Gratuitous Rape in Fantasy novels

[Teresa Edgerton]

True, Svalbard, but we have to cope with the trends, and even the societal influence, of the books we choose not to read.

And, yes, yes, yes, there is no direct connection that has been scientifically measured between what people read about in books, watch in movies, play in video games and what they actually do. But to be established as directly connected the action in question has to be exactly (or nearly exactly) copied. If people read these books and become numb and accepting of sexual violence, then they are influenced, whether they go out and commit rape or not. Likewise, if people read many books with gratuitous and graphic violence, and become hardened, they may engage in all sorts of ordinary cruelties, and this, too, would be an effect. So if someone reads about torture and doesn't burn people with red hot irons, or even burn his wife with cigarettes, but he still beats her up because he wants to experience that thrill in real life, then he has been affected. Or a woman, if she physically abuses her children. The question is, what kind of worldview are we, as writers, perpetuating, are we handing down to the next generation?

And, yes, you are going to say that you, yourself, have not been affected in that way. You are still sensitive to these issues. You are shocked by real-world sexual violence. Can you vouch for everyone else who reads these books? I don't mean who reads one book or series, but readers who actively seek out books that are increasingly dark and violent.

There was someone who joined here a while ago and said that all they were looking for in a book was violence, the more the better, and could people make recommendations. And people are so obliging here, they did make recommendations.

I don't say that any of the books mentioned here do have that effect. I only think that we should discuss whether they do or might, and not just dismiss it by saying, "those who don't like something don't need to read it." That's too easy, and (I am sorry) too thoughtless, and if a writer doesn't think about it before writing about it, it's too lazy.

____

springs, here are the statistics: World-wide, 1 in 3 women have been sexually assaulted. In the US, the number is close to 1 in 5 who have been sexually assaulted or threatened with rape. I had no idea that it was so prevalent that I must be acquainted with dozens of women who have experienced this. Though like zombiewife I am often uneasy out on the streets alone, I was shocked. (I have only been subjected once to a lewd comment by a stranger passing by, but 30 years later I haven't forgotten it, and it still makes me feel a little sick when I think of it.) I have no idea what the number is in Ulster. Not to frighten you, but perhaps you don't know either.

 

[JoanDrake]

I'd say so. Rape is very common in the modern world, including in Western countries that are supposedly enlightened when it comes to gender relations. We're not really sure how common it was prior. Vikings, for example, are famous for "rape and pillage," but there's almost no evidence that they actually raped women in any systematic fashion. There are a few references in the sagas to the rape of men, but these are exclusively in sagas of the 13th century, a good 200 years after the end of the Viking era.

There are, of course, plenty of references to rape in history--particularly in the sack of cities in wartime--but it's a myth that pre-modernity was essentially "rape-ier" than modernity. So in the one sense (and we may agree on this, I'm not sure), faux-medieval fantasies are often caricatures of the medieval world, not representations of it.

Not to derail the thread but the fact of the matter is that, at least at first, Vikings didn't RAID in a "systematic" fashion. This is one of my pet peeves with the History Channel's new show, (which I think is great otherwise, much better than GoT.) To go 'a viking' meant to go on an enterprise (specifically, an adventure for the purpose of gain)and usually that meant trading, not combat. This isn't because the Vikings were nice, but because the risk/reward ratio was better. They would steal something if they thought nobody was looking, yes, and you had better not cheat them, which the other Europeans, seeing them as backwoods hicks, often, (unwisely) did. (Many historians think this is how the raids began, in fact) but they didn't set out as robbers. It was only later, after they realized how weak the Europeans were, that they started to rob them and they often did that in the context of carrying on an invasion.

And this may get us back to our subject. The reason we don't see rape as more likely in medieval times may be just that it wasn't even seen as deserving of mention, not that they didn't do it. A woman who got away from roving mercernaries in 13thc France during the 100 Years war with just a gangbang considered herself very lucky not to be dead or enslaved. (Hell, a woman who got away from her own Baron thought herself very fortunate to be saved by the ravens in The War Lord)(and if you can't believe Charlton Heston who can you?).

