Consent in Romance - Love at First Woo-woo

Romance will always be one of the central elements of Urban Fantasy - and is certainly the foundation for Paranormal Romance. Naturally, there are many many tropes that are dubious or troublesome when it comes to romance (and more than a few that are mockable), but in our society where rape culture is so entrenched, there are few things more damaging and more disturbing than the many issues around consent.

We have already spoken about magical romances that bind the couples together, removing their consent to leave - but now we look at the foundation of so many of those romances.

We have referred to this in the Lexicon as Love at First Woo-woo, but often it is far more pervasive and destructive. Whether it’s magical bonds, the whims of some deity, magically induced lust or some other convoluted reason, all too often we see the woo-woo swoop in and the characters squished together into a romance.

Whether they want it or not.

Whether they chose it or not.

Whether they would ever choose it. Even when it goes against everything they want or dream or stand for. The woo-woo has spoken. Choice, autonomy, sex is irrelevant.

Magical sexual attraction seems to be the mildest form of this - and we have no end of incubi/succubae/witches et al who simply must have sex or are overwhelmed by the woo-woo lust for each other. Anya Bast’s Witch Series, is a classic example, elemental witches are drawn to each other by the woo-woo. The sad thing is it’s completely unnecessary - there’s no reason why these characters couldn’t have just found each other attractive - but no, there had to be coercion. There has to be that external pressure that forces that sexual step

There has to be an excuse.

At the core a lot of these tropes stem from the enduring, sexist, trope that a sexual woman is evil. A woman who pursues sex is a slutwhorejezebel and terribad awful, to be shamed and condemned. Nice Girls don’t sully themselves with the dreadful, awful sex and reach shakily for the smelling salts and the fainting couch, pearls clutched in a death grip, at the very idea. The only way your pure shining womanhood can possibly use her sinful ladyparts is if it isn’t her choice - or, more accurately - her FAULT. It’s very closely linked to the trope where a woman says “no” and has to be “worn down” by a male love interest until her defences are finally breached.

This is epitomised by the Anita Blake Series where we see Anita having one of the most expansive sex lives of any protagonist ever - but had to be dragged kicking and screaming to every sexual encounter.

It’s a tragic trope and the prevalence of it - that women need to be able to blame magic for them actually having sex - is why I still repeatedly praise series like Yasmine Galenorn’s Otherworld series that show pro-active, sexual women who enjoy their sex lives without any magical nudge to justify them getting down. This shouldn’t be praiseworthy, this shouldn’t stand out - but sadly it does

Of course this trope goes beyond reinforcing the idea a “good” woman needs to have an excuse to have sex - we can’t stress enough how often this violates consent.

Twilight is an especially infamous example of this trope - where magical “imprinting” results in werewolves (nearly all male) bonding with their love interests after just looking at them - making the relationship pre-ordained. And consent? Well one of these “women” who is “imprinted” on is actually a small child. The other a baby in the womb - but we’re assured they’ll have an attentive, loving caring future-boyfriend to dote on them until they come of age.

That’s called grooming. It’s a crime. And even if they don’t touch that girl until she’s 18, honest, that’s still a lifetime of brainwashing to impose on her. No reasonable person can call this consent.

While Twilight is extreme because of it’s involvement of children - it’s not alone. Nalini Singh’s Psy/Changeling series has changelings begin the “mating dance” with their chosen mates - even when those mates are completely uninterested not just in love, but in emotion at all! But the woo-woo has spoken! Personal consent, lives, beliefs or inherent nature are irrelevant! Sherrilyn Kenyon’s Werehunters form magical bonds - again before any real acquaintance has even been established. Eileen Wilks World of the Lupi series has mating bonds so strong they can’t even move too far away from the other! They’re literally joined at the hip!

It’s not just shapeshifters (though they do seem to dominate for some reason) - the Black Dagger Brotherhood (which has never seen a terrible romance trope without claiming it) has vampires getting in on the bonding-at-first sight nonsense as well.

