Another hypocrisy – how does Anita choose her sex partners? Clearly she didn’t have sex with Graham as she didn’t find him attractive, but she didn’t want to bed Requiem even though she did find him hot?
I think this is the only part of your post with which I have issues. Not wanting to go to bed with someone, even if they're 'hot' really isn't hypocracy. It's a choice. There could be a number of reasons for it (which no doubt LKH fudges and muddles).
The rest of it is all stuff which bothers me. I know people who are polyamorous or 'swingers' and are open about it. They have none of the discomfort LKH writes into Anita. Yes, even the Catholics :) You can't even blame her it entirely on religious upbringing - I can assure you that one half of my family was strict Catholic, the other half strict Protestant, and between them there was nothing that they didn't consider sinful. I don't have any particular homophobia or anything.
My opinion is that LKH suffered for several books from a massive case of indecision. When she finally made the decision, she also had started writing faery porn and decided she quite liked it, so fit Anita into that same pornographic mould, so to speak. The old fans couldn't see Anita doing that, it wasn't true to the character, hence the ardeur. It's a terrible excuse. I could forgive LKH descending into porn if there was any indication that the characters actually enjoyed it. They have sex the way that anorexics eat - because they have to, with no enjoyment whatsoever.
I should probably point out that the reason people aren't having a problem with all the males forced into sex in the books is because of exactly the attitude to Byron you highlight - people think that if a man ejaculates, he enjoyed the sexual act which led to it, which isn't strictly true. It's usually not discussed that women can experience arousal during rape, or that they will 'willingly' offer up lesser sex acts to avoid rape (the whole first scene with Micah nearly made me ill, because that was almost a textbook observation of this exact behaviour, and I thought LKH was doing something truly edgy). But men can be, and are, raped, and not just by other men. It's almost as if sexual abuse of men by women is taboo - like "women would never do such a thing", to quote Queen Victoria.
If LKH had just written Anita becoming sexually dysfunctional following her rape by Micah, that would be edgy. But all of this 'ardeur' crap is just so much bollocks. It's like reading those awful romances where the heroine is blackmailed into 'unspeakable acts'. If I wanted to read that, there is a whole genre I would spend my cash on. If LKH wanted to write that, it's easy enough to get it published as such, rather than this pretence at paranormal detective stories she's continuing.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 07:49 pm (UTC)I think this is the only part of your post with which I have issues. Not wanting to go to bed with someone, even if they're 'hot' really isn't hypocracy. It's a choice. There could be a number of reasons for it (which no doubt LKH fudges and muddles).
The rest of it is all stuff which bothers me. I know people who are polyamorous or 'swingers' and are open about it. They have none of the discomfort LKH writes into Anita. Yes, even the Catholics :) You can't even blame her it entirely on religious upbringing - I can assure you that one half of my family was strict Catholic, the other half strict Protestant, and between them there was nothing that they didn't consider sinful. I don't have any particular homophobia or anything.
My opinion is that LKH suffered for several books from a massive case of indecision. When she finally made the decision, she also had started writing faery porn and decided she quite liked it, so fit Anita into that same pornographic mould, so to speak. The old fans couldn't see Anita doing that, it wasn't true to the character, hence the ardeur. It's a terrible excuse. I could forgive LKH descending into porn if there was any indication that the characters actually enjoyed it. They have sex the way that anorexics eat - because they have to, with no enjoyment whatsoever.
I should probably point out that the reason people aren't having a problem with all the males forced into sex in the books is because of exactly the attitude to Byron you highlight - people think that if a man ejaculates, he enjoyed the sexual act which led to it, which isn't strictly true. It's usually not discussed that women can experience arousal during rape, or that they will 'willingly' offer up lesser sex acts to avoid rape (the whole first scene with Micah nearly made me ill, because that was almost a textbook observation of this exact behaviour, and I thought LKH was doing something truly edgy). But men can be, and are, raped, and not just by other men. It's almost as if sexual abuse of men by women is taboo - like "women would never do such a thing", to quote Queen Victoria.
If LKH had just written Anita becoming sexually dysfunctional following her rape by Micah, that would be edgy. But all of this 'ardeur' crap is just so much bollocks. It's like reading those awful romances where the heroine is blackmailed into 'unspeakable acts'. If I wanted to read that, there is a whole genre I would spend my cash on. If LKH wanted to write that, it's easy enough to get it published as such, rather than this pretence at paranormal detective stories she's continuing.