I reviewed Patricia Gaffney’s To Have and To Hold, which led me to consider the question of Rape in Romance. I did a little research, finding a recent (January 2008) meta-analysis in The Journal of Sex Research, which looked at some 20 studies over 30 years of women’s rape fantasies.

One of the questions asked by the study’s authors is why women have rape fantasies when they are repulsed by the thought of actual rape. They define rape fantasies as involving force, sex, and nonconsent. They do mention “aversive rape fantasies”, which are more like real rapes, featuring strange unattractive men and violence, but they say that most women’s rape fantasies are “erotic” — featuring most of the sex acts they would want to do anyway, with attractive men they would want to do them with.

An editor of Psychology Today summarizes the article, albeit with annoying interjections about the author’s own sexual history, here. Note the mock romance novel featured in the article:

[As an aside: One interesting statistic in the article is the claim that few (?no data) men fantasize about raping, but a "sizable minority" (10-20%) fantasize about being forced into sex. (For women, it's anywhere from 37-51%)]

So, what do the authors conclude? Well, they consider a number of explanations: masochism, sexual blame avoidance, openness to sexual experience, desirability, male rape culture (which they reject because rapes have declined and because gender roles have changed so much in 40 years while rates of women who fantasize about rape have remained unchanged), biological predisposition to surrender, sympathetic activation (the physiological reaction to fear jump starts sexual arousal), and, most relevant for this romance readers: adversary transformation.

The authors hypothesize that a combination of adversary transformation, sympathetic activation, and something biological provide the best explanation, but more research is needed. (It certainly is: the authors haven’t provided compelling arguments for this view or against the other views, IMO.)

Guess what adversary transformation is all about? Hint: Patricia Gaffney could teach these researchers a thing or two about it. Not sure yet? Read on:

Romance novels, which account for 40% of mass
paperback sales in the United States (Salmon &
Symons, 2003), are erotic love stories written almost
exclusively by women for a female audience, and it is
not uncommon for these novels to include themes of
rape. One review of historical romance novels found
that 54% included the rape of the lead female character
(Thurston, 1987). In particular, Hazen’s (1983) analysis
of rape in romance novels also functions as a theory of
women’s erotic rape fantasies.

In essence, both romance novels and rape fantasies
are created works of fiction. Sexual fantasies are selfgenerated
erotic stories often intentionally initiated to
provide enjoyment and sexual arousal. Romance novels
are structured erotic fantasies that individuals intentionally
expose themselves to, typically for emotional
satisfaction and sexual arousal. In a rape fantasy women
create an imaginary scenario and they participate in the
fantasy through the rape experience of their self
character. In a romance novel that includes rape, women
identify with the lead female character and vicariously
experience her rape.

Hazen (1983) notes that, although the hero in
romance novels must be handsome, he may also be
cruel. Gorry (1999), in a content analysis of male
romance heroes, found that these men are strong,
masculine, muscular, sexually bold, and dangerous.
According to Salmon and Symons (2003), romance
heroes are not gentle and sensitive; they are men with
the physical and temperamental qualities of warriors.
There are systematic differences in the ways that men
and women view sexual interactions.

In sexual fantasies, both consensual and forced, men typically see themselves as doers and women see themselves as the ones to whom sexual acts are done (Ellis & Symons, 1990;Leitenberg & Henning, 1995). When men view explicit sexual activity, the woman in the scene often functions as a sexual object and he imagines taking her out of the scene and having sex with her. Viewing the same scene, women typically imagine themselves as the object of male passion rather than focusing on the male and expressing her passion for him (Money & Ehrhardt, 1972). This carries over to romance fiction, where the focus is on the heroine’s subjective experience of the male’s passion for her and sometimes of her pain from male abuse, which heightens the emotional intensity of the story (Hazen, 1983).

Hazen argues that the romance novel presents the
heroine with an exciting challenge. In male fiction,
the challenge takes the form of a violent confrontation
with an evil adversary. In romance novels, there is
often a violent confrontation with a dominant, sexually
aggressive adversary who appears to be evil. The challenge
for the heroine is to conquer his heart, seduce
him into falling in love with her, have him voluntarily
make a lifetime commitment to her, and transform his
apparent evil and cruelty into something more socially
acceptable without diminishing his masculinity. In
romance novels, rape is used as an effective means of
creating excitement and dramatic tension. Hazen
argues that, in the female imagination, shattered purity
through violent sex is a primordial danger whose
tension creates a powerful story.

In romance novels the narrative structure allows the
fantasy to continue to completion in marriage. In
erotic rape fantasies, the notion of conquering the heart
of the rapist may be implicit. Researchers could investigate
the attitude of the rapist toward the self character
at the end of the fantasy. Has he been won over and
transformed? For rape fantasies that occur during intercourse,
research could determine whether there is any
linkage between the partner and the fantasy rapist.

Adversary transformation provides a fresh view of
what may transpire in rape fantasies, but it is yet to be
empirically tested. It is generally compatible with each
of the other theories except for masochism and male
rape culture, and it shows a close fit to sympathetic
activation theory.

I have a few comments about the above:

1. I can’t believe that 40% number for rape of the heroine in historicals is true today. What would the change in percentage of romance rapes do to their thesis?

2. The Hazen book they cite for most of this is from 1983 (Hazen, H. (1983). Endless rapture. New York: Scribner.) I wonder if there’s new research or theory the authors have overlooked — often this happens in academia: we’re in our silos, unfortunately, and interesting cross fertilizations are prevented.

3. The authors imply that all romance heroes have rapist qualities — aggression, warrior mentality, and all that. This is neither true for all romance heroes today, nor was it ever true for rapists (a substantial minority of whom are actually passive and weak in their daily lives. They rape to reassure themselves of their power.)

4. The authors say that romance reading is just erotic fantasy, for the purpose emotional satisfaction and sexual arousal. They later equate (in quite a leap) pornography and romance novels. I wonder how the adversary transformation thesis fares under a more accurate view of romance?

5. They are using romance novels as data about women’s rape fantasies. But many readers avoid romances in which rape is featured. Is their use of the sales figures and themes in romance as a guide to real women’s rape fantasies legit?

Anyway, thought I’d share!

Related posts:

  1. Romance Novels as an “Addiction” I was looking for reviews of Mary Jo Putney’s The Rake, when I found a 2004 AAR Interview with her...
  2. A Rape by Any Other Name Warning: This Post May Be Triggering for Some Readers Reading Patricia Gaffney’s To Have and To Hold led me to...
  3. Fat Heroines Ain’t Easy I just finished reading Jane Graves’ Tall Tales and Wedding Veils (review to follow), and the heroine partly blames her...
  4. Stock siblings in romance Have you ever noticed that in romance series featuring male siblings, you can often find the same character types? This...
  5. Erotica Warning Labels, and Porn v. Erotica. Summary for the tl;dr crowd: 1. Warning labels may be helpful, but they may mislead readers into thinking books with...
  6. Who Invented Paranormal Romance? That’s a deliberately leading blog post title.  I’m sure it wasn’t one person, but rather a group of people responding...