Women, Violence and Urban Fantasy - WTF

[emberling]

No fear of rape? Not buying it. A while ago (I think around the time of Saintcrow's post) I tried to come up with a list of urban fantasy heroines who were not the victim of rape, sexual abuse, or at the very least, unwanted teen pregnancy by a guy who bailed ASAP. It wasn't a very long list. It seems to me like authors feel the need to provide some sort of reasoning or explanation behind why their kick-ass chick in leather isn't a nice daddy's girl instead, and the answer is invariably some kind of horrible trauma.

I do, however, think that this tends to produce a better (well, more interesting to read) character and explains in large part why I find mass-produced female protagonists so much more interesting than their male counterparts. Your typical male fantasy protagonist, for instance, is a farmboy with a Destiny who left home because a wizard told him to, or because it was overrun by not_orcs_some_other_made_up_name_they're_totally_different_from_orcs_I_swear. Your typical female fantasy protagonist might be a farmgirl with a Destiny, but she had to leave home because she got knocked up by a guy who won't give her the time of day now that she's put out and she was driven out of the village for being a 'whore,' and now she got picked up by a creepy merchant who she thinks might be planning to sell her into slavery, et cetera, et cetera.

Kind of makes me wonder where all the books about guys who were traumatized by sexual abuse or rape are.

[Shryke]

This is a very interesting point, which I hadn't really considered before (despite it being basically the exact theme of Buffy Season 7), but that does seem to be a theme peculiar to Kickass Chicks. I know the theory is that you need your heroine to be morally conflicted about the violence she's committing in order for her to be sympathetic, but I don't remember (eg) Bourne of the Bourne Identity having to balance his Speshul Superagent status with his, I dunno, fatherhood responsibilities or whatnot.

It's based on the differing cultural expectations of men and women.

It's ok for men to be violent. There is no conflict inherent in that. In fact, to make a violent male character conflicted, you've got to add something extra. More violence or nastier violence or what have you.

But with a women, you need to make her conflicted about the violence she does or she comes off "hard" and "callous" or what have you. Like, essentially, the very idea of violent women is itself a conflict, unlike with men.

No fear of rape? Not buying it. A while ago (I think around the time of Saintcrow's post) I tried to come up with a list of urban fantasy heroines who were not the victim of rape, sexual abuse, or at the very least, unwanted teen pregnancy by a guy who bailed ASAP. It wasn't a very long list. It seems to me like authors feel the need to provide some sort of reasoning or explanation behind why their kick-ass chick in leather isn't a nice daddy's girl instead, and the answer is invariably some kind of horrible trauma.

And this is kinda what I'm talking about. Apparently women need trauma to "believably" push them into that kind of behavior. It's just "natural" for men.

EDIT: I'm not saying YOU are saying this btw kurokaze. I'm saying it seems to be the general trend in writing. Most writers it seems think girls need trauma to be believably violent, men don't.

[Galactus]

To switch mediums a second, because I haven't read much UF, a lot of the crop of kick ass chicks were actually cyborgs, and to strain 'cyborgism' somewhat a lot, characters like Buffy or Max from Dark Angel weren't actual robots but were women with bodies that were actively created as instruments of violence. (Also the rest of Joss Whedons, er, body of work, Romy from Andromeda, Cameron in SCC, and apparently a big theme in Caprica, which I haven't watched.)

What Saintcrow seems to be saying* is that here you have women who are using violence by personal, unambigous choice, whereas in a lot of cases (literally!) weaponized women are usually created (by men) to serve some purpose and often have a certain struggle against their own body/role in life. On a reader level too, the scantily dressed kick ass chick is there to cater to men, right? OTOH,i'm not sure this is a hard rule. I enjoy female badassery as much as anyone, which maybe explains her presence in literature assumed to be geared for women.

*Does anyone have any UF recs, to get started? We seem to be talking about it a lot, I feel like its time to actually read some.

