![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I decided, shortly after it became clear that the television series for Bridgerton had not removed the rape scene, that I was not going to talk about it here. Honestly, I didn't want to talk about it anywhere. I felt--now, in hindsight, extremely naively--that rape spoke for itself. It turns out that not only does rape not speak for itself, that we as a culture are so steeped in it that we do not recognize it when we see it. And that if we suspect we might have seen it, we will do anything and everything we can to explain or excuse it.
Let me set out some points and definitions that I think are important:
1. It is okay to like rape in fiction. It is even okay to like rape between love interests in fiction. Because it is fiction. Neither character is actually being harmed. The corollary to this, however, is that it is NOT okay to pretend like what you are enjoying is not rape/convince yourself it's something else.
Let me give you an example of how this works. I LOVE stories where terrible things happen to people. Things like, oh, rape, and enslavement, and other horrible things. I like this because I get emotional fulfillment out of "watching" these characters heal. And for that fulfillment, I need that first element. So I LIKE reading about, say, people getting tortured. Which yeah, pretty problematic. Which means I say, "I like this problematic thing, in this case, having a character be raped so that s/he/they can overcome the pain of that." I DON'T say, "well, it wasn't rape because..." or "the rape is okay because..."
2. Historical accuracy is not an excuse for rape. In fact, if you are using historical accuracy to excuse something you know is terrible such as racism, misogyny, etc.? You're not paying attention. Historical romance novels are not historically accurate. They are full of Dukes who are young and good looking. They are full of marriages for love. They are full of good hygiene and women not dying in childbirth. AT MOST their accuracy might relate to the clothing or the events of the age. Maybe. If you find yourself saying "well, it would have been historically accurate..." Stop. Your argument is "I like this, so I'm gonna say something about history." That is literally your whole argument. It is a bad one.
3. Rape is committing an act of sexual intimacy with another person that second person does not agree to. If you're defining rape by the way the courts in any Western nation does, or in any way other than "rape is what happens when one person does NOT want something sexual to happen, and the other person does it anyway," you are allowing for rape culture to be perpetuated.
4. There are no "better" and "worse" rapes. Getting physical pleasure out of a rape does not make it BETTER. Not being beaten into submission does not make it BETTER. When we say one type of violating someone's person is BETTER than another, we tell certain types of victims that their pain isn't valid. And that just makes us shitty human beings.
All right. So, why, in May of 2021, six months minus one day after this series debuted am I deciding I'm going to say something about this? Well, mostly because it won't go away. Yesterday, in one of the histrom communities I'm in, I saw someone refer to the rape in Bridgerton as an "alleged rape." And evidently that was my breaking point. Not the least of which because I know that person is an attorney and so they actually know what the term alleged means.
There is no alleged rape in Bridgerton. For one thing, this isn't a case we're trying. Nobody might go to jail here and so there's no necessary presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. But for another thing, the rape occurs on screen and we know all the facts. Here are the facts:
1. Daphne does not know how sex works.
2. Simon does not tell Daphne. He lies to her, because it is to his advantage. This is a bad thing. He should not do this. This is similar to say, a woman telling a man she is not on birth control, when in fact she is. He uses power and knowledge in a way that is really quite gross and we don't like it.
3. Daphne figures out she is being lied to. She initiates sex with herself atop Simon.
4. Simon enjoys this at the beginning.
5. Simon realizes what is happening and that he DOES NOT WANT TO CONTINUE. He states "wait" and exudes physical distress.
6. Daphne does not wait. She does not respond to his signals of his distress despite it being clear that she sees them. She rides him to completion despite the fact that he has clearly, for lack of a better term, withdrawn consent. Further, she has planned to do this with the awareness that this would likely be the outcome, that is, she has pre-meditated violating Simon's consent and thereby raping him.
At this point in time, Daphne has committed rape. Despite the fact that almost every publication that wrote about this called this the "controversial scene", and, so far as I can tell, roughly 75% of people watching this show didn't even notice a violation of consent, let alone a rape had occurred, there is no controversy here, nothing is alleged, Daphne has committed a sexual act that Simon did not consent to on Simon. It does not matter that Simon did consent at first. It does not matter that Simon did not clearly say "no." It certainly does not matter that he did not physically remove her. Nor, as some people are arguing, is this scene made "less rapey" than the book because Simon is not drunk. Simon is no more or less a rape victim here because he was not drunk, and Daphne is nor more or less a rapist. Which is to say:
Daphne has raped Simon. And that is literally all that matters.