This is another element that has to be emphasised of this trope - nearly all of these bound-for-life-at-first-sight people are virtual strangers. It emphasises not just a lack of consent but also strikes us as lazy writing. You could build a relationship, you could write the things about the other that attracted and endeared your protagonist. You could write them falling in love as they come closer and see all the wonderful qualities. Or, woo-woo could strike within seconds of seeing each other and they could be happily skipping down the aisle before they even know each other’s surname.

Tragic Love Interests: Tortured Pasts and Abusive True Loves

Author: Dennis Skley  Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License

What makes for a really hot male love interest?

If we’re feeling restrained we would mentioned kindness, compassion, understanding, willingness to listen, patience.

If we’re less… high brow… we’d mention bulging muscles, smoldering eyes, a firm backside and a massive… personality. (Though I still think some of these men have “personalities” that can rupture internal organs, which is sexy apparently. But we’ve already looked at the bizarre things that are considered sexy).

But there’s one other trait that seems to be even more required for your hot love interest to truly make everyone’s knees buckle: a horrendous tormented past

Yes, nothing makes your hot guy truly smoking like knowing he is dealing with some terrible trauma. Knowing your man is fighting off desperate PTSD symptoms seems to really get people going.

Of course part of this just an extension of the same writing habit that kills off the parents of protagonists at a truly alarming rate. A traumatic past is quick and dirty characterisation. When you’ve created a walking penis carrier who you don’t especially want to define nothing allows for quick and dirty characterisation like a huge whack of angst. Instant characterisation, life goal and general motivation and attitude in once, nice, tear-stained package.

Traumatic backgrounds are not inherently a bad thing (though there are many issues with a traumatic background being slightly more common than completing high school in the genre) if it’s done well (and not just lazy characterisation) and it’s certainly good to explore issues like PTSD, triggers and other manifestations of trauma as well as careful well written road to healing. Unfortunately, we rarely see this - and especially not with the sexily brooding love interest. Instead, all too often their oh-so-sad lives are used as a reason for them to be arseholes - and even abusive.

And because they have a tragic past we’re expected to accept that - or even find it romantic.

At the mildest level, your super sexy guy with his oh-so-special personality is (or believes he is) cursed/tortured/hunted/just-too-tortured and simply is bad for the girl (who he loves beyond reason, of course). This inevitably leads to that common and aggravating trope - driving her away for her own good! Of course, the idea of actually letting a woman decide whether she wants to take a risk or plan her own life or decide what is actually good for her or not. That would involve respecting her decision making.

Manpain!

© 2008 Lisa Brewster, Flickr | CC-BY-SA | via Wylio

In walks the manly, testosterone swelling, mighty male protagonist. Able to take down entire legions of enemies, possibly with only his chest hair (or, as is more often now, the glaring reflection from his waxed pectorals). His firm jaw and clenched teeth (naturally adorned with a light dusting of stubble – and yes, he doesn’t have time to shave but can still keep those pectorals gleaming) show a man with a grim purpose, surely nothing could crack his granite visage?

But he stops, looks down at the savaged remains of his wife/child/side-kick/pet marmot and that stony façade cracks. A single Mantear trickles down his rugged cheek and the music swells dramatically as everyone falls silent as the great hero is brought down by his greatest foe; Manpain.

 

Manpain is not a new phenomenon, but it seems to be growing more common. The manly-male heroes of yore who would never dream of shedding a tear or reacting with more than an angry eye squint in the face of the worst provocation are rapidly becoming extinct. Now, you cannot possibly be a hero without the ability to force out that Mantear and stare in agonised grief at the camera or possibly raising despairing fists to an uncaring sky. Even the most emotionless, removed and untouchable of heroes has to suggest some deep, painful currents running beneath his stoic façade.

