[QuickTidal]

Look, just watch this. This scene was written this way because it's actually how men think. It's also what makes it funny.

[Studlock]

Haha, I think you I good sir will never agree on this.

[QuickTidal]

 Studlock, on 18 September 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Gender roles have a shit load to do with sex and sexuality but that's for another time. You seem to equal objectify with sex. Objectify is striping a persons identity away and view them as a tool for sexual gratification thus it's damaging to women because it takes away their personhood which you seem to be okay with for some reason (perhaps because that's 'the way it's always been'). I have said many time before I have no problem with characters and their sex drives, desires or fetishes. But objectification is something different. Then you make sweeping generalizations of of human sexuality of via biological determinism. So I pointed out the fact that cultures have had sex and (apparently surprisingly) did not end objectifying women, or men for the matter. I am sure some individuals did, and that I do agree with we will never get rid of people who want to own rather than co-exist but it DOESN'T need to be the fucking norm.

What in the flying hell are you on about? You are trying to make this into a crusade when it is perfectly simple. Men like looking at women. They look at them sexually firstly when they see them...if you claim to not do this I'm going to call you a liar. Everyone does it. If you think that the Iroquois didn't objectify their women in such a way, then I'm afraid you missed history class.

And FFS no one is saying that we should all go about only seeing sex when we look at women. Everyone who has responded to you so far has clearly stated that it's just what we look at first as a natural human reaction. Stop using the phrase biological determinism...no one here is doing that. You're trying to make us out to be bad or evil or inhuman for the fact that when I see a girl in a nice top I notice how good she looks in that top in my head and think "Damn, that's hot.". There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 18 September 2012 - 06:16 PM

[Studlock]

What you are doing is not the same as objectify. I really think our wires are crossed here. Your definition of objectify a women seems to be far less extreme as mine. I have said multiply times that I have no problem with what you have described. But what you have described is a far scream from what happens in Dresden and I read it as saying 'a-ok objectify'. The biological determinism was for similar reasons, against because I think my view and definition of objectify is far more extreme as yours.

Aka if you've ever done this 'Objectify is striping a persons identity away and view them as a tool for sexual gratification thus it's damaging to women because it takes away their personhood'

Id consider it you objectify but what you described is not so extreme

This post has been edited by Studlock: 18 September 2012 - 06:31 PM

[QuickTidal]

 Studlock, on 18 September 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

What you are doing is not the same as objectify. I really think our wires are crossed here. Your definition of objectify a women seems to be far less extreme as mine. I have said multiply times that I have no problem with what you have described. But what you have described is a far scream from what happens in Dresden and I read it as saying 'a-ok objectify'.

Yeah, you need to bring actual examples. Text from the books. I'm dubious of the fact that you feel this is happening in any way other than how we presented it, and the rest of us don't see it.

Bring textual examples with page references, or your argument holds no water whatsoever with your above statement.

Though how a "level" of objectifying amounts to anything I'm not sure.

I also fail to see how what a fictional character thinks in his head bears on society IRL. If anyone read a book where a character did something and they thought it would be a good idea to act the exact same way...I'd think they had issues far above and beyond what they read for entertainment. We don't read books about action-junky, gun-toting, vigilantes and think "Geez, I should go do that!" That's nonsense,. and anyone who DOES think that should see a shrink.

As a small aside you are also applying a distinctly Western and North American type view and speaking as if it's a global thing. Meanwhile there are WAY different social mores when it comes to women and men around the planet, with Japan differing from Russia, differing from Germany, differing from the UK, differing from the Middle East, differing from India ect.

For a tiny example, in Canada the Page 3 Sunshine girl in one of our rag newspapers is usually bikini clad. In the UK the same Page 3 girl is frequently topless. What is barely acceptable in North America is certainly therefore seen as a staid trope to Europeans. I'm not saying this is a correct thing, I'm saying that it's a fact of human society.

