Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

I have never read one of the old-skool rape romances, and when a couple came into my hands (one was, admittedly, a Connie Mason novel), both left the house unread as soon as I figured out that there was not so much consent going on. So the conjugal enemies concept is not one that I’m totally familiar with--except Midsummer Moon. And I was a little uncomfortable with the power dynamics of that book, but it was so strange, b/c Merlin really didn’t seem to care one way or another about her own power--just that thing she loves.

I will probably never read the romance “classics.” Rape as a plot device between the hero and heroine makes me physically ill. Even knowing all the justifications for it in the old-skool writing, I personally find it reprehensible to portray a woman falling in love with her rapist. (I know it’s been done well, and I think certain historical settings might enable it better, but I don’t come to romance for realism. Rape by the hero takes away the possiblity of an HEA for me.) I can’t see true hatred so easily becoming love, and it seems like it really is hatred in some of these books.

I’m about to send the first three chapters of a manuscript to Barbara Samuel for her to critique.  (I won an auction).

I’m just a wee bit petrified.

I’ve read the old skool stuff back in the day (the cream one was the first one I ever read actually, besides the Heyers which I don’t count as old skool) and I’ve read what you call loving adversaries and neither concept does anything for me.  Matter of fact, I close the book when I see that the story line is based on people who can’t stand each other.

Just doesn’t work for me anymore.  I’ve read romance for over 25 years and found that I’m a lot less tolerant and a lot narrower in my tastes since my return to reading romance full-time last year than I used to be when I first started.

I tried to read Merlin’s story and couldn’t stand the slapstick quality of the story line, I really disliked The Last Hellion, but I read other books by both authors which I loved.  I find internal conflict that’s not predicated on distaste for the purported partner so much more convincing and enjoyable to read.

The power imbalance results in a much more virulent hatred instead of a more playful sparring, and it’s this hostility that raises my hackles and makes it difficult for me to accept the transformation from conjugal enemy to lover.

Bingo! My feelings exactly.

To me, in those old movie loving adversaries relationships, the couple may quip like mad and drive each other crazy, but there tends to be a line. One wouldn’t kick the other when they’re down. This understanding, and the fact that both quipping participants need intelligence, wit, and charm to pull the whole thing off, are the things that give these relationships more of an equal feel. 

But the “hero” half of a “conjugal enemy” has no lines. Won’t just kick the heroine when she’s down, but kidnap her, give her some punishing kisses, call her a slut, was the one who knocked her down, kick her, rape her, and then tell her it’s her own fault. While the walking door mat of a “herione” sits there in a crying heap wondering about the sensations her body felt when she was being attacked. The hostility and hatred that radiates off these kinds of stories? Gag me.

Well, the only “old skool” rape-fantasy romance I’ve ever read is REALLY old skool - E.M. Hull’s The Sheikh, circa 1919 or 1920.  Hull was a competent wordsmith, but she couldn’t convince me that a woman could fall in love with her rapist, not without some major pathology going on.  I didn’t buy it then, and I don’t buy it now.
As for the “conjugal adversaries” schtick, it always felt forced and artificial to me.  If two people loathe each other this much, why the hell do they bother to associate with one another?  And if some cynical, world-weary rake decided to punish me with his burning kisses and cynical smirks, I’d get a damn restraining order.  I mean, gimme a break!
On the other hand, I do love me some good snarky repartee, provided there is a genuine sense of respect and affection behind it.  Mean-spirited, angry, and misognystic are off the menu.

I was just around puberty when I started reading romances, and this type of book was HUGE (late 70’s).  Woodiwiss’ The Hawk & The Dove stands out in my memory as one of the earlier books I read, and I devoured the Coulters.

Keeping in mind that I was VERY YOUNG, I totally dug the use of the cream. To me, it signified that hero was Doing It Wrong, and that he had to change and be more considerate of his bride, which he eventually did.  (Did I mention I was young?) Also keeping in mind that, while the feminist movement was still relatively young, as far as I was concerned, it had always been around, and women had always had choices and the protection of the law.

I’d read these historicals, and put myself into the story, and try to imagine what I’d do in that situation.  And of course, I was always strong, decisive, skilled, spunky, independant.  And if things got too bad, my Viking relatives would come in their longboats and I’d leave with them, blowing contemptuous raspberries at the unenlightened schmucks trying to subjugate me (Vikings being so much more enlightened).  I had CHOICES, damn it!

During the reading of one of those books, though, I had the realization that, back then, women didn’t have choices, and if I suddenly got plunked down in the middle of all that, I would not do well.  You know, not having any skills that would be marketable before around the 1950’s.

If you didn’t like the man picked out for you, you could make the best of it, rebel ineffectually, rebel effectually and make everybody’s life hell (unless that got you killed), run away and die on the streets, or just die.  Probably there are historians out there who could tell me of more options, but in general, women just didn’t have a lot of choice when it came to keeping themselves fed and clothed and out of the weather.

So I think that these old skool romances are sort of an exploration of feminine power.  They contrasted women’s former lack of choice with the modern (possibly overwhelming) array of choices.  Maybe they were a reaction to the fear that many women have to accepting responsibility for their own choices.

Or maybe I’m just talking out my ass.

I don’t mind loving adversaries because you usually see the core affection between the two and there are lines that they won’t cross.  I always like the reunited lovers/old friends theme (if it’s done well) because I like them being snarky with each other while still wanting what they once had but better.  (Anyone with recommendations for this theme lay ‘em on me)

The conjugal enemies just do not work for me.  I know that some people like them and think they are beyond sexy, but they make me throw up in my mouth.  I find nothing romantic or loving in some guy dominating a girl and raping her until she becomes so fucked in the head that she thinks she’s in love with him.  To me there are rules.  The major one is that you do not rape the other person in the book.  The next big one is that you don’t fall in love with said person who abused you.  That goes for hitting too! 

I guess I’m too modern to appreciate any attraction to that.  Besides that, coming from a background where some of those issues came into play for me the thought that some people see these guys as heroic makes my skin crawl.  I don’t mind rape in a book where there’s no romance angle (or it happened to the girl/guy by someone other than the hero and she’s working to overcome it) but rape from the hero/heroine crosses boundaries for me that should never be crossed.

I’m ok with persuasion if it’s done right.  I’m talking about the, “I don’t know if this is a good idea right now.  I really want you, but what if someone finds us?” not the persuasion that happens while the girl/guy really doesn’t want sex.  My first romance book (that I stole from my sister) was Linda Howard’s After the Night.  That really pushed the line for me because there was such a disproportionate power dynamic.  It made the eventual love feel really false and kind of icky.  Another book that I recently read, Julia Quinn’s The Duke and I crossed a big line for me too.  How Daphne handles the issue with Simon not wanting to have kids was horrible.  I truly believe that if the situation was reversed and he did the same thing to her there would be a huge outcry from her fans.  I found it pathetic and really sad that he turned around and basically apologized because it was really all his fault of course.  Enough about that though… Needless to say, those story lines do not work for me at all.

