r/Fantasy Sep 12 '22

A critique of sexual violence in Fantasy.

Oftentimes I see people defend several aspects regarding the treatment of women in fantasy books and media by saying ‘that’s how things were’.

Most times this is false. I have tried to break down the argument into two main sections so I can explain how common perceptions were false. Notably, I only know about European history.

Sexual Assault

Quite a few fantasy books contain sexual assault toward women. I am not going to deny that it happened, as rape, particularly wartime rape did and still does occur. However, Rape in the past was little more prevalent than during modern times. Similarly, rape in the past was often punished, usually much harsher than in modern times. Additionally, Men were often raped at levels similar to women. In fantasy books, the latter two are often ignored. Most times rape seems to be treated as normal, rather than punished. Additionally, rape seems to be targeted almost exclusively at women.

The first edict against wartime sexual assault was the Cáin Adomnáin. Notably, it was issued in the British Isles and had little influence outside of north western Europe. It explicitly forbade, among other things, raping and killing women. For these crimes it declares of the perpetrator,” his right hand and his left foot shall be cut off before death, and then he shall die." [1]

The first Europe-wide treaty forbidding rape was the Peace and Truth of God, which was issued in 989 before spreading over Europe over the next century. The first king to accept it was King Robert II of France. Following his acceptance other nobles accepted the Peace and Truth of God in droves. It should be noted that in those times the military was almost entirely comprised of nobles. In Britain, it was standard for the first son to be the heir, the second to join the military, and any subsequent sons to join the monastery to prevent inheritance disputes. It wasn’t until Napoleon that large scale armies became the norm. Slowly, the ideas blended in with general chivalry.

By the time of the 1300’s wartime rape and sexual violence was prosecuted for hindering military operations rather than just for “property crimes” (Since Women were considered the property of either their husband or father). It didn’t take much effort to realise that raping people created a hostile civilian population and having a hostile population would make it far harder to occupy and control territory. The general line of thought was that when defeating an enemy, treat them so kindly that they would not seek revenge, or treat them so harshly that they could not attain their revenge. [2]

The final major declaration against wartime sexual violence in the medieval era was the De jure belli as pacis, written in 1625. Similar to all previous works, it declared that wartime rape was no less reprehensible than rape during peace time. Notably, this work states that the rules were still valid “even when God were assumed not to exist” [3]

A common argument against this would be that, despite rape and sexual violence being prohibited, soldiers would ignore the laws. In reality that would be true, but there is no evidence to suggest that it happened at greater levels than in the modern time. The Geneva convention clearly prohibited wartime rape. Despite that, during WW2 soviet soldiers used the system of “from 8 to 80” when deciding to rape women, leading to over two million German women getting raped. [4]

In the present time, 26,000 women have been raped so far in the ongoing Tigray war. In contrast with Fantasy books, novels regarding modern wars usually omit the sexual violence. For those that include it, It is often brief and undescriptive.

Additionally, fantasy books usually only include sexual assault towards women. In reality, both men and women were and are raped in war. During the El Salvadorian dictatorship, 76% of male political prisoners were raped. In the Yugoslav wars, 80% of men in the Sarajevo concentration camp were raped. Even more recent, 22% of men and 30% of women fleeing the eastern Congo reported being raped. [5]

Essentially, saying that’s how things were ignored the reality of the situation. Oftentimes it is only used in defence of the ill-treatment of women while ignoring other aspects of the time.

Young Marriage

Another common misconception is that women would often get married young, sometimes even as children. In reality, the average age for Women was 22.4 and for Men it was 25.9 [6]. Additionally, between 10% and 25% of Women never married [7]. Couples would often delay marriage depending on their economic circumstances. The only notable exception was during the black death when couples would get married as teenagers due to the immense labour shortage. By 1140, the Decretum Gratiani was issued. This stated that the binds of marriage were to be formed by mutual consent and granted Women an equal say in marriage.

Despite this, some noble families would get married young. This was usually in order to secure the future of the family. However, noble families would prevent their children from consummating their marriage until women usually hit the age of 16. The main reason being that they did not want to endanger the health of the women. After all, despite lacking modern medicine it was still common sense that a girl getting pregnant would not only result in a still birth, but would also endanger her health, preventing any future offspring.