Trying to organize the world into your own personal ideas about sexuality and "gender roles" will quickly end up with you having a splitting headache.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 18 September 2012 - 06:42 PM

[Studlock]

The best example I can use is when Harry basically rapes Susan in I believe Death Masks, the time where she was bound magically and then Harry proceeded with intercourse. I was horrified at that scene. And just to be 100 percent clear I am taking about the West and I have said so many times. I wouldn't claim an knowledge of sexuality and gender roles in other cultures other than my own. And just to be perfectly clear I am not coming from a place of ignorance, I have study gender problems in both Canada and America. Both the majority and minorities. I'll explain with a story of mine. My father is a terrible sexist, he is constantly condescending to my mother and views other woman as things to conquered. Compare that to your 'I think that top is hot' and the difference is considerable.

As for the books, I believe authors may write as they want but should be examined with a close eye, something I must admit I wasn't doing with the Dresden Files but the book I just finished had me look back at the series as a whole. Thus this thread. As for fictional characters bearing of real life I would wager caution before you denounce it. As a rule books, and most entertainment are generally reflections of their societies no? And I'd argue as something as popular as Dresden as a subtle affect on it's readership. There is a reason fandom are how we are.

Also I apologize for my earlier grumpiness I had thought you and Vengeance where saying that being my definition of objectify was alright.

[QuickTidal]

 Studlock, on 18 September 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

My father is a terrible sexist, he is constantly condescending to my mother and views other woman as things to conquered. Compare that to your 'I think that top is hot' and the difference is considerable.

Ah, the root of your upset then. But Harry doesn't do this sort of thing. Harry is not a sexist. His objectifying is more along the lines of describing how hot a woman is. And I think you vastly misunderstood the scene with Harry and Susan in DEATH MASKS.

Quote

As for the books, I believe authors may write as they want but should be examined with a close eye, something I must admit I wasn't doing with the Dresden Files but the book I just finished had me look back at the series as a whole. Thus this thread. As for fictional characters bearing of real life I would wager caution before you denounce it. As a rule books, and most entertainment are generally reflections of their societies no? And I'd argue as something as popular as Dresden as a subtle affect on it's readership. There is a reason fandom are how we are.

No, Author's are crafting stories, No close eye... they can do with them what they like. It is on us as an audience to decide if we wish to read it. If we do then great, if we don't then we can always stop reading it.

If fictional characters are affecting anyone in real life then those people need help. When you can't disconnect fantasy from reality there is a much bigger mental problem at heart.

I'm sure Twihards are looking for guys like Edward, but I think any of them that actually think they will find an undead vampire who stalks them in their bedroom to date is gone right round the bend and need help.

Like I said to begin with, if we start castrating how fictional characters behave or forcing them to be "nice" or "balanced" in an unbelievable way, then our stories are going to become boring and unrealistic.

[Studlock]

 QuickTidal, on 18 September 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

 Studlock, on 18 September 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

My father is a terrible sexist, he is constantly condescending to my mother and views other woman as things to conquered. Compare that to your 'I think that top is hot' and the difference is considerable.

Ah, the root of your upset then. But Harry doesn't do this sort of thing. Harry is not a sexist. His objectifying is more along the lines of describing how hot a woman is. And I think you vastly misunderstood the scene with Harry and Susan in DEATH MASKS.

Quote

As for the books, I believe authors may write as they want but should be examined with a close eye, something I must admit I wasn't doing with the Dresden Files but the book I just finished had me look back at the series as a whole. Thus this thread. As for fictional characters bearing of real life I would wager caution before you denounce it. As a rule books, and most entertainment are generally reflections of their societies no? And I'd argue as something as popular as Dresden as a subtle affect on it's readership. There is a reason fandom are how we are.

No, Author's are crafting stories, No close eye... they can do with them what they like. It is on us as an audience to decide if we wish to read it. If we do then great, if we don't then we can always stop reading it.

If fictional characters are affecting anyone in real life then those people need help. When you can't disconnect fantasy from reality there is a much bigger mental problem at heart.

