an epic rant
I have to start with a confession: I read Mills & Boon romance novels. The ones with titles like 'The Greek Tycoon's Mistress' or 'Her Flaming Passion', and scantily clad people frolicking on the front covers (often they are not scantily clad, but the frolicking point still stands). They are lovely, mindless feel-good fluff. So yeah, I enjoy reading them when I wind down. But sometimes - more often than I like to admit - I'll find one that just makes me see red. The one I read today was so bad I threw it at the wall in a fit of rage.
The plot of the book was pretty standard, unfortunately. Tycoon A used to know Wholesome Girl Next Door B. Through some misunderstanding Tycoon A came to believe that Wholesome Girl Next Door B had cheated on him/fallen in love with someone else/been a 'gold digging whore'. As she is unloveable, he decides to have sex with her rather than a whole relationship. Wholesome Girl Next Door B refuses, but Tycoon A overpowers her and convinces her that because she is physically attracted to him she isn't really saying no. Wholesome Girl Next Door B realises that, by golly, he's right! They have sex. Wholesome Girl Next Door is proved to be as pure and innocent as vanilla ice cream, they fall in love, and live happily ever after. The end.
I think my blood pressure rose just typing that.
Now, I understand the whole concept of powerful, dominant men being attractive. I more than understand the attraction of a power struggle in a relationship (and I'll leave that one at that, shall I?). But what pisses me off and makes me want to hack certain books apart and dance on their grave is the concept that just because a woman has a physical attraction to someone, her conscious refusal is not a real refusal. I am sorry, the hero's inability to see that doesn't make me sympathise with him, or fancy him. That makes me think he's a dickwad. What you feel and what you do are not the same thing, dickwad hero. Plz to be recognising that.
The heroine bothers me in this situation too. Why is there never any indication from her or the narrator (if it's not her), that this is wrong? That Tycoon A needs a kick in the balls, or possibly a prison sentence? But of course, this is fantasy, and we all write things we don't agree with. So this is all my own problem really. But - to possibly be slightly TMI - I gravitate towards instances of power struggle, of giving up and taking on control, both in fictional relationships and real ones. I think there can be something really gratifying and even self-strengthening in that. It still disturbs me to see that even in women-centric fiction that the Wholesome Girl B does not answer back (like Tycoon A can), can only be loved if she has never made big mistakes (unlike Tycoon A), and can love and live with Tycoon A despite the decimation of her own self respect and rights over, you know, her own body. Is this what women dream about? Is that what some people believe love should be?
All I can say is: Dear God, I sure hope not.
The plot of the book was pretty standard, unfortunately. Tycoon A used to know Wholesome Girl Next Door B. Through some misunderstanding Tycoon A came to believe that Wholesome Girl Next Door B had cheated on him/fallen in love with someone else/been a 'gold digging whore'. As she is unloveable, he decides to have sex with her rather than a whole relationship. Wholesome Girl Next Door B refuses, but Tycoon A overpowers her and convinces her that because she is physically attracted to him she isn't really saying no. Wholesome Girl Next Door B realises that, by golly, he's right! They have sex. Wholesome Girl Next Door is proved to be as pure and innocent as vanilla ice cream, they fall in love, and live happily ever after. The end.
I think my blood pressure rose just typing that.
Now, I understand the whole concept of powerful, dominant men being attractive. I more than understand the attraction of a power struggle in a relationship (and I'll leave that one at that, shall I?). But what pisses me off and makes me want to hack certain books apart and dance on their grave is the concept that just because a woman has a physical attraction to someone, her conscious refusal is not a real refusal. I am sorry, the hero's inability to see that doesn't make me sympathise with him, or fancy him. That makes me think he's a dickwad. What you feel and what you do are not the same thing, dickwad hero. Plz to be recognising that.
The heroine bothers me in this situation too. Why is there never any indication from her or the narrator (if it's not her), that this is wrong? That Tycoon A needs a kick in the balls, or possibly a prison sentence? But of course, this is fantasy, and we all write things we don't agree with. So this is all my own problem really. But - to possibly be slightly TMI - I gravitate towards instances of power struggle, of giving up and taking on control, both in fictional relationships and real ones. I think there can be something really gratifying and even self-strengthening in that. It still disturbs me to see that even in women-centric fiction that the Wholesome Girl B does not answer back (like Tycoon A can), can only be loved if she has never made big mistakes (unlike Tycoon A), and can love and live with Tycoon A despite the decimation of her own self respect and rights over, you know, her own body. Is this what women dream about? Is that what some people believe love should be?
All I can say is: Dear God, I sure hope not.