There’s certainly some benefit to this – too often men are taught that the only acceptable emotions to express are lust or rage (or, more horrendously, lust and rage) and anything else is deemed a sign of weakness to be mocked and reviled. Allowing men to have a richer emotional palette, to present even the roughest, toughest, hardiest of manly-men to be able to express grief and sorrow and pain, to need help and support, to hurt and need healing are certainly useful things to add to our societal consciousness and media culture

Alas, as in so many things, the execution comes with its own set of problems.

At its most benign, Manpain replaces any real characterisation - and often results in some truly hilarious melodrama. A really good example of this is Will, from Lee Carroll and Carol Goodman’s Black Swan Rising Series. Will is so overcome with the thought of losing Garret he reacts by falling to his knees on the sandy beach, ripping his shirt open and instantly composing the most horrendously bad poetry I have read in a long time. It’s absolutely epic in its overly dramatic Manpain that it becomes hard to choose between rolling one's eyes and laughing out loud.

But not all are so benign (or hilarious). The most obvious we often see is, of course, Fridging. Fridging is a horrendously overused trope whereby a side-character (usually female and usually a love interest) is killed off for the sake of the main character’s story or character development. That (usually female) character is reduced to nothing more than a plot point in the main character’s story which is inherently dehumanising to her while centring his importance

In our quest for Manpain, we’ve filled a whole lot of fridges. Supernatural, perhaps the supreme master of Manpain, has filled an entire frozen food aisle full of fridges so Dean can hone his so-tortured look (Jensen Ackles must be worried his face is going to freeze like that one of these days).

Rick’s epic Manpain on The Walking Dead all relates back to the death of his wife Lori, a character largely lacking in much in the way of development except to be a millstone around Rick’s neck. The whole point of her existence was Rick’s development and Rick’s angst

Even when the women are allowed to live, a large number of these character’s Manpain can be traced back to a female “cause” (not all, certainly, the whole “I have a destiny I don’t want because being special is soooo hard” raises fairly regularly as well – as we see with Alex on Dominion and the massively melodramatic tortured past is a mainstay in paranormal romance series like Black Dagger Brotherhood and the Dark Hunter Series) – as we see on the Leftovers and Justin with his Guilty Remnant wife or Helix’s Alan Farragut stomping and moping around about Julia. These women are not dead, but one of the main roles they serve is as a source of angst and pain - at least in the first season.

Virginal or Gently Used Heroines

© 2011 Sean MacEntee, Flickr | CC-BY | via Wylio

One of the most prevailing and damaging tropes to follow women is the Madonna/Whore complex. An age old method of both putting women on high, restrictive pedestals, wrapped in gilded cages to be babied and sheltered and incredibly controlled while also debasing women as acceptable targets and victims of abuse and violence; the Madonna/Whore complex has always been a short cut for judging whether a woman is “good” or “bad”.

In the media, we often see this in villains with the pernicious trope of evil female sexuality. Whether the wicked temptress, the immoral slut, the lusty jezebel or the simply evil sexual deviant - one of the quickest and laziest way the media has to depict a female villain as a villain is to make her sexual. Only a villainous woman seeks out sex, only an evil woman initiates sex and only the most depraved of the depraved of women are actually sexually experienced. Being sexual is all too often the female equivalent of Kicking the Puppy - a simple coded way to depict a villain as evil without bothering with any development. Even when not actively villainous, she is likely to be a Femme Fatale - the same coding applies, a sexual woman is dangerous.

When we come to our heroic protagonists, of course, the Madonnas trot out.

A lot of the time we go full on old school - and our protagonist has never ever had sex before. She is a virgin and probably quite disdainful of sex (and especially other women who are sexual) right until her (usually much more experienced male love interest) opens her to the many splendored joys of True Love Sex. In some extreme cases she will have never even had an orgasm before

Sookie Stackhouse from Charlaine Harris’s Southern Vampire Series is, of course, a classic example and she also introduces a common justification for deciding on a virginal protagonist - some kind of woo-woo that makes sex impossible, unpleasant or undesireable. Sookie’s ability to read her lovers’ minds makes her unwilling to be intimate (albeit something of a stretch) but her’s is not the only woo-woo barrier to sex. In Dark Lover, vampire biology makes Beth completely non-sexual - until her awakening when her true love turns up and leads to oceans of lust. Which is another element of this trope - their one true love will definitely have the correct mojo to unlock the woo-woo chastity belt. In a way, magic serves to preserve these women for their proper owners.