I'm sure Twihards are looking for guys like Edward, but I think any of them that actually think they will find an undead vampire who stalks them in their bedroom to date is gone right round the bend and need help.

Like I said to begin with, if we start castrating how fictional characters behave or forcing them to be "nice" or "balanced" in an unbelievable way, then our stories are going to become boring and unrealistic.

I know he isn't as bad as my father, again my beef was not with the character but how his qualities were presented. As for the scene in Death Masks perhaps, but I don't think it was all that clear cut.

As for the authors responsibility of their work and the way it is influenced and affects society is a different argument, one I would rather not enter. I could on about literature theory but it would be pointless as I think this particular discussion has run it's course.

Finally showing realistic characters I think should also show the effects of their personality faults which I argue does not happen to Harry. His condescending attitude toward women has never bit him in the butt. I don't want characters to stop being assholes, I would just like, in the story, what effects this assholeism has on the people around him, which would in turn affect him back.

[QuickTidal]

 Studlock, on 18 September 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

Finally showing realistic characters I think should also show the effects of their personality faults which I argue does not happen to Harry. His condescending attitude toward women has never bit him in the butt. I don't want characters to stop being assholes, I would just like, in the story, what effects this assholeism has on the people around him, which would in turn affect him back.

And this is the same reason why everyone on every tv show is gorgeous...people read books to escape. Yeah, we should see a quality of realism in characters to be able to get in with them on the ground floor, but it should also be about escapism.

And I don't think you are really reading the Dresden Files if you really think the way he views women doesn't bite him in the butt...it happens time and time again in every book. You just don't seem to want to see it I guess. Susan, Murphy, Molly, Charity ect...they have all read him the riot act about his leanings in that regard. People like Lea and Mab virtually beat him over the head with it in their scenes with him.

And assholes in real life don't explain themselves to you, and frequently don't get karmicly punished for their assholism...if they did then every single driver who has ever pissed me off would be punched in their junk. They don't. So why should an author feel obliged do this to their characters?

[Studlock]

I mean in a big way, again I have only read up to Proven Guilty, but one of those very important friends has to get tired of it and leave. Not so much as karma thing but more so how these actions would affect his relationships, and perhaps maybe even character growth. It`s not as if he out grow this trait he`d be a perfect human being. Far from it in fact. I don't some kind of author saving throw or some shit just some kind of character grow. As much as people have layers it does not mean they are static and as Harry gets, what I would consider, darker he still has time to describe every women down to tiniest detail and somehow STILL be condescending to Murphy. It's got to stop sometime.

An aside, it has just occurred to me that Murphy would have been a really interesting POV character. She really subverts a lot of the trope for typical urban fantasies heroines/

[amphibian]

 Studlock, on 18 September 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

Posts

If you can back up what you're saying with specific text examples, things would go much better. It's easier to target criticisms at this specific passage or the words between "pages 85 and 93" than it is to apply as a blanket. As it stands right now, I believe that you being aware of the potential of misogyny and authors presentingwomen as objects in literature is a good thing. The forum members have discussed racism in books in considerable depth before - it was kind of controversial too - and quite a few different opinions were heard in that thread.

However, I do think that you're being overly sensitive to this and applying it too liberally to Butcher's writings. Someone like Terry Goodkind is an open/shut case of misogyny/sexism/objectivizing and much more. Someone like Robert Jordan or Brandon Sanderson is much more difficult to criticize for gender roles and treatment of what happens to these characters vs. those characters, yet legit cases can be built in the creation and handling of their characters over time (WoT, Mistborn etc.).

I don't believe Butcher is doing any of those things, even when he's talking through the character of Dresden. However, I'm willing to listen to someone who gives specific examples. D'rek did a great job particularizing things with the Molly, Andi and Elaine situations - and as I explained, I don't see problems with those ones when I considered them.

Besides, Butcher is the guy who gave us a black Russian who happens to be a Knight of the Cross while severely doubting the existence of God.

