LMAO* I probably shouldn't laugh though; they say that rape is never about sex; and certainly when it's used as a weapon of war, it's not. But I wonder if that's always true or rather, I don't think it's always an either/or thing because they're not opposites. That is, it's always about power and control but can also be about sex as well. Relationships always involve power/control issues, no matter how happy or benign. It's an ongoing negotiation. Rape and any form of abuse or control is a moment when negotiation is abandoned and the needs/wishes of one partner are disregarded.
their review of the French film about two lesbian lovers - that women want to devour each other, they look at sex as consuming
So much NO to this critic. This is a MALE FANTASY; the nightmare of the vagina dentata is somewhat relieved when the vagina, the monster, is turned away from the Man and focused on another Woman - two "monsters" devouring one another; the Man is now in a safe space to watch and fantasize as long as the monsters are killed or tamed at the end. That has held true as a trope for over 100 years or more (Lillian Faderman's "Surpassing the Love of Men": http://www.ebay.com/itm/Surpassing-the-Love-of-Men-Romantic-Friendship-and-Love-Between-Women-from-the-/190956454831?pt=Non_Fiction&hash=item2c75e443af)
Conversely, 1970's feminists and lesbians tended to compensate in the other direction IMO. Female sexuality isn't hugs and puppies. We can devour, we can thrust - hello, we have hands, we have dildos; women rape other women and men; male and female desire ISN'T all that different IMO. Hence the complexities of top/bottom/butch/femme/masculine/feminine/submitting/controlling; in healthy relationships regardless of gender, these roles can be interchanged.
American Gods - both have scenes depicting this happening to a male character.
I read that a while back and I think I know which scene you're talking about and I stopped reading for a little while then went back and realized what a great novel it was; that that one scene wasn't meant to be a total judgement or depiction of female sexuality; it was one cultural motif of many.
Re: I have MORE thoughts about this...
Date: 2013-12-17 08:46 pm (UTC)Joss seems to be fascinated by the theme - it's the very first image in WTTH, Darla devouring a boy. The only "victim" of vampires I know of who gives full, informed consent, is Ford in Lie To Me. (Have you read penny_lane's Sexuality, Consent and the Buffyverse http://penny-lane-42.livejournal.com/138244.html)
Re: Willow, the act of resurrecting Buffy has parallels with Angelus turning Drusilla; just as he made her his "work of art" so is the resurrected Buffy Willow's "masterpiece" (until Chosen), her "objet d'art". Both characters deal in the themes and tropes of madness (Dru before her turning, Buffy afterwards.) Both are abandoned by their "sires". Willow's intentions were good, but in the Buffyverse intention and action have to be congruent with one another. Angelus meant to do evil but he may have liberated Dru to her own sexuality, and beyond the church and family; Willow meant to do well but caused emotional harm. Of course Buffy and Tara are also connected as Willow's "victims" that season. I don't think the full extent of Willow's responsibility is ever dealt with esp after Warren kills Tara and she becomes a grief-fueled lover bent on revenge.
While in S4, S5, and S7, it was the opposite.
I know people are extremely divided re: the Slayer Spell; I can see both sides of that issue and think both POV's have merit. Whether or not any violation of consent re: the mind is viewed as "a violation" or not in the Buffyverse seems to be conditional on the effect the writers wanted to achieve: Something Blue is played for laughs; on the perpetrator (it's bad when Willow does it to Tara but acceptable when Angel does it to Buffy on AtS), and whether it involves "taking away" or "inserting" (the monks creating Dawn and inserting false memories.)
there is a lot of remediation, excavating, and testing of soil which has been contaminated and raped by humans to build railroads
We once drove past a mountain in West Virgina that was being surface mined for coal, literally torn away from the top down; it was like something you'd see in a post-apocalyptic film. It's about "mastering" the earth, the universe, and doing with it as we please. That's why I'm against fantasies of going off to another planet; so we can do what, destroy this one and find another to ravage? No thanks.
Re: I have thoughts about this...
Date: 2013-12-22 04:14 pm (UTC)WHAT???
