Quote:
Originally Posted by ScalyFreak
Actually, my objection isn't the rape itself, be it by force or coercion. A rape, when a writer approaches it the right way, can be a powerful tool for character growth and authors should not avoid them just becuase it's a controversial topic that might upset some readers.
My objection with this particular author is her seemingly absolute conviction that a woman of character would never have strong sexual urges that made her forget reason and logic. Even if she did, she most certainly would never be so carried away by them that she did something she never in her wildest dreams thought she was capable of doing. She's essentially saying that only a morally corrupt woman would do such a thing, and that is nothing but slut-shaming at its finest.
That is what I find objectionable, and why I, as a rule, boycott all books and authors who follow this reasoning.
The fact that the entire industry genuinely believed that they had to use "she was forced to do it" as an excuse for women to have sex, doesn't make it any better. If anything, their belief that the argument "she was actually raped, so it's okay" was a good one, makes it worse.
I would greatly prefer not to see this devolve into a heated debate on a topic as controversial as rape, but I felt I should clarify my position on the article copyrite quoted, as it seems I was a bit misunderstood.
Move along now. There no more excitement or drama here for anyone.  |
You do realize this book was written in 80s when there was restriction on how an author could write a historical heroine? Historical heroines couldn't be sexy back then they were innocent little misses with few exceptions. We've come a long way. I think Beatrice Small's Skye O Malley (not for the weak at heart) was a big leap into more bolder heroines. I think you would like McNaught's Contemporaries in which the virgin heroine in Paradise seduces the hero to get back at her father.
Thank you for clarifying your stance on the article.