Quote

An aside, it has just occurred to me that Murphy would have been a really interesting POV character. She really subverts a lot of the trope for typical urban fantasies heroines/

Read the novella called "Aftermath" then.

[Illuyankas]

Harry starts off really, really goony about women and that's partly because of Butcher's relative inexperience at writing at the start of the series - throwing in sex scenes because that's expected of the supernatural genre, that ridiculous wolf woman in Fool Moon, Lara - but as the books continue the problems quickly reduce in severity. I believe the Susan rope part of Death Masks was a bet Butcher made that he could throw a bondage scene into a book, which is a habit of his (see Codex Alera being a bet that he couldn't write a series combining the Roman Empire and Pokemon, for example) and was a one-off.

[acesn8s]

 Studlock, on 18 September 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

The best example I can use is when Harry basically rapes Susan in I believe Death Masks, the time where she was bound magically and then Harry proceeded with intercourse. I was horrified at that scene. And just to be 100 percent clear I am taking about the West and I have said so many times. I wouldn't claim an knowledge of sexuality and gender roles in other cultures other than my own. And just to be perfectly clear I am not coming from a place of ignorance, I have study gender problems in both Canada and America. Both the majority and minorities. I'll explain with a story of mine. My father is a terrible sexist, he is constantly condescending to my mother and views other woman as things to conquered. Compare that to your 'I think that top is hot' and the difference is considerable.

You mean the scene where Susan told Harry

Quote

"Need you," she whispered.

I swallowed. "Susan. I think maybe that - "

"Don't think," she said. Her hips brushed against the front of my sweats, and I was abruptly so hard that it hurt. Don't think. Touch me."

If that isn't consent, I don't know what is.

[worry]

Not just the supernatural genre, but the detective/noir template begs -- at least at the start -- to have a macho-chivalrous male protagonist surrounded by alluring women and femme fatales. There's definitely (geeky) male wish fulfillment infused in those genres, and Butcher doesn't avoid that stuff. But I agree, Illy, that he departs from that template (deliberately) as he goes along, without departing from Dresden's nature.

I don't reject the argument that Dresden Files features elements of the "male gaze" theory, but I don't for a second think it rises to the level of objectification. There's the physical scan, the appreciation (or whatever) of the form, and then it's generally back to business for Harry -- he makes a particular effort not to reduce women to their physical forms, despite appreciating them -- and in a way I think that's about the most you can ask of someone. I'm not arguing that the "male gaze" doesn't have larger, society-wide negative impacts...it certainly does, and it contributes to the good ol' boys/boys will be boys mentality that is corrosive. In other words, patriarchy is real, it exists, it's wrong, it's corrosive to society -- and the Dresden Files all in all isn't a particularly strong contributor to it.

I do think that if one is reading that Death Masks scene as a "rape" then that is way off base, since it's quite clearly two consenting adults who love each other having weird passionate sex after a long time apart. It's like the direct opposite of rape, and was distinctly written as sexy AND romantic. I actually saw it as a refreshing bit of sexual frankness in a genre that is all-too comfortable shooting for a place in middle school libraries. In the large picture, there's definitely an imbalance between male-appealing vs. female-appealing (or dare I suggest it, something that appeals to both!), but that's an industry-wide problem that Butcher (I think) does his best to puncture...he's not the biggest iconoclast by any means, but I think he's actually a nudge or two in the right direction overall. I mean I'd definitely like to see a lot more stuff like Magic Mike being made (as opposed to soft focus pandering nonsense like The Vow or whatever).

So to reiterate, the case you're making (Studlock) is worth making, it's very much worth looking out for, I think even a magnifying glass approach is not unwelcome to the multitude of fiction...and while it does have its problems (D'rek's post is quite a good summation for that perspective even if I don't agree with every point on the list), I still don't think the Dresden Files is a big offender. I found the dainty women of the Belgariad much more insulting -- strong women like Polgara or Ce'Nedra having to leave the room (over and over and over) every time a guy makes a bawdy joke. It's obnoxious chivalry that originates with the author, rather than character-based action.