Now, going back to what I said above: it is OKAY to look at this and say "yeah, she rapes him, but I still like it." It really truly is. It is okay to have reasons why you like it, or to NOT have reasons why you like it, it is OKAY.
What's not okay, but what seems to be the majority's response is the either excuse it in some way or explain how it is not rape. Some examples of this are:
1. At that time in history, a husband could have raped a wife without any consequences.
Yes. You are correct. Why does this matter? What is your point? How does this excuse Daphne raping Simon in this instance?
2. He deserved it because he lied to her.
So...now rape is punishment for lying to people? That's how we're going to live our lives? Sounds like a great plan.
3. She's taking the only power she has.
Well, I mean, I agree, rape is about power rather than sex or love or any of those other things, so in terms of excuses or explanations, this is the one that comes closest to working. But then, why are we OKAY with women using sexual violence as a tool of power? Because I'm going to posit that if we are (and I actually think we are: Chris Van Dusen's comments regarding this scene, people's use of this argument and the high level of complete obliviousness to the violation in the first place all suggest that we, as a society, are on board with women's sexual violence toward men) we should think about why and if that's actually a good thing.
4. He could have thrown her off.
This is victim-blaming, pure and simple. End of conversation.
5. He didn't say no.
This is victim blaming. There's no question she knew she was doing something he didn't want.
6. He enjoyed it at first.
So...if we like one thing about a sexual encounter we are contract bound to agree to and like all the rest of them? If you're making out with someone, that means you have to give them a handjob/they now have to eat you out? I think we can all agree this is a patently ridiculous way of looking at sex.
7. He came, so he must have liked it.
I beg you to read up on prison rape. Cis-men often come while being violently raped. It is a physical reaction to something that is occurring to their bodies, nothing else. This does not somehow make the act not rape or make the rape BETTER.
I am sure there are other bad arguments that have been made that I am missing, since this has been percolating life coffee gone bad inside my brain for six months now. The point is this. Liking Bridgerton doesn't make you a bad person, a bad consumer of fiction, a bad feminist, a bad anything. You don't HAVE to care that after Daphne rapes Simon she tells him it's his fault for lying to her, you don't HAVE to care that she never apologizes, but is awarded with a happy marriage anyway. You don't have to because it's a story and you can have whatever narrative enjoyment of it you please. And I mean that, truly.
What you do honestly have to do if you don't want to live your life as a rape apologist and someone who supports rape culture, is you have to acknowledge that Daphne rapes Simon. That's literally it. You just have to say, "yup, that's a rape." Six months ago, I would have said it wasn't that big an ask. That, uh. That was a happier time in my life.
Let me set out some points and definitions that I think are important:
1. It is okay to like rape in fiction. It is even okay to like rape between love interests in fiction. Because it is fiction. Neither character is actually being harmed. The corollary to this, however, is that it is NOT okay to pretend like what you are enjoying is not rape/convince yourself it's something else.
Let me give you an example of how this works. I LOVE stories where terrible things happen to people. Things like, oh, rape, and enslavement, and other horrible things. I like this because I get emotional fulfillment out of "watching" these characters heal. And for that fulfillment, I need that first element. So I LIKE reading about, say, people getting tortured. Which yeah, pretty problematic. Which means I say, "I like this problematic thing, in this case, having a character be raped so that s/he/they can overcome the pain of that." I DON'T say, "well, it wasn't rape because..." or "the rape is okay because..."
2. Historical accuracy is not an excuse for rape. In fact, if you are using historical accuracy to excuse something you know is terrible such as racism, misogyny, etc.? You're not paying attention. Historical romance novels are not historically accurate. They are full of Dukes who are young and good looking. They are full of marriages for love. They are full of good hygiene and women not dying in childbirth. AT MOST their accuracy might relate to the clothing or the events of the age. Maybe. If you find yourself saying "well, it would have been historically accurate..." Stop. Your argument is "I like this, so I'm gonna say something about history." That is literally your whole argument. It is a bad one.
3. Rape is committing an act of sexual intimacy with another person that second person does not agree to. If you're defining rape by the way the courts in any Western nation does, or in any way other than "rape is what happens when one person does NOT want something sexual to happen, and the other person does it anyway," you are allowing for rape culture to be perpetuated.
4. There are no "better" and "worse" rapes. Getting physical pleasure out of a rape does not make it BETTER. Not being beaten into submission does not make it BETTER. When we say one type of violating someone's person is BETTER than another, we tell certain types of victims that their pain isn't valid. And that just makes us shitty human beings.