All this talk of Cyborg Kickass Chicks makes me think of Ghost in the Shell more than anything else.

[Eyelesbarrow]

To switch mediums a second, because I haven't read much UF, a lot of the crop of kick ass chicks were actually cyborgs, and to strain 'cyborgism' somewhat a lot, characters like Buffy or Max from Dark Angel weren't actual robots but were women with bodies that were actively created as instruments of violence. (Also the rest of Joss Whedons, er, body of work, Romy from Andromeda, Cameron in SCC, and apparently a big theme in Caprica, which I haven't watched.)

This is interesting, the differences/ similarities between the badass women in books and in tv. For certain UF books that I've read - and they are mostly what I have in mind when I write these observations - the women are born with certain skills or magics. Their violence, while they are capable of it in the first place, is only unleashed after some traumatic event (rape, death of a loved one, murder attempts). So in a way, UF heroines are born out of violence inflicted on their bodies. And herein lies a knot. Because violence is not seen as natural to women, there must be a very strong reason for it. The greatest fear is the fear of bodily violation, hence the deaths and the rapes that occur prior to the "transformation." I say this is a knot because it implies that these women are "bodily" forced into their actions/ destiny.

I read up some information on Anita Blake and was surprised that the author credits American hardboiled detective fiction as her main inspiration. The protagonists in that genre are anti-heroes. Those guys don't flinch when killing and, unlike the UF heroines, they have no backstory to justify their actions. (Sometimes, they don't even have a name! I'm looking at you The Continental Op.)

Are there UFs where the heroine did not suffer from traumatic experiences? Where jumps out of the novel guns blazing?

ETA because I missed this:

Kind of makes me wonder where all the books about guys who were traumatized by sexual abuse or rape are.

I was wondering about that, too.

I know the theory is that you need your heroine to be morally conflicted about the violence she's committing in order for her to be sympathetic, but I don't remember (eg) Bourne of the Bourne Identity having to balance his Speshul Superagent status with his, I dunno, fatherhood responsibilities or whatnot.

Yeah, no responsibilities of fatherhood for Bourne, but there was Marie, who was not really part of his personal grand narrative. I was bummed out what they did to her because I love Franka Potente. :tantrum:

[emberling]

*Does anyone have any UF recs, to get started? We seem to be talking about it a lot, I feel like its time to actually read some.

Spoilered in hopes that it will magically prevent derailment.

I always feel unsure recommending any, because it's hard for me to distinguish actual quality out of my guilty pleasures (which the entire genre is to me -- I have read or attempted to read almost every single one I've been able to get my hands on. Well, the ones that aren't in the romance section and don't have bare-chested men prominently featured on the cover. I have limits.) But here goes:

---

These three books should be a good introduction, covering several major tropes, the three primary supernatural species -- and they're quite good:

Kelley Armstrong - Bitten: Probably the archetypal UF werewolf story, and has a whole lot of relevance to gender issues and the kind of thing we're talking about.

Robin McKinley - Sunshine: Let me just say that I hate cuddly UF vampires. This story, I believe, predates the formation of modern UF slightly, or was right there at the beginning. This is what a UF vampire story should be.

Holly Black - Tithe: pre-Twilight YA faerie tale.

The common theme I have to point out here is that unlike the more standard copycat fare, these books deal with non-humans that are really not human, and really make that clear (unlike, for example, Sookie Stackhouse, who is entirely too accepting of all the killing and blood and awfulness that her vampires do -- True Blood has less of a problem with this, since it's more distanced from her point of view and the awfulness is significantly more obviously awful)

Also, what sequels and followups exist aren't necessarily of the same caliber, though some people (not me) seemed to think very highly of Valiant. Armstrong has some other good books, but Stolen is not one of them.