I’m far more intrigued at this point by a protagonist who has a woo-woo that makes their sex lives awkward - and works around it because they are sexual and are willing to take steps to realise their desires (even if those steps are not ideal), like Lire in the Clairvoyant’s Complicated Life Series.

Another excellent way to ensure properly intact good-girl hymens is, of course, historicals - Steampunk is full of virginal protagonists - such as The Gaslight Chronicles. We can have a world with magic, steam powered contrivances and weapons of all kinds - but sexual good women is apparently a step too far. Again, I appreciate when we have a subversion that actually explores the potential of speculative fiction - like the Immortal Empire Series.

Of course, while woo-woo makes a convenient justification (especially in Paranormal Romance), it’s not necessary and many protagonists just happen to be virginally pure for their true loves - Damali in the Vampire Huntress Legend Series, Clary in The Mortal Instruments and Mona from The Protector

Consent in Romance: Being Able to Leave

Alphario, rippling romance hero, tenderly checks the chains properly restraining his beloved, the sweet Captiva. Carefully he ensures that she has taken the proper dose of the addictive drug she can only possibly get from him and they lovingly share a kiss before he leaves, romantically checking the bars and locks the cell door behind him. They will live together Happily Ever After - there will be no escape.

This is, I hope, not generally considered the most romantic of scenarios. At very least some pretty extensive bondage consent will have to be discussed before hand - yet time and again I see romances end in such a way that the participants are bound together; lovingly, happily, certainly - but still bound, unable to leave should either party actually want to do so.

This is something that is very rarely addressed in Paranormal Romance - and for good reason. After all, a Happily Ever After is usually the goal here. No-one really wants to think of their sexy vampire romance ending because Vlad has filed divorce papers and they’re now fighting for custody of the werewolf puppies. That’s fairly understandable (however, it has to be said I do want to read that story). So, no, I’m not saying the genre needs more books about relationship break down and love affairs turning sour.

But it does need the ability to leave to still be part of the romance. It doesn’t mean either party has to take it - but it has to be there because part of consent is the ability to withdraw it. Consent is not a one shot deal, consent is not a “sign on the dotted line, that’s it FOREVER”. Consent should not leave the parties feeling like the signed in blood. Consent is the ability to change your mind, to say it’s over, to say you’re done and be able to head for the door even if you never open it.

A lot of the books I’ve read in Paranormal Romance/Urban Fantasy don’t have that for various reasons. One of the most common of which are mystical bonds - some kind of magical woo-woo that chains the characters together eternally with no presented possibility of either character being able to break that bond. The two love interests fall in love (or, in extreme cases, see each other) and the magic hits - they are now glued together by the woo-woo of True Love FOREVER.

There are so many examples of this, there’s no way I could count them all. The Black Dagger Brotherhood series has the male vampires create mystical bonds to their wives (this involves lots of smelling and occasionally lethal violence to any other man who dares to come near her) which is made very clear is permanent. In fact, it’s so permanent that if one partner should die the other will usually passively suicide. It’s also used as an excuse for violent jealousy and several times us being told (romantically, of course) that there’s no way a male vampire would ever let his mate go. Even if she wanted to.

How… romantic. Restraining order anyone?

Keri Arthur plays with shapeshifters bonding for life in the Damask Circle world and Spook Squad series. Actually, this trope tends to be trotted out especially often when wereanimals are involved: Werewolf bonds can also be found in Wolf Haven, the Mercy Thompson and Alpha & Omega series, the World of the Lupi series and the Psy-Changeling Series - which has just about everyone forming woo-woo bonds

Twilight has werewolves “imprinting” on their mates - something that is clearly meant to last for life (including when said imprinting happens with children, babies and foetus. Yes pass around the brain bleach, I’m sure we could all use a dose).