I like almost any storyline if it’s done well.  Some of those old skool romances would horrify a lot of readers today, but at the time the reader wanted to see it work out to a resolution where the heroine would regain her power, or find her power in some fashion.  And the best of them accomplished this.  Even a classic like These Old Shades, which has a massive power imbalance throughout, works at the end because of the hero’s insecurity and need for the heroine--he needs her a lot more than she needs him.

Keeping in mind that I was VERY YOUNG, I totally dug the use of the cream. To me, it signified that hero was Doing It Wrong, and that he had to change and be more considerate of his bride, which he eventually did

I agree.  I also started reading Catherine Coulter at a very young age, and her medieval romance ROSEHAVEN (yes, there was cream) is STILL one of my favorites.  Every time I hear someone equate Coulter with rape I cringe a bit, because I don’t see it that way.  In ROSEHAVEN the hero had to consummate the marriage immediately because the castle was under seige, and a usurper could claim he wasn’t the true lord.  He doesn’t have time to woo her; he has to go out into battle.

I can’t say the scene doesn’t fit the definition of rape, especially in a modern context, but labeling this romance a rape fantasy is not accurate.  Nor does the woman continue to be subjugated as the story continues.  The heroine is already brave and shows her strength, while the hero becomes less unyeilding.  I totally believe they’re in love by the end, and it’s more satisfying because it was such a hard road to get there.

Nope, punishing heroes are not on my menu.  Like the question of “alpha hero or asshat?” the line is very simple for me.  Is he cruel, vindictive, or violent to the heroine?  If the answer is yes, then the book meets the wall.  No mitigating circumstances can make that okay with me.

I read a Harlequin 15 years ago that always comes to mind when punishing heroes come up.  I don’t remember the title, but the heroine is engaged to a man named Tom when she gets an invitation to a function at the home of her former lover.  Former Lover was a real doucheberry, and was sure that his punishing kisses would make her leave Tom.  He treats her like shit throughout the book, while Tom is always there for her.  She, of course, pants for FL and ignores Tom, all the while despising herself for it.  Then, FL crosses a line, and she sees the light.  Declarations of love and hawt sex (snapping the antique bed in half!) ensue with Tom.  YAY!

This is what I want to see.  A heroine who sees that asshattery is bad, and loyalty and tenderness are good.

Oh, and if anyone knows the title of this book, please tell me.  I’d love to read it again, even if it’s not as good as I remember.

Discovering Lois McMaster Bujold several years ago was I think the first time I realized romance stories didn’t have to be all about the power dynamic or competition in a relationship.  This was after going off romance novels for a bit because I’d burnt out on bad plots and characters.

I don’t remember His Girl Friday that well, but I love The Philadelphia Story. Would that more romantic comedies were created in that way.

*curious* What are some of Patricia Gaffney’s best books? I’ve read a few of hers - Mad Dash, The Goodbye Summer, Circle of Three - and liked them well enough, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that she used to write romances?

I can’t help thinking of Whitney, My Love. I know this one is a sort spot for many, but when I read it as a teenager I bought it hook, line, and sinker, even while recognizing the hero’s pricktastic behavior. Looking back on it, I wonder how the combination of TSTL, but oh-so-spirited and beautiful Whitney, and Alpha McJerkytown sold me...then I look over at my shelf and there it is (un-re-read for several years, but still...). Then I look at After the Night (one of my favorite Linda Howard’s EVER) and wonder what the attraction is (and then I think “Guy” and sigh at the bad-boy gone so good and, um, the public restroom scene).
It may be the candy part of romance...good romance is like Milka or Ritter Sport and I just cannot put it away because of the pleasure; bad romance is like a fruit-whip filled chocolate that I nibble around the edges of to get all the chocolate coating (even if it is a little waxy), while ignoring the unpleasantness at the center.
I haven’t read Woodwiss, McNaught, or Lindsay for quite a while and I think it is because their early works dominate my perceptions—have there been substantive changes in their story framing or heroines/heroes since the late 90s? They are great storytellers, but I have been nervous about diving back in.
That said, the topics last week had me checking on some OLD Janet Dailey’s and I found that my library had some of her 80s gems (Alph-tastic) that I hid under my bed during high school; The Rogue, Ride the Thunder, and Night Way—may be checked out of the city library for the first time in years this weekend.

Just another word about cream, and then I’ll stop.

What did people used to use as lube? Coulter mentioned cream in several of her books, and there was a LaVyrle Spencer in which the secondary heroine was a prostitute in a frontier town. The bordello had a cow specifically so that the ‘hos would have ready access to butter, because “they needed that butter!” I also remember a novel in which a scene featured mint jelly.

Granted, AstroGlide is more hygienic and effective, but it wasn’t available.  Unless another sign of True Luurve is never having to use lube?

Discovering Lois McMaster Bujold several years ago was I think the first time I realized romance stories didn’t have to be all about the power dynamic or competition in a relationship.

She isn’t really considered a romance novellist, but a sci-fi author.  In fact, a lot of her fans say they are her fans because she “writes like a man”.  Which I really don’t get, because her writing is wonderfully soulful and all about the human element, which a lot of male writers miss.

“Your lips say no but your body says yes” is, I think, the element that is supposed to validate the conjugal enemies conflict. When the hero forces himself on the heroine – over her protests – her traitorous body responds with enthusiasm, so he ignores the red light coming from her mouth and listens to the message coming from her other lips.

This isn’t even all that old-skool. I like Judith Ivory’s books, but the rape scene in Untie My Heart – published in 2002 – creeped me out. The imbalance of power is huge: he’s wealthy and powerful, she’s a poor farmer tied to a chair, his motivation for the rape is revenge (“For two minutes you can live with what it’s like to have surprising places of your privacy transgressed…welcome to the world of consequences, retribution, and personal trespass”).  He wants a vindictive quickie and he knows she can’t do anything about it. And yet it’s all supposedly okay because she gets off.

Patricia Gaffney’s To Have and To Hold (1995) also has a serious power imbalance and a sexual relationship that starts out with a rape.

Loving adversaries is better.

I used to read those power-struggle romances as a teen and really liked them, but I think that’s ‘cause they were what was available. These days, I don’t even want the loving adversary thing. In my experience, sniping and oneupmanship does not add spice to a relationship, it leads to divorce.

I much prefer to read about a couple who are kept apart by cultural differences (elf and human) or a situation (villain)—a couple who are compatible and mutually attracted, but kept apart by circumstances.

