fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4702 ]

[ SECRET POST #4702 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4702 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 15 secrets from Secret Submission Post #673.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

04. https://i.imgur.com/YzAPMn2.png

That would definitely be one of those disappointing-but-not-surprising things

Probably they grew up on 'bodice ripper' historical 'romance' where rape = love and non/dub-con = romance.

You know, like they did in the good ole days.

People also think that historical realism = the world sucks, rape is everywhere, mistreatment of women is everywhere, and women have no power whatsoever and just took it.

Ignoring matriarchies, the feminist movement of the french revolution, the women that had breweries in the middle ages and just prior to the Renaissance, empresses and queens that left their mark on history...

Mind, women have had the short end of the stick in a lot of world history, and the road for women to be treated as equals has been long and painful, at times even regressing. But I come to think the belief that women were invariably of lower rank and were always raped is a twisted view of history and human behavior.

It bugs me enormously that, due to us being in the present, we are somehow More Virtuous And More Enlightened than the people that lived in the past and had to rely more on common sense and knowledge of what they had, under the belief that they were invariably cruel savages that ignored science. That is a twisted view of history, because it pretends the present is above such failings.

It would be one thing if they were complaining he was using modern terms to ask for consent, like a 17th century pirate calling himself pansexual.

That, I can understand. You can do the equivalent of what would've been interpreted under modern terms, as long as you use narration or what people would actually say to convey those ideas. I can forgive some breaks from reality if it's breaking historicity for a story meant to be entertainment (something in the vein of Pirates of the Caribbean), but claiming to be historical by relying on flawed and outdated stereotypes is utter bollocks.

i just hate the idea that common sense and human empathy were somehow invented only in modern times.

yeah this is where I am. op's secret is light on the details. Is it just a consent thing in a bodice ripper? or is it they decided to go 21st century terminology on the consent? inquiring minds, OP. because we all might eye roll you on the first one but we'll join you in eyerolling the author on the latter.

OP here. The main conflict between the hero and the heroine is that he asked her to marry him. She said no and explained her reasons to him. After that they discussed those reasons together but the hero never dismissed or belittled her concerns. I felt that Pride and Prejudice was an inspiration for the plot. It had really nothing to do with 21st century terminology.

Um what. So it was the heroine turning down a proposal and nothing sexual? What the hell was the reviewer on to whine about MeToo as an influence.

Sorry but now I'm not going to stop thinking about Peter Pan / Captain Hook

"Red light! You can't ignore the stoplight system, Peter Pan!" Captain Hook shouted as he balanced on the prow of the ship.

"I don't know what that means," Peter Pan complained as he was push Hook off into the waiting mouth of the crocodile below.

Okay, but what is the stoplight system?

Oh I got that wrong. It's the traffic light system for BDSM type situations.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/love-sex/sex/a15879721/popular-safe-words/

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-11-21 02:59 (UTC) - Expand

I don't read romance very often, but yeah, when I read historical romance, there'd better be some highly dubious consent. I wanna see an imperiled woman with little agency trying to fight off the man I'm gagging for. And yes, I am well aware that nooooooooooobody else in the world wants this nowadays, but it will never not be hot to me. SHRUG.

Yeah, this is me too, tbh. It kind of comes with the territory, I think? Like no one should be shocked that there's intense bodice-ripping ravishment in romance novels at all, especially historical ones where it's more "expected." It's an incredibly common fantasy, and these are written by women for women, so... I can't bring myself to shame it.

But you having a preference for noncon in historical romance doesn't make consent unrealistic, which is what it sounds like the review was implying.

Dubcon is great and hot but I'm always going to be a little uncomfortable about crossing it with romance. That's my personal issue.

I usually just read the rapey parts and skip the romance altogether.

I don't judge anyone who enjoys mixing them, though.

People still want that. Trust me.

Er, a bit difficult to search for in a catalogues's tags, though, I imagine.

It's a guilty pleasure for me, too. Particularly if the woman does want it physically and her body is overruling her brain, so to speak.

Perhaps. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who think ANY mention of issues like consent and respect for women's bodily autonomy is "political" because it's not something they'd consider normal. Kind of like the people who complained about gay marriage and acted like gay people wanted special rights rather than just... rights.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who think ANY mention of issues like consent and respect for women's bodily autonomy is "political" because it's not something they'd consider normal. Kind of like the people who complained about gay marriage and acted like gay people wanted special rights rather than just... rights.

Ugh, I know. I see this kind of thing all the time, and it's just like, no, saying that women/gay people/black people/whoever deserve equal rights to straight white males is not "political", it's just called being a decent person.

Exactly. The problem is that people who think that basic rights are "extras" for certain groups only feel that way because they believe those groups deserve fewer rights in the first place. It's an implicit belief that those groups are lesser.

They probably did.

What's the story tho?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only