It's only recently that we've seen any conquering armies adopt the policy that rape is generally forbidden. (Generally dating from the Napoleonic times when the winners noticed how much easier it made occupation and reconciliation afterwards when they didn't) . It's also one of the reasons that systematic rape has reentered war as a major weapon of terror.

 

[Ursa major]

So, if GRRM's are based around a war, where are the male rapes? Jaime and Brienne are captured, and Jaime is an alpha male - why is she the one threatened with rape, and he the one who suffers a macho-threatening injury? If they really did want to make Jaime doubt himself/weaken him, then rape may be a more logical way to go. The effect on men from rape is often different than that on women, and one of the reasons it was - and is - perpetrated is to reduce their power and Jaime was a more obvious target for such reduction of power than Brienne.

One could argue that, in the minds of those doing these awful things, they equate raping Brienne with cutting off Jaime's sword hand: each act (threatened or completed) is directed at what the perpetrators see as that which defines the victims. And each act demonstrates the power they have over their victims, the power to reduce a victim to their lowest.

I'm guessing that the perpetrators are the kind of men who would despise a woman who'd been raped, and so they are, in their eyes, making sure that the woman will be permanently despised, because they believe other men share their own world view. (That they may derive sexual pleasure from what they are threatening is a bonus.) And they probably believe that any woman they've raped will also despise herself for being raped.

In the case of Jaime, who's already despised by many, they are, by removing his sword hand, taking away, again permanently, the things that Jaime really treasures: his ability to fight one-on-one and, associated with that, his self-worth. In effect, as with their female victims, they are trying to make him despise himself.


You may or may not agree with that. (I may not, by the morning.) But what I will say is that, for me as a reader, the removal of Jaime's sword hand was more shocking than if he had been raped. (By the way, I doubt that this would be true of any other male character in ASoIaF.)

 

[Kissmequick]

If a man is attacked, he'll expect to be beaten up and nothing more. I may be wrong - that's just my impression.

The incidence of men who experience male rape is not that much lower than for women (where you are etc obviously makes a difference) but it is reported a hell of a lot less in UK/US society because the stigma is such as it used to be for female rapees (and still is in some areas). See my stats re rape during various,,armed confrontations earlier in this thread

Look, no one is calling for more male rape.

Just that 'if' your justification for female rape is 'historical accuracy'.... well if you're going t be accurate, include the male rape too. Because that would be just as historically accurate. Why only pick one aspect of accuracy and ignore the other? And if you only pick one, why does it have to be that one?

Why?


GRRM does include rape. Sorry Brian, (I'd say Abercrombie and Lynch waaay less, Lynch not at all that I remember, and Joe hardly at all but I read those books a while ago...)

But if GRRM was being totally historically accurate, Jamie would have almost certainly been raped during his incarceration with the North army. No doubt about it, historically, or modern history. And not just once. Now, I haven't read the books that far...but his threat was not sexual in the telly series. At all.

So, why is that? When it is and was extremely common? Why do only women get threatened with it/have to live with it? And yes, one or two books have dealt with it...but not many, cpmapred to the stories hat are out there.

And again, the thing is not about accusing people, it's about asking why.

 

[Gumboot]

So, if GRRM's are based around a war, where are the male rapes? Jaime and Brienne are captured, and Jaime is an alpha male - why is she the one threatened with rape, and he the one who suffers a macho-threatening injury? If they really did want to make Jaime doubt himself/weaken him, then rape may be a more logical way to go. The effect on men from rape is often different than that on women, and one of the reasons it was - and is - perpetrated is to reduce their power and Jaime was a more obvious target for such reduction of power than Brienne.

It's a question of social context. In a society where homosexual activity is considered a depravity, there would be much less male-male rape, as opposed to a society where it was tolerated or even accepted. In a Roman-like society, where the gender of your partner didn't matter, but "giving" was considered strong and "receiving" was considered weak, you'd expect mountains of male-male rape.