I’m not comparing myself to Bujold, who is brilliant, but I’ve been told I write like a man. Could be because of being adventure-plot oriented, maybe? Or not much interior monologue? Dunno.

Yeah, ditto what Suze said.  These things have a real soft spot in my heart.  My first was Kathleen Woodiwiss’s Shanna, then Wolf and the Dove. In fact, I would argue that Shanna is damn near perfectly reasonable and logical in light of what else was being published back then.

These weren’t nearly as bad as the Rosemary Rogerses and the Valerie Sherwoods, which I also liked (but more for their sweeping saga-ish nature).

The author I adored at 15 (Carole Mortimer, Harlequin Presents), though.  Wow.  I read those now and I shudder.  It’s like freebasing low-grade crack.

All I could think of when you said conjugal enemies was the movie Mr. & Mrs. Smith!

But I’ve got to agree with some of the historical basis.  In the 1900’s alone things changed so drastically for women that sometimes its hard to concieve that the reality for women was far different in historical times--with death the most likely outcome if you didn’t fall in line. (But the whole rape fantasy-thing still seems a bit squiqtastic for me...)

No rape. Period. Nope. Don’t care about the circumstances. No. Not ok.

I read my very first romance novel when I was 16 (my mom isn’t a romance reader so I had to wait until my best friend handed one over). It was Johanna Lindsey’s FIRES OF WINTER. My BF adored it. *shudder* Put me off the genre for a decade. No lie. And I don’t think I would have EVER even tried the genre again if I hadn’t been trapped in an airport, delayed beyond all reason, and faced with only two books in the tiny newsstand: Something-or-other by Stephen King and MISTRESS by Amanda Quick. What a happy discovery that was!

Ugh. Rape scenes and storylines where the hero overpowers the heroine and renders her completely incapable of fighting back or making her own choices disgust me. They make my teeth hurt. They burn my eyes. They make my skin crawl.

“Loving adversaries” is a different matter, but they’re really hard to pull off for me.

I’m reading The Duke and I right now, and the hero is “verbally sparring” with the heroine. He’s baiting her repeatedly, enjoying it, while she gets genuinely angry and upset. Apparently, in the hero’s mind, this is a game, a flirtation. What the frickin’ hell? Making the heroine upset and baiting her is a flirtation? Good to know, I guess.

Had the same problem with Quinn’s The Secret Diaries of Miss Amanda Cheever or whatever. The hero’s “verbal sparring” made me want to reach into the book and stab him repeatedly. I couldn’t even finish the book.

Making one’s SO/partner/whatever upset and angry is not sexy to me. Overpowering her and raping her and taking away her agency is beyond disgusting. I refuse to read it in a romance novel. It’s an automatic toss for me.

That rape scene in Untie My Heart totally grossed me out, too. I hate that book.

I’m reading The Duke and I right now, and the hero is “verbally sparring” with the heroine. He’s baiting her repeatedly, enjoying it, while she gets genuinely angry and upset. Apparently, in the hero’s mind, this is a game, a flirtation. What the frickin’ hell? Making the heroine upset and baiting her is a flirtation? Good to know, I guess.

This totally bothered me too!  The manipulation at the end made me want to strangle the girl, but the constant bickering totally drove me insane.  I’ve really liked the way that Nora Roberts handles her loving advesaries.  Even “Birthright”, where the hero and heroine are divorced, handles it well.  I don’t mind the bickering (in moderation) and angst, but I hate it when one half of the couple is mean to the other person all the time and thinks it’s funny. (I don’t mind a little mean when I think it’s deserved.  Sometimes it takes a while to forgive that person and get back to nice.)

What did people used to use as lube? Coulter mentioned cream in several of her books, and there was a LaVyrle Spencer in which the secondary heroine was a prostitute in a frontier town. The bordello had a cow specifically so that the ‘hos would have ready access to butter, because “they needed that butter!” I also remember a novel in which a scene featured mint jelly.

How about olive oil?  More hygienic than dairy-based products and readily available since ancient times, at least in the Mediterranean countries.
My spam word:  children69.  Need I say more?

So I think that these old skool romances are sort of an exploration of feminine power.  They contrasted women’s former lack of choice with the modern (possibly overwhelming) array of choices.  Maybe they were a reaction to the fear that many women have to accepting responsibility for their own choices.

Can you explain this more?  I totally don’t understand what you mean by this.  Thanks.

I’m not completely clear on it myself, but here goes:

1. In the 80’s and 90’s, there was a weird backlash against feminism that manifested in a bunch of women creating groups with names like REAL Women. These groups espoused women finding their feminine power in the traditional roles of wife and mother, and made stupid-ass press releases indicating that any woman who went looking for fulfilment in being anything but a devoted wife/ housekeeper/ mother wasn’t really a woman.

2. At some point in the last decade, I read a piece indicating that Muslim women in Saudi Arabia not only didn’t resent having to wear the chadur, but actually found great comfort and relief in it, as it made their role in society very clear, and defined any interactions they would have with males.

3. At the time these conjugal enemy stories were being written, it was still quite remarkable to see a woman in a non-traditional role, and extremely remarkable to see a man in a non-traditional role.  I still hear comments about male nurses, male florists, male administrative assistants (actual secretaries, rather than secretary/treasurer of the corporation type roles).

I think that the stories were, to some extent, women feeling their way into their new roles and responsibilities, and looking back at where we’d come from a little nostalgically. There’s a kind of comfort in the idea of being financially supported, so that you are responsible only for the comfort of the one supporting you.  I still know women who put up with all kinds of crap only so that they don’t have to work, and I know people who married the spouse their parents picked out for them--and they like it that way.  It took all the pressure off, and the choices, while not necessarily exciting, were acceptable.

There’s also an element of the desire to be with a confident man.  I think, tragically, that many of us (including authors) don’t know enough men who are both confident and non-assholes, so that we don’t really know how to describe them.  So we end up with alpha-holes.

But like I said, I could be talking out my ass.

Did that make any more sense, or less?

That definitely made more sense.  Thanks for the clarification on that.  I don’t know if I necessarily agree with it though.  However, just to be clear, that wasn’t my generation either.  It may be harder for me to understand that. 

I definitely agree with what you said about a lot of the traditional Middle Eastern woman.  I know that most times the veil and other restrictions are custom as opposed to law.  I know many woman who mold themselves closely to their husbands until it’s hard to view their own personality.  They like the comfort of their husband making choices for them and managing the money so they don’t have the uncertainty of being responsible for making the wrong choice.

