what makes readers see behavior as negative?

[deborah]

Y'all have seen The Popular Romance Project, right?

Popular romance sells. And it reveals deep truths about people and cultures, fantasies and fears. The statistics are staggering: According to the Romance Writers of America, romance fiction generated $1.37 billion in sales in 2008, and romance was the top-performing category on the New York Times, USA Today, and Publishers Weekly best-seller lists.


The Popular Romance Project will explore the fascinating, often contradictory origins and influences of popular romance as told in novels, films, comics, advice books, songs, and internet fan fiction, taking a global perspective—while looking back across time as far as the ancient Greeks.

I'm thrilled that I got the opportunity to participate. My post "Hero or Stalker?" addresses some of the questions I've been having watching students respond to the behavior of male love interest in young adult romance. I've been realizing as I teach how much the reading transaction is influenced by the reader's genre expectations, and how much of those themselves are influenced by genre in a given place and time. My post explores this by looking at Margaret Mahy's The Changeover and Stephenie Meyer's Twilight. If you are interested, come and contribute to the conversation!

Comments

This reflects a serious double-bind in real life too.

[alterid]

Your "Hero or Stalker" question is the fictional version of an issue that is very real for many men: the problem of how to appropriately indicate sexual interest in a woman. As your classroom's response clearly demonstrates, whether a woman perceives a man's behaviour as "charming" or "creepy" doesn't necessarily depend on *anything* in the behaviour of the man himself. Given that "creepiness" is widely held to be disgusting to the point of being morally wrong, this prompts the question: How the hell is this fair on guys?

Of course, women have a corresponding double bind -- men simultaneously want them on the one hand to be sexy and sexually available, and on the other hand pour scorn on any woman who makes the grave error of "being slutty", i.e. trying to be sexy or sexually available in some context where the man has arbitrarily and subjectively decided that this is inappropriate. This is no fairer, but I suspect a bit more widely acknowledged.

Re: This reflects a serious double-bind in real life too.

[deborah]

In many ways, though, the question I ask is specifically about fiction. It's about using the techniques of writing prose to reframe situations which are abundantly clear in the real world to seem more morally ambiguous. In the real world, there is no question that Edward Cullen's behavior is undoubtedly creepy; it would be unusual to perceive it as charming for a man to sneak into her bedroom to watch her sleep, or steal her carburetor to prevent her from visiting her friends. (And in fact, Bella Swan does perceive the behavior as creepy rather than charming, for the most part. The fictional techniques make the reader, not the female protagonist, see that which is charming in the creepy behavior.)

Fiction techniques similarly make villains seem appealing. Mass murderer and brainwasher Loki from the movie Thor is made appealing by close-ups of his sad face showing how he is misunderstood. Patricide and destroyer-of-worlds Regina from the tv show Once upon a Time had a mean mother and a lost love, and thus we empathize with her. But these are techniques of fiction. In the real world, everybody understands that mass murder, brainwashing, patricide, and cursing an entire plane of existence are Bad Things.

In other words, in real life guys know not to use stalker behaviour because real life is not fiction. In other words, in real life guys know not to use stalker behavior because real life is not fiction. And make no mistake, the creepiness we are talking about is not something which is "widely held to be disgusting to the point of being morally wrong", it is the kind of behavior that is outright morally wrong. It is morally wrong to take a girl's carburetor or otherwise prevent her from traveling freely; it is morally wrong to sneak into her bedroom at night; it is morally wrong to stalk her; it is morally wrong to make her live in fear of violence; it is morally wrong to make it clear to her that she does not have the right to decide who she is going to have a sexual or romantic relationship with.

It is only in fiction that anyone can behave in this way and be perceived as anything other than morally wrong.

Re: This reflects a serious double-bind in real life too.

[alterid]

Of course I agree that it's morally wrong to steal someone's carburetor or sneak into their room to watch them sleep, and I don't mean to suggest that either of these things would ever be perceived as "charming" in real life. Obviously fiction differs from real life -- it enables a wider range of behaviours to be perceived as romantic/charming/hot. For me what is interesting is the *similarity* between fiction and real life, which is that in both cases there is a range of male behaviours that are sometimes considered charming, and within this range there is striking variation in women's judgments of similar behaviour from men.