[Shiara]

 Studlock, on 18 September 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

...Harry and Susan's sex scene in Death Masks which boarders on rapeish.

 worrywort, on 18 September 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

I do think that if one is reading that Death Masks scene as a "rape" then that is way off base, since it's quite clearly two consenting adults who love each other having weird passionate sex after a long time apart. It's like the direct opposite of rape, and was distinctly written as sexy AND romantic.

The abovementioned scene also put me off, not because of the bondage but because Susan clearly was not in control of her actions. Would you initiate sex with a woman too drunk to say no? Was Susan able to give consent by the definition of rape, considering her inhibitions were severely lowered by her proto-vampiric “infection”? Not to say that they wouldn't have had goodbye sex anyway, but I could still see Susan in a completely sober state of mind, unaffected (as much as she can be) by those out-of-control impulses saying "No" when propositioned, if only to avoid refreshing the pain of what they would both be losing.

If Susan had said “Look, I know I might bite you if we try anything, so how about you tie me up so I can’t, and THEN we get nasty?” that would have been fine.

 QuickTidal, on 18 September 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

I'm sure it works in reverse with females who look at me or other guys.

Maybe I'm unusual, but I don't see a hot guy and instantly start imagining all the yoga positions he might be able to do during intercourse. I don't imagine what tats or piercings he might have under his clothes. I'll concede that I also don't wonder what his name is, but really all I do is appreciate the view and perhaps try to make eye contact (if I'm interested) and wonder if he might also be attracted to me. That's about it, really.

 QuickTidal, on 18 September 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

How many girls (or guys for that matter) fantasize about actors of musicians? I'm going to tell you right now that the number is probably like 99%. they do that because of the stars looks firstly, and secondly because of the characters they play or the facade they present. It's got jack squat to do with anything else.

My gf liked/oggled Justin Hartmann on SMALLVILLE. When you ask her why, she says it's his sexy arms.

I guess I'm again in the 1% in your broad generalisations, as I can’t say I’ve ever “fantasised” about a musician or actor (with the notable exception of imagining meeting Orlando Bloom on a plane – just conversation, mind you, none of that mile-high club stuff). Almost any actor I've admired in a more-than-professional sense has been primarily for things like their eyes and smile. Granted, they've generally been otherwise physically attractive, but it's the eyes and smile that get me. I don't see how either of those features translate directly to sex. Mostly I bring this up as an example to say that EVERY WOMAN IS DIFFERENT. They don't all go gaga about arms or abs - I have a friend who always checks out a guy's hands and teeth first, of all things.

 D, on 18 September 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

What I do find somewhat off-putting, is that the female characters tend to end up in more sexualized situations than the men. Molly having to tear her clothes off from spilling acid? When Elaine is psychic-attacked she is of course naked in the bathtub (and then naked in the parking lot)? Susan drinking the lust potion? Anything with Andi, ever? Molly psychic-reading the dead person and getting an orgasm? These sorts of things just happen a lot more to the women in these stories than the men, which is a bit off-putting because it seems deliberately unbalanced in order to favour a sub-set of the audience that doesn't include me. And it's not simply a matter of these things being better suited to the female characters, because Dresden messing his pants in the morgue or Butters drinking a lust potion and throwing himself at Thomas (Oh God Thomas) would be absolutely hilarious.

It's a fairly minor quibble, one I can look past easily enough to enjoy the rest of the novels, and I don't feel that it reflects so much on any sort of deliberate (or not) objectification of the women, so much as that the author is writing more towards the male audience than the female one (like plenty of other authors do, or vice versa). That's fine, that's his choice to make and if I had a big problem with it I just wouldn't read the books.

Agree completely with all of this ^^^

Though I did get a minor vibe of “9 out of 10 women are deceitful and will betray your trust” in the books, it’s not overtly rammed down the reader’s throat.