Now, while I understand that some people feel that way, I still have a very hard time seeing how the hero raping the heroine is romantic.  (Even for women who prefer not to be independent) I don’t know many women who would look back with fondness and say, “Remember when he controlled and raped me?  I kind of miss that.  It was much easier for me; less choices.” I can, however, see that one of those women could look back and have a fond wistfulness for the days when all the choices were made for her.  It’s the same way people look back and say that it was much easier when they were a kid and kind of wish they could go back for a day so they could have a break. (most people do this until they remember that childhood sucked because your parents owned you :P)

Merlin and Ransom?  These are character’s names?  No wonder they’re adversaries: if someone told me his name was Ransom I’d laugh so hard he’d slap me.

My post got cut off.  Here’s the rest of what I was going to say…

Now this is veering a little away from the topic you were talking about, but it has really been bugging me.  A little while ago I was looking up different perspectives on Romance books that revolved around rape.  Time and time again I kept seeing people say that no one really wanted to be raped and they weren’t trivializing it by making it seem okay.  They said that it was a type of female empowerment by kind of owning the rape and ending up with the power in the end.  Well, that was the gist of it. 

I really didn’t understand this because (nothing against people who like this) personally I think that is a crap line of reasoning.  Hand a Romance novel like this to someone who has recently been raped and see how empowered they feel.  My friend had been raped and was trying to get back into the things she really liked to do before that.  She picked up a Romance novel and just wanted a story that would give her a little happy.  The book was a Jane Feather book and had the hero helping some king rape the heroine.  She couldn’t finish it and ended up having a bit of a break down.  She couldn’t understand why another woman would glorify a man who did something so horrible.  It made her feel even more dirty because so many people seem to think it’s sexy to read about.

That was her situation and isn’t true for everyone, but I truly feel the same way.  I just don’t understand it.  Would anyone want to read about some kid falling in love with his molester?  Why is it sexy when it’s adults and rape?

Also, if people do want to read this that’s okay… it’s their choice you know?  Whatever floats your boat.  None the less I really think that there should be some kind of clear indication on these books that it deals with the hero/heroine raping the other hero/heroine.  My friend just picked up a historical on the spur of the moment (a kind of quick decision to try and pick up an old habit) and didn’t consult reviews on any website beforehand.  I just think her break down could have been prevented if it had a graphic material kind of warning on the inside (or back) of the book.

Just my 2 cents.

In Victorian porn, they use cold cream for lube.  I think one reason for the proliferation of rape in old-style romances is that ‘nice’ women were not supposed to have sexual desires. The’ hero’ had to force sex on them so that they didn’t have to feel guilty about having it, and of course, it is assumed that if she ‘enjoyed’ it, she must be in love.  Spamword is ways63.  As in ‘how do I love thee, let me count them”?

IMO, the ‘70s/’80s rape fantasy romance (where the woman ends up getting off anyway) was a way for a woman to enjoy sex without being responsible for making a clear decision to have sex.  Those were the days of the “sluts” and “trashy girls,” remember.

The heroine could remain “pure” in the reader’s eyes, but still have the orgasm to go with.  She could have her dick and eat it too.  I think it kinda goes back to what Suze’s number 1 point was regarding that weird backlash against feminism.

Ahhhhhh, good point MoJo and sandra.  I didn’t think of that.  Like I said, not my generation.  I tend to forget that it was harder for my mom and her mom in terms of sexuality.  I can understand it being written about then because of those reasons (even though it still gives me the squicks) but I still don’t understand the reason they’re still written about today.  But, that’s from my own standpoint and not from someone who enjoys them.

None the less I really think that there should be some kind of clear indication on these books that it deals with the hero/heroine raping the other hero/heroine.  My friend just picked up a historical on the spur of the moment (a kind of quick decision to try and pick up an old habit) and didn’t consult reviews on any website beforehand.  I just think her break down could have been prevented if it had a graphic material kind of warning on the inside (or back) of the book.

I’d appreciate that, too, something a few years back I would have railed against, the idea of a content warning seeming too much like TV and movies and a bad move toward… censorship or something. I don’t know why I thought it was a bad idea.

I’d REALLY REALLY like warnings about animal cruelty/pain. I read The Leopard Prince recently and there was a very brief mention of animal torture that upset me way more than anything else that happened in the book. I wish I hadn’t read it. And that was just a brief blip in the novel. I’d be so happy if books and movies came with warnings about that sort of thing. And torture of people as well. Content like that stays with me forever, like a haunting. I’d like to be able to avoid it, these days.

This site had a discussion a while back (late last year, maybe?) of the rape theme in romance, and we did then discuss the historicals in which the rape is, as a few of you pointed out just now, a way of excusing a “good girl” for having sexual desires that she wasn’t supposed to have. While I still don’t like this or find it sexy, and as an historian I can say that most women were more in touch with their sexuality than Victorian novels suggest, what I really can’t stand are the romances that BEGIN with rape. I’ve come across several of these where the protagonists meet because the “hero” is kidnapping the heroine or something and rapes her, and later they get to know each other and fall in love. But I don’t get to that part because I’ve already thrown the book against the wall during the rape scene and am not reading any further. Sometimes some really weak excuse is offered for the hero’s actions, like one medieval I read where he kidnapped the fiancee of his enemy and raped her so that his enemy would be humiliated by getting a non-virgin. Oh yeah, revenge as a motivation makes it all okay. No! Yuck! I wonder how many people would think the rapes where hot if they watched them? On second thought, I don’t want to know.

Emma Bull’s “Bone Dance” (totally NOT a romance, but excellent) has a scene where the villain is forcing himself on the protagonist and says, “Your lips are saying no, but your—well, hell, your body’s saying no, too.” Way more realistic.

Even a classic like These Old Shades, which has a massive power imbalance throughout, works at the end because of the hero’s insecurity and need for the heroine--he needs her a lot more than she needs him.

Um, Darlene, I think you might be rusty on the plot or thinking of another book. Leonie isn’t under Justin’s thumb, she’s under his wing. He’s protecting her, not subjugating her and not once in the book does Leonie ever feel a lack of power. And I don’t think he needs her more than she needs him. Leonie was going to live in despair with the curate for the rest of her life without Justin. 

Sorry but this is my favorite book EVER, and I don’t think that it’s plot has anything to do with the kind of dynamic you see in old skool rape romances, so I’m really wondering where this comment came from.

I think these books really do tend to be an extension of the classic “rape fantasy” which is fairly common.  As a couple of people noted, those fantasies are all about getting what you want without really having to own it.  It’s about getting off on the idea of giving up control & responsibility while actually retaining total control since it’s all in your head (cue long ago women’s studies lectures here).

I suspect that part of the reason that this is less common now than it used to be is because of increased awareness of rape as a crime and also the higher profile of BDSM, which allows for the consensual relinquishment of control.