There is a spectrum of what I'll call "possessive" behaviours displayed by men in both fiction and real life, ranging from the extreme (murders motivated by sexual jealousy, etc.) through the sometimes-romantic-in-fiction-but-too-extreme-for-real-life (stealing carburetors, sneaking into bedrooms) to the relatively mundane (e.g. starting a conversation with a woman you don't already know well). In both fiction and real life, women react to these behaviours with anything from disgust to sexual arousal. I think the only difference between women's perceptions of these behaviours in real life and in fiction is that they are able to perceive more extreme possessive behaviours as charming in fiction. I put this down to the fact that fiction permits us to experience only the positive aspects of something that might have negative consequences in real life. It's the same reason that many people who would never harm a soul in real life can savour a bloodthirsty fictional battle scene. Fiction makes it safe for us to turn down our superegos so that we can gratify our baser instincts without guilt! :)

If it is not solely the man's behaviour (i.e. the level of possessiveness he displays) that determines the woman's reaction, either in fiction or real life, then what does determine it? As you say, an author can steer the reader in either direction, but in real life there is no author -- but there is still enormous variation in perception. I would argue that the extra determining factor in real life is simply the extent to which the woman finds the man sexually attractive (which is a function of many things, including but not limited to his physical attractiveness). So I conclude that when a female reader finds some extremely possessive fictional behaviour romantic, what has happened is that the author has successfully persuaded her that the male character is highly sexually attractive to the female character (and possibly to the reader herself, although I don't think that is necessary or always happens).

That is a thought that I offer you in the hope that it is interesting to you and relevant here. But my main purpose is, as I said, to draw your attention to the predicament faced by real-life men in the real-life analogy to your literary expedition :) To me this is one of the "deep truths" the quote from your original post alludes to. I'm interested in any further thoughts you have.

Re: This reflects a serious double-bind in real life too.

[fox1013]

I don't believe in the predicament of which you are speaking. Yes, some women (and men) have fantasy lives which include a range of possessive behaviors which are unacceptable in the real world. Some women and men also have fantasy lives which include rape, pain, or abuse. The existence of rape fantasy, like the existence of Edward Cullen fantasies, does not put relationship-seekers in any such predicament.

Any exploration of dangerous behaviors should be explored by consenting adults in a safe, sane, and consensual manner which is negotiated in some fashion after a relationship begins. (That relationship may have begun five years ago or five minutes ago; safe negotiation doesn't require marriage, simply communication.) It's possible to want to live out a possessive fantasy just as it is possible to want to live out a rape fantasy, and that's something one negotiates.

But you can't negotiate with someone you haven't met. If you see a woman -- or man -- at a party, and think to yourself, I just heard that person telling her friend about how dreamy she finds it when Edward Cullen is all assertive with Bella Swan. I bet the right way to approach her is to crowd her against a wall and say "baby, you smell like my own personal brand of heroin", you are not fulfilling a fantasy for her, you are threatening and terrifying her, and should count yourself lucky if you are only slapped.

I think the only difference between women's perceptions of these behaviours in real life and in fiction is that they are able to perceive more extreme possessive behaviours as charming in fiction.

This is the key element that means there is no real life predicament. Yes, these extreme possessive behaviors might be charming in fiction, just as that bloodthirsty battle scene can seem like an exciting sports event in a movie. In real life, these extreme possessive behaviors are dangerous, and any individual attempting to use them in a relationship in a non-negotiated fashion is a threat and a danger.

At the end of the day, though, I find it really concerning that you consider starting a conversation with a woman you don't know well to be on the same continuum as murder motivated by sexual jealousy, theft to keep a woman from leaving an area she doesn't want to be in, or breaking and entering to partake in voyeuristic behavior. The difference here is far more than just a matter of scale, and it's really disturbing that you don't see that.

Re: This reflects a serious double-bind in real life too.