The other thing to consider is that biologically, only about 10-15% of people are homosexual, and this figure seems to maintain a pretty consistent distribution across different societies. A soldier's much more likely to rape someone they actually feel sexual attraction to.

 

[Gumboot]

But if GRRM was being totally historically accurate, Jamie would have almost certainly been raped during his incarceration with the North army. No doubt about it, historically, or modern history. And not just once. Now, I haven't read the books that far...but his threat was not sexual in the telly series. At all.

Actually if Martin was historically accurate, Jaime would have been treated with utmost respect and kindness, and duly ransomed to his family. Alive, and in good shape, he was worth a small fortune. The main reason people went to war in medieval times was in the hope they'd capture an important noble and get to ransom him. It was like winning the lottery jackpot.

It's extremely unlikely he would have been harmed in any way whatsoever, let alone raped or mutilated.

ETA. It's worth pointing out that the above highlights how much social context plays in how people are treated in warfare. To try claim that captors would be treated one specific way is nonsensical. The treatment of war prisoners has varied enormously across human history. Not only would your culture, your captor's culture, and the time period in which you were captured affect your treatment wildly, but the specific circumstances of your capture would have an enormous influence.

 

[Gumboot]

Not to derail the thread but the fact of the matter is that, at least at first, Vikings didn't RAID in a "systematic" fashion. This is one of my pet peeves with the History Channel's new show, (which I think is great otherwise, much better than GoT.) To go 'a viking' meant to go on an enterprise (specifically, an adventure for the purpose of gain)and usually that meant trading, not combat. This isn't because the Vikings were nice, but because the risk/reward ratio was better. They would steal something if they thought nobody was looking, yes, and you had better not cheat them, which the other Europeans, seeing them as backwoods hicks, often, (unwisely) did. (Many historians think this is how the raids began, in fact) but they didn't set out as robbers. It was only later, after they realized how weak the Europeans were, that they started to rob them and they often did that in the context of carrying on an invasion.

The portrayal of Vikings as raiders was propaganda, spread by local inhabitants. The fact is the norse lands couldn't support their population numbers, and the longships which landed in Northern France, Britain, and Ireland were overwhelmingly settlers looking for somewhere to live.

 

[ZombieWife]

Stranger-danger is a classic example of media hype fabricating a threat where one doesn't exist. The overwhelming majority of all violence is perpetrated by people who know their victims, and the overwhelming majority happens in places the victim feels safe.

This is particularly true of rape and sexual crime. Do you know where you're most likely to be raped? In your own house. And do you know who's most likely to rape you? Your partner or someone else you know and trust.

Logically correct for some of this, but slightly dismissive of a woman (or man's) legitimate fear of violence--conditioned or not.

On one hand, women are told to "simply not be raped," to be careful, to not wear the wrong clothes or say the wrong thing. And in the same breath, they're told, "Don't worry. Move along. No danger."

 

[JoanDrake]

The incidence of men who experience male rape is not that much lower than for women (where you are etc obviously makes a difference) but it is reported a hell of a lot less in UK/US society because the stigma is such as it used to be for female rapees (and still is in some areas). See my stats re rape during various,,armed confrontations earlier in this thread

Look, no one is calling for more male rape.

Just that 'if' your justification for female rape is 'historical accuracy'.... well if you're going t be accurate, include the male rape too. Because that would be just as historically accurate. Why only pick one aspect of accuracy and ignore the other? And if you only pick one, why does it have to be that one?

Why?


GRRM does include rape. Sorry Brian, (I'd say Abercrombie and Lynch waaay less, Lynch not at all that I remember, and Joe hardly at all but I read those books a while ago...)

But if GRRM was being totally historically accurate, Jamie would have almost certainly been raped during his incarceration with the North army. No doubt about it, historically, or modern history. And not just once. Now, I haven't read the books that far...but his threat was not sexual in the telly series. At all.

So, why is that? When it is and was extremely common? Why do only women get threatened with it/have to live with it? And yes, one or two books have dealt with it...but not many, cpmapred to the stories hat are out there.

And again, the thing is not about accusing people, it's about asking why.