I suspect that part of the reason that this is less common now than it used to be is because of increased awareness of rape as a crime and also the higher profile of BDSM, which allows for the consensual relinquishment of control.

And because women are allowed to be sexual without being branded as sluts.

MoJo said on…
06.30.08 at 03:04 PM |

IMO, the ‘70s/’80s rape fantasy romance (where the woman ends up getting off anyway) was a way for a woman to enjoy sex without being responsible for making a clear decision to have sex.  Those were the days of the “sluts” and “trashy girls,” remember.

Are we talking about the same 1970’s?  Sex was the theme of the decade.  Post birth control and pre AIDs-- it was not a repressed time for the people I knew and I was in the Bible Belt even.

I have to disagree with you, Moth, because we’re interpreting Avon’s actions differently.  I saw him as keeping her under his control, up until the end when he offers to let her go because he’s not worthy of her love.  At that point I saw Leonie as having the option to leave if she wanted to.  She might not have ever found true love, but she could have had a satisfying life.  I believe Avon would have been devastated by her leaving him.  So to me, this was where the balance of power shifted (actually, it shifted a lot earlier), but I did see a power shift.

As always, your mileage may vary.

Merlin and Ransom?  These are character’s names?  No wonder they’re adversaries: if someone told me his name was Ransom I’d laugh so hard he’d slap me.

Hey now.  That’s the surname of an entire branch of my family.  ;-)

Are we talking about the same 1970’s?  Sex was the theme of the decade.  Post birth control and pre AIDs-- it was not a repressed time for the people I knew and I was in the Bible Belt even.

The fact that sexualty was so “out there” at the time is a result of the contrast.  (The book “Are you in the house Alone?” springs to my mind—not a romance, but it dealt with rape and was written because at the time, legally, your rape case could be ignored if you weren’t a virgin.  Also rape of wives by husbands wasn’t recognized.) Compare today, when conventional sexuality is pretty much commonplace and nobody even expects to be a virgin past college.  We’re doing more now and talking about it less.
Darlene Marshall I agree, because a power imbalance doesn’t have to imply abuse or negativity.  Avon was in control of the (guardian/ward) relationship.  But it’s still a power imbalance.  (This is why—HOLY CRAZED TANGENT—I don’t really care for, say Frodo/Sam slash; I don’t care how much they adore each other, they are boss and manservant.)

Even though the late 70s and early 80s were a very permissive time in some circles, the people who were out there having sex with different partners every night were not really the social norm, at least not where I came from.

I used to LOVE all those romances where the man had all the power. I don’t know why. Maybe I’m a sick and depraved person. Rosemary Rogers was a love/hate relationship for me but I adored the Wolf and the Dove. Maybe reading the Flame and the Flower as my first romance when I was 13 just set the theme for me. I wouldn’t buy into it today, but I did then. And I think the explanation of “nice girls didn’t do this, so had to be forced into it” is probably why. At least in my life, running out and having wanton sex with strangers wasn’t something I did. In fact I remember feeling out of place in college because I *didn’t* go pick up a guy at the bar and take him home every time I went out.

I find myself also out of place with a lot of the newer romance. I don’t mind erotica, but am not so thrilled with the blatant BDSM. Why can’t we have erotica *without* BDSM? That would be a lovely change. I really don’t associate real men with butt plugs, sorry.

really don’t associate real men with butt plugs, sorry.

Lol! 

I find myself out of place with a lot of today’s romances too.  Many of them seem to delight in having the heroine being free and sexually aware.  Now to me those statements do not mean that the heroine needs to sleep with as many men as possible.  Apparently my opinion doesn’t count though. :P Some of the books I have been reading seem to need to express that women are now free to do what men used to do.  I have no problem with that, but it’s not something I admire or look at and say, “How cool is this!  She’s totally in touch with her sexuality!” Being in touch with your sexuality doesn’t mean you have to spread it around to everyone.  But then again, I also hate the connection between the hero/heroine that begins with a one night stand.  I seem to be the minority though.  All my friends seem to think it’s a great thing.  It makes me feel old and I’m only 22. 

*Let me add that books like Loretta Chase’s newest one don’t bother me because that was her job and times were different then.  But then again she’s not allegedly looking for a relationship while she’s spreading it around.

I must be reading different books than Catherine or Robinjn--I don’t read a lot with women who are really sexually adventurous or even all that experienced. It helps me to identify with them, I suppose. You can be free and sexually aware and not sleep with everything in boxer-briefs--I like Regency-era stuff, and there I find women who, despite never having had sex, are intrigued by it, interested in having it, and enjoy it once they do.

Compare today, when ... nobody even expects to be a virgin past college.

::sigh:: That’s not necessarily always a good thing. There are these weird stigmas attached to being a virgin past college that are, in their own way, equally as destructive and unfair as the virgin/whore dichotomy.

I mostly read modern-era and am just coming back to some romance after an extended hiatus. I loved Sugar Daddy by Lisa Klepas but Lora Leigh and Joey Hill kind of squick me out. I mean honestly. In my world if a guy I wanted to date kept a gym bag of ball gags and other stuff like that in his car I’d think he was seriously weird. As in a “what, you need all *that* in order to get it up?” kind of squicked. I realize that is probably prejudiced, but that’s just not the kind of thing I associate with a strong confident man.

In my world if a guy I wanted to date kept a gym bag of ball gags and other stuff like that in his car I’d think he was seriously weird.

Dude, I’d be *terrified* if a guy kept a gym bag full of ball gags in his car. There would be a snark-shaped cloud where I’d been standing if I saw that.

Nothing wrong with a little bondage, but seriously? One would think that that wouldn’t be something you carry around with you.

I guess I just can’t equate strong manly-man with carting around sexual hardware. I can’t remember what book I recently tried to read that was something about were cats and the woman is coming into her heat/season/whatever and the hero, who is a sheriff, gets a ball gag out of his supply closet so he can screw her in his office bathroom--so she can’t scream (mewl? Meow?) so loud people can hear. And I was, like, WTF?!!? I didn’t get any further on that one.

And I’m not making judgments on anybody who thinks that’s hawt. It’s just way the opposite for me.

And sorry, to bring it back more on topic. I’m not sure today’s BDSM stuff is any better than the old conjugal adversaries thing. Okay. The women are supposedly enjoying this all the way through as versus being afraid to admit they enjoy it. But again, my old fashioned view is that these are all about women being made slaves and submissives and being totally dominated by their men.

How is that any better/different than the punishing romances of old?

Compare today, when ... nobody even expects to be a virgin past college.

::sigh:: That’s not necessarily always a good thing. There are these weird stigmas attached to being a virgin past college that are, in their own way, equally as destructive and unfair as the virgin/whore dichotomy.

Oh, believe me, honey, I know. =/

How is that any better/different than the punishing romances of old?