[alterid]

In real life, these extreme possessive behaviors are dangerous

Of course they are, and I have never argued that extreme possessive behaviours should be tolerated in real life, because that would be absurd -- please see my first sentence.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough about what I'm asking about. Within the subset of possessive male behaviours that sometimes merit a positive response (e.g. "that's so romantic") in real life and sometimes a negative one (e.g. "gross!") -- i.e. I'm specifically excluding crazy behaviours like murder, theft etc. here -- *something* causes a particular woman's reaction to go one way or another. I am interested in what that something is. In the analogous case of fiction, that something is (or at least can be) the author's direction, but real life has no (obvious) author -- hence my question (and my proposed answer: subjectively experienced sexual attractiveness).

At the end of the day, though, I find it really concerning that you consider starting a conversation with a woman you don't know well to be on the same continuum as murder motivated by sexual jealousy

Let's look at what *is* the same about these things: in fiction, they can both inspire reactions ranging from disgust to sexual arousal. Do you agree? If so: What explains this shared range of responses to these things in fiction?

In the hope of avoiding misunderstandings, here is something that I am specifically *not* saying: I am not arguing that these two things are morally equivalent in real life. I merely think there is a shared cause that prompts this shared range of reactions; if you believe that there are two (or more) distinct causes, then please elaborate.

Re: This reflects a serious double-bind in real life too.

[deborah]

but you keep avoiding the main point that both fox1013 and I have made: fiction can make anything seem appealing. Fiction can make Hannibal Lecter into an intriguing character. How on earth does an exploration of the techniques by which fiction makes something despicable appear appealing become a way for you to justify men having a hard time because they can't figure out what women actually want?

you started this conversation by saying

As your classroom's response clearly demonstrates, whether a woman perceives a man's behaviour as "charming" or "creepy" doesn't necessarily depend on *anything* in the behaviour of the man himself. Given that "creepiness" is widely held to be disgusting to the point of being morally wrong, this prompts the question: How the hell is this fair on guys?

I assert that whether or not these behaviors are creepy in real life is unquestionable, while whether they are creepy in fiction is a question of prose technique. You are effectively claiming that this means something is unfair for men. Again and again, you ignore the question of whether fiction techniques that make mass murderers or serial killers or any other unpleasant character into the sympathetic character is somehow also "unfair for men." (Hint: that's because it's not.)

Re: This reflects a serious double-bind in real life too.

[alterid]

I assert that whether or not these behaviors are creepy in real life is unquestionable

I think I see the sticking point now: it seems you personally find all possessive behaviours in real life to be unquestionably creepy in all cases. The problem is that that is demonstrably not the case for all women. A large proportion of women find some nonzero level of possessive display in real life to be not only appealing but in fact necessary to experiencing attraction -- when performed by certain men in certain contexts, *including* first meetings and other early-stage interactions -- and unappealing to the point of being morally wrong otherwise. These high-threshold women phrase their preferences in different ways, perhaps the most common being "I like a man to be a man", or "I go for real men". I myself have been counseled by female friends to "be more aggressive" in the way I deal with women I meet if I want to make myself sexually appealing to them. You might frown on these women, but do you deny they exist? And if they exist: how is a man who lacks mindreading powers to both respectfully and effectively approach a woman, given that her threshold and sexual interest level could be anywhere on the scale?

Where the acceptable-in-the-right-context threshold for male possessiveness is for each woman varies a lot, and I should have mentioned in my original post that this is a second factor in determining a woman's perception of some particular possessive male display. This threshold is like a governing switch for the other factor (level of attraction to the man). But importantly it shares the same characteristics that make it problematic as a basis for moral judgments of suitors: it is subjective, it varies across women, and it is not directly visible to others.

Again and again, you ignore the question of whether fiction techniques that make mass murderers or serial killers or any other unpleasant character into the sympathetic character is somehow also "unfair for men."

Murderers etc. are not in the same category, because unlike real-life displays of possessive behaviour, which many women find appealing to some extent, no woman (or man for that matter) finds the real-life equivalent of Hannibal Lecter romantically or sexually appealing. No real-life man has ever wondered how many innocent people he should kill to impress a particular woman, while knowing that there is a real possibility that his body count might not be *high enough* to engage her interest.