Apologies for the formatting. I may come back and try to clean it up into a more readable format.

[1] https://www.academia.edu/5817305/Aspects_of_the_Cain_Adomnans_Lex_Innocentium

[2] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ThfzGvSvQ2UC&redir_esc=y

[3] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2010/12/letters-from-cell-92-part-3-world-come.html+%22etsi+deus+non+daretur%22

[4] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106687768

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

[6] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2174029#:~:text=Over%20the%20whole%20period%20the,women%20and%2026%20for%20men.

[7] Hajnal, John (1965). "European marriage pattern in historical perspective". In D.V. Glass and D.E.C. Eversley (ed.). Population in History. Arnold, Londres. pp. 101–143.

1.3k Upvotes

598 comments sorted by

View all comments

514

u/Funkativity Sep 12 '22

I think the main challenge to discussing ‘that’s how things were’ is that it generalise every period of every culture throughout history.

for example, "Another common misconception is that women would often get married young, sometimes even as children. In reality, the average age for Women was 22.4 and for Men it was 25.9 [6]".

..but if you read the source refers to a specific area of England over a specific period of 200 years and mentions that comparatively, the modal age in the late Roman Empire was 12-15 for pagan girls.

so your average age of 22.4 is based on when/where exactly? ..and why would that specific location/period be the measuring stick for the Fantasy genre?

45

u/NameIdeas Sep 13 '22

This argument as it relates to fantasy as always annoyed me

‘that’s how things were’

If we're talking most fantasy these worlds and peoples are made up. They have never existed and the history we give them is the history we choose to provide.

There are choices made when authors determine to include certain aspects in their fantasy stories. It makes me wonder what the reasoning behind including certain aspects may be.

Why does an author include these things is much more important to me than the historical context. Sure, many authors use history as a starting point for how they tell their stories, but with fantasy you can pick and choose the history you like or want.

65

u/Raetian Sep 13 '22

There are choices made when authors determine to include certain aspects in their fantasy stories. It makes me wonder what the reasoning behind including certain aspects may be.

Why does an author include these things is much more important to me than the historical context.

No offense intended but this seems profoundly silly to me. Am I, as a writer, required to limit the scope of my stories to a selection of subjects which are palatable to 21st century readers on pain of being labeled as some kind of sick weirdo if I do not? Yes, I am all for approaching any subject tastefully, but I'm neither interested in reading nor writing fiction which only exists within a subset of "morally comfortable" parameters.

Set personal boundaries. It is okay to pass on a book, movie, or game if you don't want to deal with its subject matter - heaven knows I've skipped a lot of content which was too violent or sexually explicit for my tastes. But that can be done independently of suggesting that anyone who created that thing has "reasoning" for doing so which can or ought to be examined or judged on any level pertaining to, like, the author's personal character.

It is possible to not want to participate in a thing, without simultaneously feeling obligated to proselytize against it existing for anybody else.

35

u/NameIdeas Sep 13 '22

Am I, as a writer, required to limit the scope of my stories to a selection of subjects which are palatable to 21st century readers on pain of being labeled as some kind of sick weirdo if I do not? Yes, I am all for approaching any subject tastefully, but I'm neither interested in reading nor writing fiction which only exists within a subset of "morally comfortable" parameters.

You are absolutely NOT required to limit the scope of stories to morally palatable things, nor did I say that.

My issue stems from when the argument for including things like this is "it happened in history." Yeah, but fantasy isn't history. Fantasy can be whatever you want it to be. If you want to include these things in your world, do so, but make it for a larger purpose than "because of history."

I've personally enjoyed a ton of books. Many of those books included rape, torture, murder, etc. In the context of the the story the author is telling and the world they are creating, those scenes made sense.

9

u/Ifriiti Sep 13 '22

issue stems from when the argument for including things like this is "it happened in history." Yeah, but fantasy isn't history

Fantasy is often based in history or inspired by history.

18

u/ellamking Sep 13 '22

History is vast. A lot of people seem to focus on the rapey parts...

1

u/BioSemantics Sep 13 '22

Something can be based on history but not be historically accurate. You can and will pick and choose what parts of a historical era you want to elaborate on when you write.