 QuickTidal, on 18 September 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

If fictional characters are affecting anyone in real life then those people need help. When you can't disconnect fantasy from reality there is a much bigger mental problem at heart.

I disagree here. Experience-taking is a documented phenomenon wherein a reader’s behaviours can be influenced by the books they read – I believe someone even linked an article about it on the forum not too long ago (*googles*) here we go, http://io9.com/59104...-better-person. I myself get irritable when reading a POV character that clashes overly with my own personality (which was the main source of my complaints about the early books in the Dresden series).

Anyway, OT, I guess it all comes down to this: it is almost impossible to eradicate objectification on a personal, internal level across all of society – it may even be considered unreasonable or unhealthy. What needs to be avoided is the ACTION of objectification. Make it known that sexual harassment is not to be tolerated on any level, and make sure that people who have been the object of harassment have avenues of recourse

That being said, Dresden is in no way a sexual predator, nor does he harass women. His internal observations and conjecture are that of a sexually active man in the prime of his life – he does not act lasciviously, and if his gaze lingers on certain areas of a woman’s body, that’s really only natural (to an extent). Butcher does sometimes get carried away with the descriptions, but the overall character is just not that bad a guy. Though he can be a bit of a dick on occasion ( ).

[worry]

It's been a long time since I've read that scene, so the details are not fresh in my mind by any means, but at least my memory of my impression of that scene is that both Susan and Harry are exhausted and somewhat out of it mentally and both ultimately give a consent tinged (tainted?) with supernatural influence, but neither actually lacking agency. I could be wrong about that, but it's how I remember it and how I read it at the time.

In addition, if I remember correctly, Susan's condition has a lot to do with impulse...in other words, the rational Susan would have to want to have sex with Harry before the supernatural element takes hold of her. Which I'm not saying isn't problematic possibly, but I am saying it's the only way she currently exists. It's impossible for her not to have sex in this manner, whether it's with Harry or someone else So if the rational Susan consents, she's still going to become out of control in the process. There's tragedy here for both of them, but I don't think Susan lacked agency before the decision was made.

[Shiara]

 worrywort, on 19 September 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

It's been a long time since I've read that scene, so the details are not fresh in my mind by any means, but at least my memory of my impression of that scene is that both Susan and Harry are exhausted and somewhat out of it mentally and both ultimately give a consent tinged (tainted?) with supernatural influence, but neither actually lacking agency. I could be wrong about that, but it's how I remember it and how I read it at the time.

In addition, if I remember correctly, Susan's condition has a lot to do with impulse...in other words, the rational Susan would have to want to have sex with Harry before the supernatural element takes hold of her. Which I'm not saying isn't problematic possibly, but I am saying it's the only way she currently exists. It's impossible for her not to have sex in this manner, whether it's with Harry or someone else So if the rational Susan consents, she's still going to become out of control in the process. There's tragedy here for both of them, but I don't think Susan lacked agency before the decision was made.

I suppose my perceptions may be skewed by the Hollows flavour of vampire, where blood and sex are almost always inextricably entwined in the vampire psyche, often as a result of abuse at the hands of their undead Masters. Blood lust and lust of the biblical variety is difficult to for them fight, especially if they're with someone they care about.

It may be that the Red Court vampires' carnal and sanguinary appetites are distinct, but by Susan's own confession earlier in the book she would have had trouble not biting him if things got intimate, and by her sudden arousal when she was close to losing control of her hunger, I assumed the two were linked.

[Obdigore]

 Shiara, on 19 September 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

 worrywort, on 19 September 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

It's been a long time since I've read that scene, so the details are not fresh in my mind by any means, but at least my memory of my impression of that scene is that both Susan and Harry are exhausted and somewhat out of it mentally and both ultimately give a consent tinged (tainted?) with supernatural influence, but neither actually lacking agency. I could be wrong about that, but it's how I remember it and how I read it at the time.