---

It's probably unwise to enter into a discussion of the genre these days without familiarizing oneself somewhat with either the Sookie Stackhouse novels, or True Blood, which are not amazing but worth your time. Buffy and Anita Blake basically started the whole thing, so that's obviously a good place to get some knowledge (though personally I haven't made it through the first half of the first Anita book, and the first season of Buffy can be a slog -- worth it, though). I'll also throw in Jim Butcher's Dresden Files as a required staple read, even though it sidesteps the gender issue (and relevance to this discussion) with a typical fedora-wielding male noir PI protagonist. Who is a wizard, of course.

--

The best books to read for this particular discussion (along with any random bad books you like, if you want to gain the full perspective) are probably Carrie Vaughn's (who sparked the whole argument in the first place) and Patricia Briggs'. More than any others I've encountered, they're about real people having real lives in which there are vampires and werewolves and such. And how those things actually matter. There's the requisite action-adventure elements, but these women are not leather-clad badasses and they do solve problems by talking about their feelings. When it makes sense. Armstrong's Bitten also sorta-kinda falls in here, since it is in large part about where its protagonist fits in society (or out of it). But it notably has only the one female character. And while this is decisively fixed in the followups, the majority of those basically take place entirely in supernatural society, ignoring the human one around it.

As for Saintcrow herself, I'm not a big fan. Probably a good place to go to find out what the standard cliches are without it being unbelievably horrible.

Are there UFs where the heroine did not suffer from traumatic experiences? Where jumps out of the novel guns blazing?

Let me see what I can come up with.

There's basically three categories off the top of my head:

- the aforementioned traumatic experience

- the heroine was not raised with human morals or values in the first place

- the heroine is a PI/cop/etc.

There's a potential fourth category that I'm discounting, which is heroines who are simply not meant to be badass (and hence, not unusually violent). That doesn't really seem to be what we're discussing.

On a quick scan, I have found exactly one series that by my recollection fits into none of the above categories and is not YA*. It is also intentionally ridiculous, over-the-top, and intended to be taken more as a fun wild ride than as anything remotely serious. At least, I hope that's the author's intent.

There were also a few gender-agnostic traumatic experiences, such as (while a child) having one's entire family die in an arson fire, being tortured and permanently scarred by the firestarter, and being left for dead, then living homeless for months or years.

*YA novels are understandably going to be light on the rape.

[LugaJetboyGirl]

So one of the themes we've got going here is an inversion of Abraham's model. Lady Narcissa sees rape/violence as a defining experience for many UF protaganists and Eyelessbarrow says:

Their violence, while they are capable of it in the first place, is only unleashed after some traumatic event (rape, death of a loved one, murder attempts). So in a way, UF heroines are born out of violence inflicted on their bodies.

So instead of Abraham's idea that being a weaponized woman leads to freedom from the fear of rape, instead rape/brutalization leads to the weaponized woman. The weaponized woman is the physical embodiment of the fear of rape.

I do find it interesting, this idea that trauma is a means to 'safely' create a powerful K.A.C. [Kick Ass Chick] in a social environment that prefers the woman-as-nurturer model. But I also think, in a way, the brutalization-as-the-thing-that-weaponizes-the woman trope might be so popular because it is more believable. Would the realism in a story (and the interest of the reader) be increased if we had the female equivalent to the Farmboy With a Destiny - if someone would just write a powerful, dangerously violent woman who became that way for no major reason other than she wanted to?

It strikes me that this may be more of a comment on the stereotype of men and violence than of women and violence. The trauma-less Kick Ass Farmboy is just as much a fantasy as the traumatized Kick Ass Chick. In RL violent and dangerous men don't just pop out of the womb - they are abused as children or socialized to be tough guys or sexually assaulted or they're soldiers back from war zones. Perhaps the Kick Ass Farmboy trope is a disservice to real men who who are physically traumatized, since that damage is ignored in favor of the male hero who exists 'cause that's just how men are.'

Maybe the Kick Ass Chick who has been created from violence is LESS of a fantasy than the Kick Ass Farmboy. Could it be that it is more socially acceptable to talk about how violence shapes and affects female characters, but less so male heroes?