I cannot see these as romantic. What is romantic is two people staying together for the rest of their lives because they love and adore each other and every moment together brings joy. What is not romantic is being magically shackled together so they cannot possibly leave. Chaining them together doesn’t prove love and isn’t romantic - the characters stay together forever because they have no choice in the matter. That’s not romantic and it’s not consent.

It’s not just mystical bonding though - a lot of the time I see couples that are solidly welded together with angst. Overwhelming, needy, my-life-is-over-without-you angst. This is often mistaken as utterly romantic that this person is so invested in their love interest that they physically cannot stand to live without them - but it’s dangerous, it’s creepy it’s coercive and it’s even abusive.

In Fiction, No-one is Forced by Circumstance

When a book or TV show is fiction, it’s made up. Everything within it is created.

I can see your bemused expressions now - why have I started stating the obvious? Well, by a lot of the excuses people make for various issues we criticise in books, it feels like some people aren’t grasping it.

In particular, this happens when we describe a character as being problematic in some way - maybe they’re a stereotype or trope, maybe they have bigoted attitudes, maybe their relationships are a hot mess of problems, maybe everything’s just a wall-to-wall hot mess. But we describe the problematic issue and someone counters “but X forces them to be/do/think that!”

But this forgets that “X”, whatever X is, only exists because the author put it there. The author isn’t a historian presenting their research, or an anthropologist loyally relating their observations. The author is the storyteller, the author is the one who built this world, every aspect for it, and if they have created an element that “justifies” some prejudiced, bigoted or problematic element then that has been their choice to do so. We cannot pretend or act like this is out of their hands.

There are so many examples of this - let’s take werewolves. Female werewolves are often super-duper rare - making the few female werewolves highly desirable and hunted by the male werewolves (like Elena in Kelley Armstrong’s Women of the Otherworld) or making female werewolves so rare they have a very male dominated cast (Patricia Briggs’ Mercy Thompson Series) or there just cannot be female werewolves for REASONS - which are probably related to werewolves being so traditionally masculine and aggressive and hairy (Eileen Wilk’s World of the Lupi series, Gail Carriger’s Parasol Protectorate series).

The scarcity of female werewolves is used over and over as a justification for women living in a sea of men, or for women being super-precious and hunted or needing lots of aggressive “protection”. It’s not a trope! It’s just the rarity of women! It’s just how werewolves ARE!

Except for the fact that werewolves are not actually real. If this is just how the werewolves are, then it is because the author chose to make them that way - you can’t excuse a problematic story element by creating a problematic world element.

We see this repeatedly when supernatural Alpha Male “heroes” are aggressive, violent, angry, “protective” and controlling, the excuse is usually that this is part of their nature. Werewolves are possessive and violent. The vampires latch on to their mates (in the Black Dagger Brotherhood) or can’t control themselves (Twilight). There are any number of abusive tropes that are justified because the man gets a supernatural pass - the abusive nature is part of their werewolf/vampire/weremanatee nature.

These creatures are not real, these creatures do not have to be this way. Their natures are conscious choices on the part of the writer and, as such, cannot be a “get out” of tropes they embody.

While supernatural creatures are a classic example, we can also see a lot of similar excuses arising from the cultures created in the books.

Again, Patricia Briggs’s Mercy Thompson series has the werewolf pack that is deeply misogynist and homophobic. Cassandra Clare’s Mortal Instruments Series has a homophobic society. George R R Martin’s Song of Ice and Fire has a society that is such a hot mess of misogyny that I don’t think they have any industry other than prostitution. It’s the first society ever whose economy is entirely reliant on war on sex-work. Again, all of these cultural bigotries are choices of the author - these are fictional societies, subcultures and often entirely new worlds with new religions (and dragons); there is nothing forcing the bigotries of our world onto their societies beyond authorial choice.