Because boobies beat pecs in the ratings, every time.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

It's a question of social context. In a society where homosexual activity is considered a depravity, there would be much less male-male rape, as opposed to a society where it was tolerated or even accepted. In a Roman-like society, where the gender of your partner didn't matter, but "giving" was considered strong and "receiving" was considered weak, you'd expect mountains of male-male rape.

The other thing to consider is that biologically, only about 10-15% of people are homosexual, and this figure seems to maintain a pretty consistent distribution across different societies. A soldier's much more likely to rape someone they actually feel sexual attraction to.

Sorry, but to equate male rape to prevalence of homosexuality is, I think, very dangerous. I believe this has been studied in prisons and the majority of perpetrators are straight. Rape is not about sexual gratification, it's about power.

This link is to an article that captures very well, I think, both the difficulty of researching same, the prevalence, the effects, the demograph of perpetrators and in that demograph it is notable that in rape perpetrated outside a relationship the perpetrators are, primarily, heterosexual:

http://www.ajol.info/index.php/ipjp/article/download/65601/53282

Teresa, I know the statistics are high, and as I mentioned in another thread - the Max Clifford one - I had a nasty little experience as a child that went a little beyond a lewd comment - and I'm not saying it isn't a danger and one we are wise to take precautions against (and yes, in relation to Gumboot's comments, tht includes in our homes and social circles.) what I am saying is I don't walk around in fear of it/ expecting it to happen to me. If I was in a threatening situation then, yes, then I would but on a day to day basis, I don't. Maybe I am naive.

 

[Hex]

If I'm on my own in the evening/ at night and I see strange men, then the thought of random sexual violence certainly crosses my mind. Less so in the daytime unless it's just us somewhere deserted.

I was totally appalled at the weekend, having a conversation with some people I'm very close to. They were telling me about a TV programme they'd seen about Newcastle where women would come out of clubs all dressed up, very drunk and not wearing underwear and pass out on the street, and then "the boys would come out and just help themselves."

No condemnation of "the boys" who were just doing what "boys" everywhere would do.

I'd been feeling kind of smug about UK culture, thinking we had less of a rape-friendly attitude than the US, but apparently not.

Gumboot -- I don't know that homosexual attraction has necessarily much to do with rape, at least not consistently. There's a strong aspect of power and humiliation, so arguably in cultures where men being penetrated is regarded as appalling (and penetrating, but I expect everywhere that's less of an issue), you'd see more rape than in cultures where it's not such a big deal. Or maybe not, but I think the argument could be made both ways. <-- springs said all that better (and with more supporting knowledge)

EDIT: Good post, Ursa, and bringing us neatly back to our original question about how rape's the go-to way to destroy a woman, and why.

 

[Mouse]

Right. There's been a lot of answers since I last posted and I have to take the dog out in a mo (in the pouring rain!!) before I head to work, so I've not read all the answers and even then I've only skimmed, so sorry if I've taken anything the wrong way.

I haven't felt the need to quantify anything I've said here until now, and I didn't want to have to say this... but just be aware that whatever I say here I say from experience.

My reaction to said experience is actually on this site here. Also, I spoke about something different (but in a similar vein) in this post.

I still do not walk around thinking I'm going to get raped. And I walk around on my own. A lot. A hell of a lot.

If I'm walking on my own, at night (which I do when I take the dog out) and a strange man is walking behind me in an alleyway the thought that tends to cross my mind is what if he nicks my handbag/phone/purse.

So to say that 'all women' or 'most women' have to worry about/think about/fear sexual violence is BS.

And don't even start on the 'if a man rapes a man he must be gay' crap. Most rapists are straight.

 

[Kissmequick]

Actually if Martin was historically accurate, Jaime would have been treated with utmost respect and kindness, and duly ransomed to his family. Alive, and in good shape, he was worth a small fortune. The main reason people went to war in medieval times was in the hope they'd capture an important noble and get to ransom him. It was like winning the lottery jackpot.