EDIT: This is my 777th post. Now that is badass.

[Eyelesbarrow]

Maybe our Kick Ass Chick is both sides of the coin. I side with Abraham's observation that these women have internalized violence. Weaponized, so to speak. But the characterization of the UF heroine also demands that she shows ambivalence to what she is, which speaks volumes on the differences in the portrayal of men and women as violent creatures. That ambivalence can be manifested, say in her guilt, fear of rape, her struggle to find a balance between her human and "weapon" selves.

[DanielAbraham]

So instead of Abraham's idea that being a weaponized woman leads to freedom from the fear of rape, instead rape/brutalization leads to the weaponized woman. The weaponized woman is the physical embodiment of the fear of rape.

I may have to adjust my thoughts, given the number of rape victims that turn into UF heroines, but I think I'm looking more at a refinement than scrapping the whole argument.

If sexual assault is catalytic -- if it's what makes the heroine from a "normal" woman into a UF kickass etc etc -- I think I'm still on pretty safe ground. It becomes more of a "that will never happen again" statement than the entirely out of sight model I started with. Likewise, rape in the character's backstory (even if it's not the catalyst per se) could be an effective nod at the subtext without blowing the game.

And I think rape-surrogates like turning to werewolves or vampires or whatever are fair game. In fact, I'd expect them to be thick on the ground.

I still have the sense that once the heroine is set up in the fullness of her power, it's really dangerous to go back into a space that allows real, explicit sexual assault. If I'm right and that UF is getting a lot of its juice by being a response (wish-fulfillment or otherwise) to unease with women, power, and violence, I still think the rape of a fully (empowered|weaponized) is a party foul. (Even if some writers are good enough to get away with it. ;) )

[peterbound]

AAAANNNNNND we're done.

[emberling]

Not naming which for anti-spoiler reasons, but off the top of my head, two bestselling, hardcover urban fantasy series have their protagonist experience sexual assault or rape multiple books into the series. Assuming you're familiar with these, are these events somehow before the heroine is 'empowered?' Or are these the writers that are good enough to get away with it? I'm skeptical that it's that simple, because if those events are somehow against the spirit of UF's popularity, then the most popular UF would skew to good authors that don't include those events, rather than good authors that do.

I'm not trying to disagree or pick holes in the theory, by the way -- I think you're very close. It just seems like there's a bit more to it.

Perhaps it's that inherent in the "that will never happen again" statement is an admission that it could happen again, if the heroine isn't perfect at their training/watchfulness/etc. And nobody likes a heroine who is perfect at everything they attempt. So legitimate danger of it actually happening again feels more real than just making it so.

That's probably not the explanation here, though, because neither of the two cases mentioned above had significant trauma in their backstory -- dead parents, that sort of thing. Their trauma occurred on-screen. But also in both cases, the main character's power level was, and remained, significantly below their most common associates. They're swimming with sharks and they know it. I think it's something about this that attracts their popularity -- the main characters aren't super-strong, they don't have world-shattering magic, and they go up against people who do and come out ahead. A pessimistic view of why that is popular is that it's simple wish-fulfillment fantasy for an extreme underdog to win time and time again. I prefer to think that people are recognizing -- probably only subconsciously -- that the kind of badass they want to read about isn't about being able to crush armies under your boot, it's about having the strength of will to face a guy who could crush an army of you under his boot. And doing it even though they got seriously messed up the last time they did it.

[Curethan]

Kind of makes me wonder where all the books about guys who were traumatized by sexual abuse or rape are.

Bakker's PON gives you Cnaiur... put through just this in order to become the ultimate badass. Kind of illustrates your point, his experience frees him from his cultural conditioning. He's not just regular man violent, he's crazy violent in an effort to regain what was taken from him by violation.

