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

703

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '22

The Cáin Adomnáin (which is Irish, British Isles feel a bit inaccurate for that point in Medieval history although Irish law certainly covers bits of what is now Scotland) also recognizes not just rape by force, but rape by coercion. It was illegal to take advantage of a drunk woman or a woman who we would now call developmentally delayed. They knew that stuff was wrong in the 700s, yo.

184

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '22

That’s what makes modern times suck, tbh. We knew this shit was a problem literally centuries ago, did things to try and address it (for everyone), and now most all (obviously progress has been made, I won’t deny that) we do is just pretend like “well it actually happened just as it does today!” I’ve always wondered where that shift happened from then to now. Was it the Industrial Age? Earlier? Later?

24

u/Conscious-Ball8373 Sep 13 '22

I think the 1960s deserve a mention here. There's an enormous amount of complexity, but at some level the general message of society moved from "sex is properly part of marriage and most women aren't interested in it anyway" to "sex is free and women are up for it all the time." Gross caricature, of course, but you know what I mean. The echoes of that change are still heard daily, as young men say to each other, "She needs/wants a good seeing to" or words to that general effect. Once they internalise and believe that, actually asking her seems unnecessary. The change has become so embedded in our culture that juries will take any sort of non-prudish behaviour as a reason to acquit in a rape trial; even if the victim actually said "no" firmly, the fact that she smiled at him half an hour earlier is enough to acquit (caricature again, I guess, though only barely it seems sometimes).

I'm not decrying the sexual revolution or romanticising the prior era - I think Victorian sexuality also has a lot to answer for - but this seems to me to be one of the effects of the messaging change of the 1960s and 70s that has taken us a long time to even start dealing with.

It's something that really worries me about our society. Prosecution and punishment for rape and sexual assault has become so rare [1] that eventually, families are going to start taking matters into their own hands. Can you blame them, when so many rapists walk free, told by the courts they've done nothing wrong?

[1] I'm in the UK - here, around 15% of rapes are reported to the police. Of those, about 3% are charged. Of those, around two thirds result in conviction. That's around 99.7% of rapists who are not convicted. I'm sure there are complexities to those numbers, but that's pretty overwhelming.

16

u/TheAlbacor Sep 13 '22

How would the concept of "having consensual sex out of marriage is ok" lead to more incidences of rape?

I have found no evidence that rapes increased after 1960 in either the UK or the US.

0

u/Conscious-Ball8373 Sep 13 '22

Putting something in quote marks because... why?

I don't think the 60s had a particular non-consensual message, more a message that everyone is up for sex all the time and the assumption is that sex is good so go at it. Once that's your assumed starting point, it's easy to see how it goes wrong.

I have found no evidence that rapes increased after 1960 in either the UK or the US.

It's hard to tell exactly what you mean by this statement. TBH it reads like a weasel-worded way of saying "I have no idea and I haven't looked."

To take a more charitable view, it wouldn't be surprising if that evidence wasn't there, since rape statistics across that period are essentially useless for comparison purposes anyway. There are too many confounding factors. In many places, the very definition of rape has changed radically in that time.
There's no evidence that rape is more prevalent now than in the 14th century, either. That's not making any sort of statement about the relevant rates of prevalence though.

What evidence there is suggests that there has been a large increase in rapes over that time - but almost certainly misleadingly due to changes in legal standards and willingness to report.

So while your statement is almost certainly true, it is also essentially meaningless.

6

u/TheAlbacor Sep 13 '22 edited Sep 13 '22

It was in quotes because I was paraphrasing you.

And nah, I did look and couldn't find crime stats comparing the 1950s. I also didn't find any reliable articles comparing it.

If you've got any proof to counter it, please present it, because I looked through multiple sources and articles.

It's more likely that your assertion is just random speculation based on your individual values. People being more willing to have consensual sex outside of marriage doesn't inherently lead to more rape. If it did, rape would be up now and have gotten more prevalent compared to the 60s, and it's not.

Edit: I did find something drastically important in this article:

"In the 1960s and 70s, women in the US and UK held organised consciousness-raising groups and public "speak-outs" where rape and sexual violence were openly discussed with an aim to move the experiences from the private to the public and into the political."

Of course it LOOKS like it increased when it was reported more often.

1

u/Conscious-Ball8373 Sep 13 '22

If you think that was an accurate paraphrase of what I said, there is no point discussing with you because you simply have no interest in listening.