A man being raped isn't 'damaged' for the purposes of being married off (isn't 'impure' or 'soiled' or possibly pregnant) so maybe yes, maybe no -- as much likely as the ladies. But POWs got/still get raped a hell of a lot. Other prisoners then, if not Jaime in ASOIAF - and yet we don;t see that (There was a threat to..Greyjoy?..in the telly series, though I don't know if that's in the books) And what about the Nightwatch? Lots of guys together, many forced there, a fair few rapists in among them, no women allowed...and yet no threat of sexual violence, despite the aforementioned prevalence of it in prisons right here and now, mostly by straight guys. So, why is that? If historical (or even modern) accuracy is what is prompting the female rape, why isn't the male rape in there too? Are we just cherry picking accuracy and if so, why just pick female rape?

I still do not walk around thinking I'm going to get raped. And I walk around on my own. A lot. A hell of a lot.

If I'm walking on my own, at night (which I do when I take the dog out) and a strange man is walking behind me in an alleyway the thought that tends to cross my mind is what if he nicks my handbag/phone/purse

I'm exactly the same. Maybe I'm naive too, (or maybe the leather bikers jacket gives me a 'don't mess with me' vibe?) but being mugged is my first and pretty much only thought. And I walk on my own a lot too, in some pretty damned dodgy areas as well.

 

[Hex]

I don't think we all need to fear rape constantly but people are different and while it would be silly to suggest that all women fear rape all the time, it's equally unhelpful to suggest that no one should fear it ever.

Both attitudes are perfectly reasonable responses to the world -- and no one should be criticised for either. Because, let's face it, women come in for enough criticism for all the other stuff we do.

EDIT: Totally, kmq. I understand! And the jacket sounds lovely.

I tend to think about the things that really scare me -- so if I'm on my own it's being raped or stabbed, and if I'm with my kids, it's something hurting them. Predictable, I know, but true. Being mugged would be horrible, especially if it involved being hit, but I'm not very worried about losing my (cheap) phone or my (sadly poorly stocked) wallet, so it's not what I fear.

I kind of meant -- people are individuals and respond to things in different ways. I think I said that, but I feel the need to say it again.

 

[Kissmequick]

it's equally unhelpful to suggest that no one should fear it ever.

Oh, no I get that -- not what I'm suggesting! Of course there will be times when you'd fear it (and if you've experienced sexual assault before, it'll probably be more to the forefront of your mind, which is natural). Just not as a matter of course, for me. It's not the first thing that leaps to my mind in general situations, you know?

 

[Mouse]

it's equally unhelpful to suggest that no one should fear it ever.

I didn't say that, I didn't even suggest that.

I kind of meant -- people are individuals and respond to things in different ways. I think I said that, but I feel the need to say it again.

Why is why I said I don't think like that.

I'm annoyed at the 'most women' thing. I'm saying that's simply not true. Some women do, some women don't. I'm sick to death of being lumped in with everyone else. A much safer word to use is 'some' rather than 'most' or 'all.'

 

[crystal haven]

I've spent some time writing this post, and some posts have appeared, so apologies if repeating anything.

I think, fear, very often, comes from inside us, rather than some outside force. I remember asking my sister once if she felt safe taking her dog for a walk, and she said, perfectly safe. Yet I would have been watching out for danger all the time.

But during my teenage years I was bullied at school and spent most of my time in fear, and I lived not far from the area where Peter Sutcliffe did his murders, and my sister had left home then. Our father would meet me to walk me down the lane home, just in case. So the fear was in my head of being attacked, and has probably stayed with me. I’m very wary of being out on my own. But the fear was being murdered, not raped.

Later, when someone I know had a situation with her child, my fears changed to fear for my own children, and more awareness of sexual crimes. Our own lives influence us, and that will include how we feel when reading a book. We are all different.

So I think it’s vital that something like rape in a story is treated with awareness of the people reading it, and how it could affect them, and not be trivialised. But I feel the same goes for any sensitive situation, be it murder, rape, or just bullying at school, which can be so destroying it can lead to suicide. Sensitivity, and awareness of the readers, would be important to me, how the situation is handled.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I've looked at both torture and rape for a wip, and they're both sides of a very similar coin, perpetrated for exactly the reasons Aber mentioned earlier - power and subjugation, not sex - and if they're used - as with Tyrion's wife -- as a motivation for the non-raped character to perpetrate an act of violence then I think it's open for discussion as to its validity as a literary tool.