Perhaps this is part of the problem - it sounds as though (apologies for uneducated generalizing, I haven't read UF) sometimes trauma is used to explain the deviation from accepted social paradigm, but without illustrating the lasting emotional and psychological costs that people suffer from such events.

Thus, the trauma is shown as primarily beneficial - which could be upsetting to those who have been affected by such events.

[Errant Bard]

Bakker's PON gives you Cnaiur... put through just this in order to become the ultimate badass. Kind of illustrates your point, his experience frees him from his cultural conditioning. He's not just regular man violent, he's crazy violent in an effort to regain what was taken from him by violation.

Except not. Cnaiur is gay and loved Moenghus, there never was any violation. The "most violent of men" schtick is induced by scylvendi cultural programming and norms to prove to others and himself that he's not, in fact, gay (which he is). That's also why he rapes Selwë, to prove something.

Moenghus shakes him a bit by forcing him to see this part of himself, but it's hardly violation, and the rest of his journey is totally dictated by cultural programming.

Which isn't to say the argument has no value, but I cannot really think of any trauma-induced "weaponization" with males in my readings, except maybe in some shoujo mangas, where the trauma is something personal (fear of physical of mental abuse.) Most of the time the trauma for men is about something that happened to someone else (seeing a lover die, that kind of thing)

[MinDonner]

There is the occasional use of "someone else's trauma" to motivate Kickass Chicks, though I can't think of many examples - usually this is in the form of "brother went off to war, died, sister now wants to live up to his legacy" rather than "parents/husband murdered/raped". It would also be nice to see a few more Kickass Chicks turning to violence because of ideology, like what the blokes do - which is, oddly, where She-Ra (of all people) pisses all over modern Urban Fantasy, cos she was (IIRC) basically doing all her arse-kicking in the name of Right and Justice, not because she had some special womanly reason for doing so.

ETA:

Which isn't to say the argument has no value, but I cannot really think of any trauma-induced "weaponization" with males in my readings, except maybe in some shoujo mangas, where the trauma is something personal (fear of physical of mental abuse.) Most of the time the trauma for men is about something that happened to someone else (seeing a lover die, that kind of thing)

I haven't mentioned Donaldson's Gap series yet, cos on first glance it did seem to be a particularly egregious example of "rape turns female lead into superwoman", but now I think more carefully, most of the male characters have similar past traumas that have caused their current violent natures. Traumas, in fact, often caused by sexual or emotional abuse by women. So there's that, at least.

ETA2: WTF? That last edit fucked my post right up. Think it's fixed now.

[lady narcissa]

I've had the same experience as kurokaze with my reading of UF - at least a few series spring to mind where the rape of the heroine occurs halfway through the series - it isn't something in her past.

In one the heroines rape occurs at the end of book 3 / beginning of book 4 of a 5 book series. She was already powerful before the rape occured. There are certainly more powerful creatures around her but she has powers they don't even understand. After the rape, however, the creatures that raped her can no longer do so - they have lost their ability to control her so she gains control through her rape.

In the second one I'm thinking of, the heroine is raped at the very end of book 2 out of a 4 book series. Again, she was fairly powerful before the rape although she most likely hasn't reached her full power yet. Book 3 hasn't come out yet so its hard to say exactly what the consequences of the rape will be.

Both series have end books that the authors are aiming for. These are not never ending series where the kick ass heroines continually save the world over and over again and the authors are going to keep publishing as long as the public is buying. And both have placed the rapes in the middle of the story as part of the heroine's journey towards saving the world.

One of the slightly annoying things is that in both series, the heroines are immediately rescued by other females but yet still a man has to come in and finish the rescue. In one the heroine is about to kill her rapist but ultimately can't bring herself to do so because of the consequences it will bring to the people of her kingdom - i.e. war in retaliation. One of the men in her life has no such reservations and kills the rapist...thus bringing war to her kingdom and his. In the other, while being initially rescued by a female, the heroine has to be essentially "saved"...brought back to life...by the male protagonist. I'd like to see one where the heroine saves herself.