I’m not speaking from experience, here, just from what I’ve read, so take this with a grain of salt. But. It is my understanding that in true dom/sub relationships, it’s the sub who *actually* had the control. The dom has to stop when the sub says stop, and nothing that happens can happen without the sub’s express permission (presumably this is worked out in advance). Safe words are sacred.

I haven’t read a lot of contemporary erotica, but what I find disturbing is that the trend seems to be almost exclusively male dom/female sub--if I’m mistaken on that front, I apologize. And I do agree that this is an unsettling trend, especially because it seems like the details of the D/s scene aren’t conveyed as they’re supposed to be? Or something?

I don’t know. I don’t have a problem with people who enjoy being dominated. I do have a problem with the idea that it’s always the women who want to be dominated. That’s absolutely not true, and to make it out that women only want to read about really Alpha men is really scary.

(IMHO, it takes a really strong man to agree to submit to a woman for a change, no?)

Compare today, when ... nobody even expects to be a virgin past college.
::sigh:: That’s not necessarily always a good thing. There are these weird stigmas attached to being a virgin past college that are, in their own way, equally as destructive and unfair as the virgin/whore dichotomy.
Oh, believe me, honey, I know. =/

:) I swear I’m going to write a book or an article about those attitudes one of these days. They drive me nuts, and I think it’s a stereotype trend that is way, way overlooked. Especially as a feminist issue. (Choice: it means choosing to or choosing NOT to.)

I obviously failed at the nifty quoty thing that Mac did.

@Robinjn: I think they’re different because they’re consensual; there’s a safe word in place and the woman knows she can let herself into whatever her fantasy is but retain the control to make it stop when she’s not comfortable.  I just finished Kushiel’s Justice—thanks y’all, now I’m Kushiel’s bitch, too—and I thought the way Imriel came to understand, over the two books, the difference between having your sexual wants manipulated without your consent and going willfully into a safe situation was really well-handled by the author.

I would love a rape warning on material (and an animal violence warning, for that matter). I know many women have rape fantasies, and I have no judgment for that. I’m a big supporter of women gratifying their sexual needs, and if that’s what gets you off, go you. However, I think having a rape fantasy at home with your vibrator or acting one out with a trusted partner is a whole different world from the actual rapes that go on in these novels. Giving your control up willingly and having it taken away are not the same thing, and I may be fine witht the former but the latter is not ever okay with me.

I’m not necessarily against erotica that helps people get into whatever their fantasy is (I’m not against, say, pony-play erotica on principle, but I won’t read it). I’d rather know that that’s what the novel is about, so I can by-pass it. In no universe can I believe a woman falling in love with her rapist, or find it hot when a woman’s choice is violently taken from her, so. . . that book’s never gonna be for me. I’d love to know before I waste my time and money with it.

I don’t know. I don’t have a problem with people who enjoy being dominated. I do have a problem with the idea that it’s always the women who want to be dominated. That’s absolutely not true, and to make it out that women only want to read about really Alpha men is really scary.

I recall hearing recently that less femdom is being offered because it doesn’t sell.  That would seem to indicate that the idea that woman only want to read about traditionally Alpha men may be sort of true.  And I agree that’s unfortunate for a bunch of reasons.

I recall hearing recently that less femdom is being offered because it doesn’t sell.  That would seem to indicate that the idea that woman only want to read about traditionally Alpha men may be sort of true.

Hm. That’s sad to hear. But I wonder...how is that marketed? I would never in a million years have predicted the rise in wererotica. But I think there’s a strong marketing force behind that. Does femdom lack the necessary marketing clout to MAKE it popular?

I mean, imagine the blurbs! “Have you ever wanted a man to fall on his knees at the sight of you?”

Joey Hill’s best BDSM work involves women who are dominant. The Vampire Queen series is about a female in the power position in the relationship—SPOILER—

there is switching at the end, but the power relationship that structured the h/h story is primary.
Also, Holding the Cards and Natural Law (my two faves—Natural Law is the better of the two) are both populated by Alpha men who submit. I like Joey Hill’s work because there is never the sense that either party in the BDSM relationship is participating against their will. She reveals the heavy emotional baggage that some of the parties bring to the lifestyle, but uses the resolution of the relationship to reconcile those issues with “baggage-free” participation in the life.

BTW, Jezebel summarizes a pretty amazing piece in the UK Guardian about the death of feminism—relevant given the longer comments above about f’ism and romance and backlash. I haven’t had time to read the full article.
Take a look: http://jezebel.com/5021074/is-feminism-doomed. The comments are also interesting.

Heh. I’m sort of all over that thread. :D

In reading all the responses from the women like me who like the old-skool, I think it’s interesting that we were all in our very young teens (in my case, starting at 11) when we were first exposed to it.

I think that could be a fascinating sociological study on the nature of what a young teen girl wants to fantasize about.  But then, grown women must have been eating that up then, too, but I don’t see any of those here posting. (Small self-selected sampling, I know.  Go with me here.  ;) ).

I think that could be a fascinating sociological study on the nature of what a young teen girl wants to fantasize about.  But then, grown women must have been eating that up then, too, but I don’t see any of those here posting. (Small self-selected sampling, I know.  Go with me here.  ;) ).

Or if you really want to think about it....did those early experiences when we were at a vulnerable, suggestible and dare I say it, experiencing the whole sexual feelings thing for the first time influence and inform our tastes?

If you’re a kid at an age when the hormones are raging and you’re discovering that whoa, your body, it has these urges, and a novel comes along that you probably aren’t supposed to be reading but you do, and geez, there’s SEX!! in there, and that first sex scene happens to be, oh, Brandon raping Heather in the Flame and the Flower....does that have long-term influence, especially when that type of scene was very typical at that time? I think it may.

Geez. No wonder I’m so screwed up.

did those early experiences when we were at a vulnerable, suggestible and dare I say it, experiencing the whole sexual feelings thing for the first time influence and inform our tastes?

Oh, I don’t even have to question that.  I still love that super-alpha but now that I’m, you know, kofffortykoff, I’ve found myself having my alpha males get a little tired around my age and feeling the need to be stay-at-home dads while their alpha wives go off and do their alpha thing.

It is my understanding that in true dom/sub relationships, it’s the sub who *actually* had the control.

Yep. Which is why so often in relationships it’s a male dom/female sub, but in BDSM dungeons or sex clubs it’s often the reverse (the guy who gets off on pretending to be submissive, but he’s actually in charge), or so the women I know who are professional doms tell me.

And has anyone else noticed that a lot of the books marketed as BDSM break this most basic and sacred rule? That the bondage is often just a code word for rape (or forced seduction if you prefer)? I bought a few eBooks that were supposedly BDSM and was totally disturbed by the power dynamics. Maybe I’m just not reading the code words closely enough.