It's just a very cheap device, isn't it? I say that as someone who has greatly enjoyed A Song of Ice and Fire but has also been troubled, at times, with its use of rape and torture. I don't think these topics should be "off-limits," but I think they should be used very sparingly, and only when the author seeks to do something more meaningful with them than add a little motivation to a character who isn't even a victim.

 

[ZombieWife]

Right. There's been a lot of answers since I last posted and I have to take the dog out in a mo (in the pouring rain!!) before I head to work, so I've not read all the answers and even then I've only skimmed, so sorry if I've taken anything the wrong way.

I haven't felt the need to quantify anything I've said here until now, and I didn't want to have to say this... but just be aware that whatever I say here I say from experience.

My reaction to said experience is actually on this site here. Also, I spoke about something different (but in a similar vein) in this post.

I still do not walk around thinking I'm going to get raped. And I walk around on my own. A lot. A hell of a lot.

If I'm walking on my own, at night (which I do when I take the dog out) and a strange man is walking behind me in an alleyway the thought that tends to cross my mind is what if he nicks my handbag/phone/purse.

So to say that 'all women' or 'most women' have to worry about/think about/fear sexual violence is BS.

And don't even start on the 'if a man rapes a man he must be gay' crap. Most rapists are straight.

These responses feel very defensive, so I'm wondering why? Also, because you do not walk around thinking you might get raped does not mean that others are the same way. A lot of others. I'm glad that you have this freedom of mind. I wish many many others had nothing to be worried about. You have your experiences. Others have theirs. I just ask you to please consider this. As to the rest, I'd really rather not respond. But, best to you all the same.

I've spent some time writing this post, and some posts have appeared, so apologies if repeating anything.

I think, fear, very often, comes from inside us, rather than some outside force. I remember asking my sister once if she felt safe taking her dog for a walk, and she said, perfectly safe. Yet I would have been watching out for danger all the time.

But during my teenage years I was bullied at school and spent most of my time in fear, and I lived not far from the area where Peter Sutcliffe did his murders, and my sister had left home then. Our father would meet me to walk me down the lane home, just in case. So the fear was in my head of being attacked, and has probably stayed with me. I’m very wary of being out on my own. But the fear was being murdered, not raped.

Later, when someone I know had a situation with her child, my fears changed to fear for my own children, and more awareness of sexual crimes. Our own lives influence us, and that will include how we feel when reading a book. We are all different.

So I think it’s vital that something like rape in a story is treated with awareness of the people reading it, and how it could affect them, and not be trivialised. But I feel the same goes for any sensitive situation, be it murder, rape, or just bullying at school, which can be so destroying it can lead to suicide. Sensitivity, and awareness of the readers, would be important to me, how the situation is handled.

Crystal Haven, I'm on board with all that you are saying here. Thanks for the post!

If we all stop to consider this conversation alone (here on the board) and the array of responses, it's easy to see why we get varying ways of how authors handle rape--in fantasy or other genres. Definitely enriches the conversation!

 

[Nerds_feather]

It's a question of social context. In a society where homosexual activity is considered a depravity, there would be much less male-male rape, as opposed to a society where it was tolerated or even accepted. In a Roman-like society, where the gender of your partner didn't matter, but "giving" was considered strong and "receiving" was considered weak, you'd expect mountains of male-male rape.

The other thing to consider is that biologically, only about 10-15% of people are homosexual, and this figure seems to maintain a pretty consistent distribution across different societies. A soldier's much more likely to rape someone they actually feel sexual attraction to.

Actually, it turns out male rape is MUCH more common in wartime than previously assumed, and may even be MORE common in places where homosexuality is taboo. Read here, here and here for information about male rape in places that are not exactly bastions of tolerance for homosexuality.