And I'm interested in this idea of a heroine being motivated by ideology instead of revenge or trauma.

[DanielAbraham]

I've had the same experience as kurokaze with my reading of UF - at least a few series spring to mind where the rape of the heroine occurs halfway through the series - it isn't something in her past.

In one the heroines rape occurs at the end of book 3 / beginning of book 4 of a 5 book series. She was already powerful before the rape occured. There are certainly more powerful creatures around her but she has powers they don't even understand. After the rape, however, the creatures that raped her can no longer do so - they have lost their ability to control her so she gains control through her rape.

Clearly I need to do some more reading. Gaining control/power by being raped never even occurred to me.

Okay. I'm squicked.

[LugaJetboyGirl]

There is the occasional use of "someone else's trauma" to motivate Kickass Chicks, though I can't think of many examples - usually this is in the form of "brother went off to war, died, sister now wants to live up to his legacy" rather than "parents/husband murdered/raped".

True. I do think male heroes (as Errrant Bard said) primarily experience "someone else's trauma" which fits with the cultural role of men as protectors. Witnessing someone else's trauma then marks a point where the hero has failed in his central and most important role. It's more rare that a male hero has physical violence done to him personally and is actually transformed by it. This is one of the reasons I felt what Robert Jordan did with Rand al'Thor was so important. His character became so much more interesting to me once he, himself, physically, survived a physical trauma.

It would also be nice to see a few more Kickass Chicks turning to violence because of ideology, like what the blokes do - which is, oddly, where She-Ra (of all people) pisses all over modern Urban Fantasy, cos she was (IIRC) basically doing all her arse-kicking in the name of Right and Justice, not because she had some special womanly reason for doing so.

I also agree. But I do see how the standard tropes have been so compelling for so many RL women, since the sexually assaulted heroine overcomes in the end. While it means that the heroine is really defined by her sexual assault, this does reflect the experience of a large number of women. Perhaps its Daniel Abraham's 'wish fulfillment' at work, but more so in the sense that the heroines aren't just 'fantasies' but actual role models.

[Maithanet]

It's based on the differing cultural expectations of men and women.

It's ok for men to be violent. There is no conflict inherent in that. In fact, to make a violent male character conflicted, you've got to add something extra. More violence or nastier violence or what have you.

But with a women, you need to make her conflicted about the violence she does or she comes off "hard" and "callous" or what have you. Like, essentially, the very idea of violent women is itself a conflict, unlike with men.

Apparently women need trauma to "believably" push them into that kind of behavior. It's just "natural" for men.

I agree that often authors feel that women need an excuse or triggering event to be violent, whereas men do not. The only real exceptions to this are boys, rather than men. Ender struggled a great deal with his own ideas about violence, but this didn’t seem strange because he was ten years old at the time. If Batman were to get all angsty and wonder if he was right to beat up on those street thugs, it wouldn’t be very in character, and frankly would be terrible to read. Although there are so many Batman stories written at this point, it’s probably happened at some point.

As for the lack of sexual violence against men in stories, I think that goes to some element of reverse wish fulfillment for men. Male authors and male readers both like to think their chance of being raped is exceedingly low (regardless of whether this is accurate or not). Fantasy as a genre, particularly superhero fantasy, contains the appealing idea of having greater control over your own life and the world than the reader actually does. It would be very difficult to combine this with a male character who has been raped, because for most men that is irreparably far down on the powerlessness scale.

[Arthmail]

I agree that often authors feel that women need an excuse or triggering event to be violent, whereas men do not. The only real exceptions to this are boys, rather than men. Ender struggled a great deal with his own ideas about violence, but this didn’t seem strange because he was ten years old at the time. If Batman were to get all angsty and wonder if he was right to beat up on those street thugs, it wouldn’t be very in character, and frankly would be terrible to read. Although there are so many Batman stories written at this point, it’s probably happened at some point.