And has anyone else noticed that a lot of the books marketed as BDSM break this most basic and sacred rule? That the bondage is often just a code word for rape (or forced seduction if you prefer)?

I’ve noticed this as well.  I think a lot of BDSM erotica is written by people who not only aren’t part of the scene, but don’t know anyone who is & really didn’t do their research.  Instead they’re projecting their ideas onto someone else’s kink because it’s currently more acceptable than the Old Skool.

Have you ever read any 1970’s pornographic novels for men? They are all about rape. It’s amazing they didn’t inspire more suicides.

There’s a lot of good BDSM erotica out there, and a lot of it is written from inside the community. But I think a lot of times BDSM is the way a lazy writer does “sexy” because you can write about all the props/situations (and if you stick enough of them in your book you’ll hit almost everyone’s kink so they’ll think your scenes were hot). You don’t really have to write the sex at all, just sketch in the scene and add some verbs.

There’s some amazingly hot erotica out there that has the BDSM props but focuses on the people and their emotions & responses to each other, but you have to read a lot of dreck to find it.

Has anybody read Florence King’s essay about writing a romance novel in the ‘70s? It’s hilarious, to start with, but it also has a lot to say about the editorial pressure in the romance market back then (and all the editors were men, just about.) Florence King was a snobby, literary, lesbian writer who had made some money writing gay porn and her editor said “write one of these Sweet Savage things, how hard can it be?” And then pushed her to take out any big words and add more rape scenes whenever the plot slowed down. I haven’t found the book ever but the description reminds me of Bertrice Small (who is awesome in a way that doesn’t really resemble the way good romance novels are awesome, more the way American Movie would have been awesome if the dude were making a costume porno with a cast of thousands.)

a pretty amazing piece in the UK Guardian about the death of feminism

Anyone who has looked even in the most desultory way at the history of feminism (and I am not talking here about very recent progress, e.g. in the 1960s and later, but the 18th and 19th centuries) will know that there is a clear pattern of achievement and progress, followed by regression, followed by new efforts to regain the lost ground, and usually, to get a little further forward.  It is NEVER going to be possible to relax about women’s rights - each generation has to fight at least some of the battles afresh.  And there are new battles, of course, as societies change in other ways.  Imagining that legal protection will work effectively is naive in the extreme; there are always ways around legal provisions (bye the bye, those of you who don’t know of Alan Sugar will not realise what an extreme example of the vile boss he is.  He is, not, fortunately, typical).

Concern about the rights and social status and role of women has been born, lived, died and been reborn many times.  Vigilance is required all the time, or we shall slide back again.  If feminism is currently moribund, or even dead, in some quarters, we should not necessarily worry too much:  it isn’t for the first time, and the resurrection won’t be for the first, or the last time, either.  But there are some other bad signs, and this is one:  the bondage/domination/submission issue. 

Personal view here, so feel free to shout at me, but to me, it any kind of bondage/submission, however much it is play-acting, is archetypal fascist sex, characteristic of authoritarian regimes that suffer from major conflicts and dishonesty about sexuality, e.g. Victorian England; 1930s Germany.  One of the things we achieved in the 1960s (I was in my 20s then) was egalitarian sex.  Seriously.  The moment you introduce a specifically unequal power dynamic - even if it is allegedly consensual and mutable and all those lovely comforting things - we are back into the old, old pattern, the one that was a formal concept in antiquity:  that is, in a sexual relationship, one person is active, and one passive; one is the doer, the other the done-to. The active partner (always male in antiquity) had higher social status.  The done-to (often female) was always of lower status.  It doesn’t have to be that way, and to seek that situation deliberately is as retrogressive as it gets. 

I am pretty horrified by the apparent current popularity of bondage fantasies amongst younger American readers.  It does not augur well for the future.  But then, nor do fantasies of werewolves and such.  Tell me, those who read shape-shifting romances - do the were-cats sink their teeth into their partners’ necks during coitus?  Do the partners of the werewolves have to endure the tie which in canids can last up to 20 minutes, during which withdrawal is impossible? 

Just asking.

AgTigress: I’ve seen all of those senarios in ebooks (and way way more).

Personal view here, so feel free to shout at me, but to me, it any kind of bondage/submission, however much it is play-acting, is archetypal fascist sex, characteristic of authoritarian regimes that suffer from major conflicts and dishonesty about sexuality,

Archetypal fascist sex? This simple string of words alone seem to me to be one of the reasons that many younger women today feel that feminism is dead or best left behind. That kind of random judgment and cobbling together of disparate issues boggles my mind.

AgTigress: I think I can answer at least a little bit of your concern, even if I don’t share it.  I think we’re coming from wholly different POVs as I was born in 63 and so fall squarely into that age group robin was talking about - I was 11 or 12 when I read my first romance - don’t remember who it was, but it was definitely a Savage Loving Lying Whirlwind thing, and that’s all I read for the next few years - even at 13, tho, I knew Rosemary Rodgers was twisted - but still, when I hit my twenties I thought - wait a minute!  That’s rape!  And I didn’t read romance again till my 30s, by which time rape was no longer such a popular plot device.  And I do think that the “she gets to get laid without having to take responsibility for it” angle was THE main rationale, justification, whatever you want to call it, behind the old skool novels.  Growing up in a religiously conservative household where you were not even supposed to be thinking about sex till you got married - if then - I’m sure that’s what I found so thrilling about the books.

But basically - I was in the first generation of women, I think, that came of age after (or as) egalitarian sexual relationships had become accepted as the norm - to the extent they ever will be - and after society, in its infinite collective wisdom, decided that it was, in fact, okay for women to have sex when, with whom and however they wanted. 

In short, I’ve never considered myself a feminist because I’ve never had to.  (Also had a wonderful father, never got involved in an abusive relationship, married a wonderful (Alpha) man, do whatever the hell I want to - basically I was born on third base and think I hit a triple).

You’re only 15-20 years older than me, but it’s a crucial 15--20 year period, you know?  Women of your generation, from what I’ve seen, tend to look at everything - including social issues and personal relationships - through a political lens that I, and women younger than me, don’t. 

All of which is to say, badly, that the BDSM currently popular in romantic and erotic fiction doesn’t bother me because I don’t remember a time when women weren’t allowed to control their sexuality on their own terms. 

As to furry porn, as I like to think of it - I’m partial to werewolves meself (I’m writing one, AAMOF) - no.  I’ve read no shapeshifting romances in which protagonists do it while one partner is in animal form.  The sex, however, kinky, is always performed while human.  I have read books where the bad guys shape shift during sex and kill their partners, but that’s always presented as something horrifying, not sexy.  I could have missed something tho - Lord knows I don’t get to read as much as I want to.