In addition, if I remember correctly, Susan's condition has a lot to do with impulse...in other words, the rational Susan would have to want to have sex with Harry before the supernatural element takes hold of her. Which I'm not saying isn't problematic possibly, but I am saying it's the only way she currently exists. It's impossible for her not to have sex in this manner, whether it's with Harry or someone else So if the rational Susan consents, she's still going to become out of control in the process. There's tragedy here for both of them, but I don't think Susan lacked agency before the decision was made.

I suppose my perceptions may be skewed by the Hollows flavour of vampire, where blood and sex are almost always inextricably entwined in the vampire psyche, often as a result of abuse at the hands of their undead Masters. Blood lust and lust of the biblical variety is difficult to for them fight, especially if they're with someone they care about.

It may be that the Red Court vampires' carnal and sanguinary appetites are distinct, but by Susan's own confession earlier in the book she would have had trouble not biting him if things got intimate, and by her sudden arousal when she was close to losing control of her hunger, I assumed the two were linked.

The only reason they stopped being intimate is because she contracted Vampirism. She was afraid she was going to hurt turn/kill him. It wasn't any kind of sudden arousal, there is clear sexual tension between them nearly from the introduction of Susan, and especially in the first part of the book before they went all unicorn hair bondage. Harry had a way of preventing Susan from hurting him, which she did not know about until he told her, at which time I think (if I remember correctly) she consented. She consented numerous times, especially once Harry told her that what was preventing them from going all freaky-deaky (as they had done before) was not an issue because of the bindings.

I also dislike how you attempt to differentiate the Vampirisim from who Susan is. It is part of her. Just like any other experiences/knowledge/strength/whatever. She left to learn to control it. To act as if it is something else than (excuse the bad phrase) 'Susan who is' is denying what happened and pretending that things could be like they were before she was turned.

Can you show me where she did not want to have sex with Harry for any reason other than she did not want to bite him? There are numerous places of her consenting to relations that night, especially after he told her the bindings would hold an ogre.

Now, if you honestly want some actual rape scenes to take issue with, go read Peter Bretts 'Desert Spear' or Morgans 'The Cold Commands'. The first one is horrificly graphic as is the response of other characters to it. The second one, while also horrific, is painted that way and it is clear that Morgan is disgusted by what he is writing.

Edit -> Seriously, I refuse to read any more Peter Brett books after that stuff in Desert Spear. It is/was really disgusting.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 19 September 2012 - 08:51 AM

[worry]

Yah, they're linked, and it's definitely murky. I'm not even 100% sure of my argument, except to say that (fuzzy detail memory aside) I know that's how I read it at the time. I think Susan's attraction to, sexual appetite for, and consent to have sex with Harry are all genuine to the "real" Susan and the vampiric stuff took over after, even if by only minutes or even seconds. It feeds off her real attraction.

That said, it does mean she's about 99.9% unlikely to retain agency enough to retract her consent mid-coitus, which would not be an issue to her if she didn't have the supernatural issues...while Harry on the other hand is only "lost" to himself insofar as his passion is concerned. Which is itself an overly idealized "nice guy" view of sex on Butcher's part (and I've always thought Harry is at least in part a wish-fulfillment surrogate for Butcher). And while I think Butcher's close focus in that scene is sexy sex, his wider angle is to play up the tragedy. I think he does a decent job in suggesting that they both want it, they both hate the distance and barriers between them, and this one indulgent event doesn't fix any of that...though that's of course filtered through Harry's first person. So I don't think the skeevy aspect ever occurred to him (as it didn't to me as a reader), but I can't really blame someone for feeling that way.

[Obdigore]

You can tell where the Vampirism actually takes over. Her eyes go all black and she thrashes around trying to bite him, well after she consented.

If I'm recalling the scene correctly. I'll have to go over it when I get home since its been a couple months since I've read that one.

Edit -> Because I wrote 'trashes' instead of 'thrashes'. And it looked dumb.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 19 September 2012 - 09:02 AM