Batman has never fucking doubted himself. Never! The only thing he has ever doubed is Superman's disguise. So lame.

[Errant Bard]

Fantasy as a genre, particularly superhero fantasy, contains the appealing idea of having greater control over your own life and the world than the reader actually does. It would be very difficult to combine this with a male character who has been raped, because for most men that is irreparably far down on the powerlessness scale.

I'm not too sure about that.

Admittedly I don't have many references, but one springs to mind immediatly: a Fantasy manga (I know, not a novel, but heh) called Berserk, where the main guy has been raped in childhood, and becomes even more badass than he was following that. Now, it seems like the exact situation we're talking about... and yet it is a big hit, and shows it is easy to build a male badass out of someone who touched powerlessness.

Now that I think about it, it's an interesting example, because the trauma doesn't come from the rape but from the betrayal leading to that rape and the ensuing revenge. Neither rapist nor rape really figure in the story, memories are about the betrayal. And then the "weaponization" of the main character is not a result of that trauma, he doesn't need any reason, he weaponize himself because it's a way to eat and he's good at it (and he's not the best at it at first, either) and the trauma is only there to hinder him in personal relations.

We get in volume 10 another "rape", of his own girlfriend, while he's pinned down, by his best friend, and this becomes his real motivator: revenge. Not for anything done to him (note he had an eye gouged out in that encounter, and he cut his own arm to break free at one time, so there's some high level of physical abuse) but for a betrayal and something done to someone else.

Maybe fear of having trust/honour/friendship betrayed might be the closest, in that instance, to what Daniel talked about in that "weaponization" to get free of the fear of rape for females, it is a driving force for being stronger, alone, and free of the threat to one's masculinity/feminity/whatever.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Errant Bard

Except not. Cnaiur is gay and loved Moenghus, there never was any violation. The "most violent of men" schtick is induced by scylvendi cultural programming and norms to prove to others and himself that he's not, in fact, gay (which he is). That's also why he rapes Selwë, to prove something.

Moenghus shakes him a bit by forcing him to see this part of himself, but it's hardly violation, and the rest of his journey is totally dictated by cultural programming.

:blink:

So... because Cnaiur was in love with Moenghus, the fact that Moenghus forced Cnaiur to have sex with him is not rape? Or, even, since Moenghus was trying to break Cnaiur's cultural conditioning, the fact that he forced Cnaiur into have sex with him is, therefore, not a rape?

Are you aware of how twisted this sounds?

So a wife who loves her husband cannot be raped? Or forced sex with a woman from a Muslim culture to liberate her sexuality is not rape?

Do you not see the problem in your analysis?

Saying the rape is a necessary plot device for achieve the author's goal? I have no problem with that. Saying even that rape is the right tool in this story is okay. But to say that it is not rape? I find that highly problematic.

Re: Sex differences in individual response to rape

I think that in our culture (both American and Chinese), men internalize sexual violence differently than women do. Having talked to a few men who had been raped, and having talked to some women who have been raped, the two groups process the experience very differently. The types of fear they have, the types of scars they carry, are all quite different. I would not be surprised at all if there are studies out there that examine and explore these differences. As a result, I think rape against men are viewed and analyzed with a different set of metrics. I also suspect that the sex of the rapist matter, as well. For instance, people in general will probably react differently when it is a woman raping a man, especially of the woman is depicted as alluring or otherwise desirable.

On one hand, I think this difference in how women and men differ in how they process the experience reflects a trend born out of chauvinism that devalues men, and I don't like it. It's saying that men's consent matter less. No, it really is not, if you believe that men and women are equals to each other. On the other hand, it does make it less likely for men to feel victimized from the experience. Seeing how emotionally damaged some women are from the experience, I cannot help but think that perhaps giving men a way out of being victimized is not a bad thing, even if we have to procure that defense from chauvinism. So I'm rather ambivalent about the differences between rape against men vis a vis rape against women.