Well, the scenario is a wee bit convoluted. And you'd most likely be appalled by the plot-line. Suffice to say, he "almost rapes" her, they don't call it rape in novel - because she appears to consent to it. (Personally it felt like rape to me, and it is more or less treated that way in the novel). He does it because he thinks she's been making a fool of him, and has been sleeping around behind his back, while professing to be a virgin. Of course he discovers how incredibly wrong he was and is filled with remorse. (I remember thinking - but what if she wasn't? So what? It's not like you haven't slept with every woman in town? But back then, women had to be virgins, and men libertines.)
The time period being the 18th Century, or Regency period, where women basically had no rights and were considered "property" - also comes into play. At that time, being a virgin before marriage was crucial for a woman. Because otherwise she was a mistress or a whore from the male power perspective.
Historical romance novelists tend to paint the male gender in a less than stellar light. They often come across as nasty beasts that love and forgiveness redeem. It's the beauty and the beast trope - the guy commits an unforgiveable act, and through forgiveness and love is redeemed. And often the forgiveness comes from the fact that the unforgivable act was in some respects caused by the heroine's ill-advised actions or her interactions with him, creating distrust and frustration between them. The novelist doesn't say she deserved it or necessarily drove him to it, but more that it takes two to tango. (sort of similar to Spike and Willow's arcs in Buffy actually.)
YES. I understand that for a lot of women, it IS a fantasy. I DON'T understand the appeal of it at all. If we were all able to separate the fantasy from the reality there would be no problem; but we're not.
Eh, no the fantasy is NOT the rape. A lot of people misunderstand the fantasy. But if you carefully read the positive reviews on Amazon and Good Reads or the books. You'll discover a few interesting facts: The act of rape takes no more than 10 minutes. In 750 page book? It's two pages. In Buffy S6, it was 10 minutes - barely there. Leave the room, you miss it. But the redemption arc, the atoning, the forgiveness? That is about 100 pages or ten episodes (over 200 minutes). Think about that.
The fantasy is not rape, but rather redemption through love and forgiveness. The fantasy is that there is no crime that is so grievous that we cannot atone and be redeemed for. This is important to understand. Instead of "exterminating" the human for the grievous act - which is common in most mystery and suspense thrillers (ie. the revenge/justice fantasy) - the human shows remorse, atones, and through the love of the woman/man s/he hurt is ultimately redeemed (redemption fantasy).
Our culture often gravitates towards the revenge fantasy - which it likes to call justice because revenge is such a nasty word- and believes is realistic and the moral response. It denounces the redemption fantasy as romance or fantastical. Morally condemning anyone who believes love can redeem a person. We have tendency to define people by negative actions - and not seeing all the layers.
Often demonizing the person by their act, as opposed to condemning the act. Mystery and suspense writers often condemn the person not the act. While the romance genre will often do the exact opposite.
Re: I have thoughts about this...
Date: 2013-12-22 04:40 pm (UTC)I'd agree. I think rape is far more convoluted than people like to make it out to be. People react to it emotionally - but if you take the time to think about it...it is a rather complex crime. And much like murder, robbery, theft, etc - has various motivations and reasons. No two rapes are alike.
You can't treat them all the same. The law doesn't. Any more than the law treats murder the same. It can't.
The issue of consent is not always clear. But people assume it is something as simple as saying no or fighting. This is not true.
Rape in some cases is about sex. In other's it is about punishment. Others about conquering or acquiring. It is most likely always about power, but most everything is about power.
A lot of people don't understand that sex is also about power, even if rape is not involved.
the fact that Joss/DH featured a flying dentata monster (penetrated by Spike's spaceship - funny, not) in the S8 comics reminds me of how Victorian Joss (and many men are) in his attitudes towards sexuality.
To be fair to Whedon, the vampire trope that he was working with is deeply rooted in the Victorian response to sexuality.
Actually the Victorians created the modern take on vampirism - which is linked with repressed sexuality. So, it makes sense they would go there. I think Whedon was attempting, rather poorly, to satirize the trope in both the series and the comics. But satire is really hard to pull off and if not done well, can do the exact opposite of its intent.