All right. So, why, in May of 2021, six months minus one day after this series debuted am I deciding I'm going to say something about this? Well, mostly because it won't go away. Yesterday, in one of the histrom communities I'm in, I saw someone refer to the rape in Bridgerton as an "alleged rape." And evidently that was my breaking point. Not the least of which because I know that person is an attorney and so they actually know what the term alleged means.
There is no alleged rape in Bridgerton. For one thing, this isn't a case we're trying. Nobody might go to jail here and so there's no necessary presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. But for another thing, the rape occurs on screen and we know all the facts. Here are the facts:
1. Daphne does not know how sex works.
2. Simon does not tell Daphne. He lies to her, because it is to his advantage. This is a bad thing. He should not do this. This is similar to say, a woman telling a man she is not on birth control, when in fact she is. He uses power and knowledge in a way that is really quite gross and we don't like it.
3. Daphne figures out she is being lied to. She initiates sex with herself atop Simon.
4. Simon enjoys this at the beginning.
5. Simon realizes what is happening and that he DOES NOT WANT TO CONTINUE. He states "wait" and exudes physical distress.
6. Daphne does not wait. She does not respond to his signals of his distress despite it being clear that she sees them. She rides him to completion despite the fact that he has clearly, for lack of a better term, withdrawn consent. Further, she has planned to do this with the awareness that this would likely be the outcome, that is, she has pre-meditated violating Simon's consent and thereby raping him.
At this point in time, Daphne has committed rape. Despite the fact that almost every publication that wrote about this called this the "controversial scene", and, so far as I can tell, roughly 75% of people watching this show didn't even notice a violation of consent, let alone a rape had occurred, there is no controversy here, nothing is alleged, Daphne has committed a sexual act that Simon did not consent to on Simon. It does not matter that Simon did consent at first. It does not matter that Simon did not clearly say "no." It certainly does not matter that he did not physically remove her. Nor, as some people are arguing, is this scene made "less rapey" than the book because Simon is not drunk. Simon is no more or less a rape victim here because he was not drunk, and Daphne is nor more or less a rapist. Which is to say:
Daphne has raped Simon. And that is literally all that matters.
Now, going back to what I said above: it is OKAY to look at this and say "yeah, she rapes him, but I still like it." It really truly is. It is okay to have reasons why you like it, or to NOT have reasons why you like it, it is OKAY.
What's not okay, but what seems to be the majority's response is the either excuse it in some way or explain how it is not rape. Some examples of this are:
1. At that time in history, a husband could have raped a wife without any consequences.
Yes. You are correct. Why does this matter? What is your point? How does this excuse Daphne raping Simon in this instance?
2. He deserved it because he lied to her.
So...now rape is punishment for lying to people? That's how we're going to live our lives? Sounds like a great plan.
3. She's taking the only power she has.
Well, I mean, I agree, rape is about power rather than sex or love or any of those other things, so in terms of excuses or explanations, this is the one that comes closest to working. But then, why are we OKAY with women using sexual violence as a tool of power? Because I'm going to posit that if we are (and I actually think we are: Chris Van Dusen's comments regarding this scene, people's use of this argument and the high level of complete obliviousness to the violation in the first place all suggest that we, as a society, are on board with women's sexual violence toward men) we should think about why and if that's actually a good thing.
4. He could have thrown her off.
This is victim-blaming, pure and simple. End of conversation.
5. He didn't say no.
This is victim blaming. There's no question she knew she was doing something he didn't want.
6. He enjoyed it at first.
So...if we like one thing about a sexual encounter we are contract bound to agree to and like all the rest of them? If you're making out with someone, that means you have to give them a handjob/they now have to eat you out? I think we can all agree this is a patently ridiculous way of looking at sex.
7. He came, so he must have liked it.
I beg you to read up on prison rape. Cis-men often come while being violently raped. It is a physical reaction to something that is occurring to their bodies, nothing else. This does not somehow make the act not rape or make the rape BETTER.
I am sure there are other bad arguments that have been made that I am missing, since this has been percolating life coffee gone bad inside my brain for six months now. The point is this. Liking Bridgerton doesn't make you a bad person, a bad consumer of fiction, a bad feminist, a bad anything. You don't HAVE to care that after Daphne rapes Simon she tells him it's his fault for lying to her, you don't HAVE to care that she never apologizes, but is awarded with a happy marriage anyway. You don't have to because it's a story and you can have whatever narrative enjoyment of it you please. And I mean that, truly.
What you do honestly have to do if you don't want to live your life as a rape apologist and someone who supports rape culture, is you have to acknowledge that Daphne rapes Simon. That's literally it. You just have to say, "yup, that's a rape." Six months ago, I would have said it wasn't that big an ask. That, uh. That was a happier time in my life.