The active partner (always male in antiquity) had higher social status.

But that’s not necessarily true. Look at medieval texts--who’s the aggressor in a lot of pornographic medieval and early modern work? The woman, because women were seen as sexually voracious devourers of men. The shift didn’t come until the end of the eighteenth century (if you listen to Foucault) or even a little later (I’d put it post-Napoleonic wars in England, but that’s just me).

EVERY generation is dishonest about sexuality. I’ve heard women who came of age in the 1960s talk about free love with real regret, because there were different systems of pressure there--ie, if love is free, you’ll have sex with me. If you don’t want to, that means you’re not liberated. (Even if the person in question just didn’t want to have sex with THAT dude.) And let’s not even get started on the “closet.”

I also think it’s a misconception to call Victorian England an authoritarian regime. Sure, it was problematic, and Victoria was very much a Hanoverian (no matter what her last name was), but at the same time, it was a fascinating time in terms of strides made for women’s rights, as well as backsliding.

But AgTigress is right in re: women’s rights. However, one of the real reasons I think we’re struggling right now is the rise of conservativism all over since the late ‘90s and, in the US in particular, since 9/11. War brings out conservative ideologies.

Holly, I’m sixteen years younger than you and very much consider myself a feminist.

I’ve had things handed to me--it’s been easy for me. I’m white, middle-class, and educated. But I also know that there are real risks for me as a woman, and I see my rights being chipped away day after day. I put up with harassment from my male students, and see my friends be treated with disdain by male faculty for their life choices.

It’s a mistake to assume that younger women won’t be feminists, and I personally believe it’s a mistake for any one, but especially any woman, to believe that feminism has nothing to offer her.

I don’t remember a time when women weren’t allowed to control their sexuality on their own terms.

You really don’t remember?

Ever met someone who was raped? She didn’t get to control her sexuality on her own terms. Neither does the child who is a victim of sexual abuse. Or the woman brainwashed by her church/parents/friends into believing that if she had sex she was a slut, but if she didn’t, she was a frigid prude. (That one’s still real popular.)

Look AROUND! Look at the messages put out by the media! Who’s the focus of anti-teen pregnancy campaigns? Girls. Because girls are still seen as the gatekeepers, the ones who are supposed to keep their legs closed. Modesty campaigns focus on women--why? Because we mustn’t “tempt” men or cause them to “stumble.”

You go to college, and you’re bombarded with messages about having sex. You’re *supposed* to have sex in college. And if you don’t, well, what’s wrong with you? Why didn’t you? Why aren’t you spending your 20s bed-hopping, if you’re single?

Yeah, we can control our sexuality in the sense that, generally speaking, we’re able to say that we want to have sex and have it. But don’t ever for one second think that the entire world isn’t invested in keeping you “chaste” or making you sexually available.

Ahem. Climbing off of the soapbox now.

I’ve read no shapeshifting romances in which protagonists do it while one partner is in animal form. 

I have.  It wasn’t presented as a rape thing.  The sex started as human to human but if it was really the were sort of lost control of the change.  It was only mentioned in passing, but the but it that was definitely the deal.

In terms of BDSM in erotica, I’m certainly that there are books that are good/accurate available.  It’s just that there are many that aren’t and they can create a really skewed perspective on the scene for those who don’t have any other exposure. 

As for the idea that BDSM=fascist sex I have to say that makes me very uncomfortable.  It’s one thing to be uninterested in a particular set of sexual practices.  It’s a whole other thing to tell people that their kink is fascist.  That implies that women who engage in BDSM just don’t realize how awful it all is & how they’re being oppressed ot harming feminism or whatever.  I think it’s a thin line between that as the misogynists saying that a woman needs a man because she can’t be trusted with her own decisions.

BDSM isn’t my personal thing, but the people that I know who are into it assure me that a good D/S relationship is very egalitarian.  Both people have equal power, the power is just expressed in very different ways.  None of them are weak-minded or lacking in self awareness, so I tend to believe them.

Look at medieval texts--who’s the aggressor in a lot of pornographic medieval and early modern work? The woman, because women were seen as sexually voracious devourers of men.

Oh yes, but that is viewpoint influenced by certain aspects of Christianity.  I am not familiar with medieval pornography, but I am certainly very familiar with post-med (18th/19thC) examples of the genre.  I wasn’t talking about that, but about pagan Classical antiquity.  One of the reasons that homosexuality was not a major issue in Classical Greece or in Republican and Imperial Rome was because it was not the sex of the done-to partner that was important, but his or her status.

Don’t forget that we are speaking not only from different chronological viewpoints, but from different cultures, too.

This thing seriously needs an edit function for those of us who can’t type worth darn.

Okay, I see what you’re getting at, AgTigress, and I agree entirely re: Classical antiquity. I’m not as familiar with it as I’d like to be, but I am familiar with the general gist of gender relations (what a lot of ‘g’s) then. I just think that it’s important never to overlook that rapacious-female aspect of misogyny, because there is still a strain of it left alive, and it can contribute to unequal sexual relationships.

You know, as someone in her twenties I have a much different view of feminism.  Every female of my acquaintance wouldn’t hesitate to say she supports equality between the sexes, but few would ever call themselves feminists. 

In my experience feminists push so far beyond what they consider “the mold” as to be unpleasant.  (keep in mind I speak only from personal experience, not in terms of every person) It seems impossible to have a conversation with them because they will not consider another view point.  I do not appreciate being talked down to and told I don’t know what’s good for me just because I don’t agree with whatever they say. 

I can be a REAL woman while still loving and appreciating the support a man can give me.  I can wear make up and sexy clothes without needing to be lectured on how girls like me are responsible for men still objectifying us. 

I don’t mind discussing a topic, but if that person just talks over me and won’t even listen to the point I’m trying to make I’ll ignore her.  I’m not speaking of a single incident either.  This has happened again and again with self-labeled feminists.  That in-your-face-you-need-to-support-what-I-support attitude turns me off just as much as any woman hating man does.

I’m not saying that this is what feminism was meant to mean (or once meant), but I am firm in my opinion that in my experience this is the bastardized version it has become.  It is very unpleasant.

You go to college, and you’re bombarded with messages about having sex. You’re *supposed* to have sex in college. And if you don’t, well, what’s wrong with you? Why didn’t you? Why aren’t you spending your 20s bed-hopping, if you’re single?

This isn’t singular for women only.  Guys go through the same pressure too. 

---This next comment isn’t directed at you snarkhunter, I’m just using your words as a jumping off point---

Everytime I see women talk about how much pressure is on them and only them I seriously want to shake them.  Men have pressure too.  My husband didn’t have sex until he was 21 for his own personal reasons.  Do y