This weekend the lovely Remittance Girl hosted a roundtable discussion on nonconsensual sex in erotica and was kind enough to ask me to participate, which was all the more kind as I don't consider myself a writer or a writer of erotica. I should write about this issue more fully, but for now, here's what I said:
What should we say counts as non-consensual? Starting with fairy tales running up to Harlequin romances there is generally an element of--if not straightforward nonconsent--resistance and unwillingness in the stories told to women about their sexual roles. It's also implied in stories about abduction. The Story of O is probably all about nonconsent; O turns her will over to another, and so it's questionable whether she can be said to consent, rather than her master(s). And let's not forget the rape scene in the Fountainhead, where Dominique Francon basically falls in love with her rapist. Scarlet O'Hara is essentially raped by Rhett Butler. In fact, in most story tales, we can probably state a corollary: Good girls resist, and then succumb. Bad girls are 'tamed'. Essentially, the lack of consent is what allows them to feel desire and passion.
I've struggled with the topic. I don't want to reinforce the old trope where being taken against one's will somehow is liberating. I would like for women to claim their own sexuality. But claiming it means acknowledging not only that women can and should be sexual agents, but that sometimes the roles we wish to play involve a kind of submission or overcoming.
Anyway, go here to read some great writers, and see what some very smart people had to say about it, with responses far more considered than mine.
I love Remittance Girl's writing, so be sure to explore her site while you're there.Labels: blogging, remittance girl |
Closed/on Hiatus
![Your writing in the other hand [sic] is pure filth and disgusting.](http://www.gotbears.com/gund/sesamestreet/75985.jpg){kind=link}