So what *is* in the same category? Easy: a woman approaching a man, who risks being judged a "slut" if she behaves too sexually in the man's purely subjective opinion, and who risks being uninteresting to him if she does not behave sexually enough, again in his opinion. She is not able to accurately gauge beforehand what kind of behaviour he will regard as appropriate because men's opinions on the topic are subjective, they vary across men, and they are not directly visible to others. If she guesses too high, the penalty is potentially a harsh moral judgment from him and others. Do you see what I mean now? There ought to be a reliable way for an adult (male or female) to approach another adult (male or female) with romantic or sexual intent in a way that both (a) is respectful enough not to provoke harsh moral judgments and (b) does not exclude the possibility of attracting a large proportion of people. But this is not the case today; we (both sexes) are mired in double binds about what behaviour is appropriate, because some behaviours that are necessary to attract some people are anathema to others.

My question is essentially: What can we do to ease or break these double binds? You are interested in what seems to me to be a close cousin of this question, in the setting of romantic fiction. This doesn't obligate you to be interested in my question, and if you aren't then I will leave it at that. But I detect that you think that my question is not merely off-topic but actually invalid in some sense. That is not the case, or at least you and fox1013 have not demonstrated as much so far. For my part I am trying to be as clear as possible, but obviously we come from different points of view, which means we can each be making assumptions that seem obvious to ourselves but have not been thought about by the other person, so please let me know if anything still remains unclear.

Re: This reflects a serious double-bind in real life too.

[fox1013]

You're approaching this from an intellectually disingenuous position. Women are not puzzles to be solved; there is no one set of behaviors that functions as a key to unlock a woman's vagina.

The reason I- and presumably Deborah- find your question invalid is that you're trying to reduce humanity to an artificial binary, rather than a collection of billions of people with vastly different tastes. That there isn't a single solution for all potential romantic partners is not "unfair" to you, or to anyone else; it's merely a function of humanity not being some type of collective hivemind. Romantic fiction is about the intersection of two particular individuals' tastes; you appear to be looking for some type of secret decoder ring that negates the role of the individual, and that isn't just problematic, it's offensive.

Re: This reflects a serious double-bind in real life too.

[deborah]

Alterid, I make no claims about whether or not every woman or every man finds any particular behavior unpleasant. I am making claims about whether or not something is socially acceptable. You keep trying to put "possessive behaviors" under a big umbrella without talking about specifics, but when you are talking about what is socially acceptable, you have to address specifics. Starting a conversation with a stranger, as long as you pay attention to body language and other cues asking you to go away, is socially acceptable. Pushing a stranger up against the wall and saying "yo baby, I'm your man" is not. Any woman who tells you "be more aggressive" or "I go for real men" might be telling you what her particular preference is, but that doesn't change the fact that certain behaviors are still not socially unacceptable, and for damn good reason. As I said earlier, any individuals who want to stray outside socially acceptable behaviors can negotiate that between two adult partners in a safe, sane, and consensual manner.

And just as you countered my general with specifics, I can assure you that humans are varied enough that there are certainly both women and men who would find the real-life equivalent of Hannibal Lecter romantically and sexually appealing. You do know the statistics about people attempting to hook up with individuals on death row, right? They are fascinating, to say the least. So no, you cannot take any individual's preference as a guideline for what is socially acceptable.

There ought to be a reliable way for an adult (male or female) to approach another adult (male or female) with romantic or sexual intent in a way that both (a) is respectful enough not to provoke harsh moral judgments and (b) does not exclude the possibility of attracting a large proportion of people

There is a wide variety of socially acceptable ways for one adult to approach another adult with romantic or sexual intent. But "reliable"? As Fox1013 says, women are not puzzle to be solved. All of us are different, and all of us have different ways we want to be approached. Leaving aside the fact that people have different preferences in what you are calling levels of aggressiveness or possessiveness, you are assuming that for every strange woman you are attracted to, there is some magical formula which would make her (1) interested in romantic or social overtures at all at this time, (2) from men, (3) from you. Since this is patently quite obviously false -- even the most egotistical potential suitor would have to admit that some women are monogamously partnered, gay, asexual, or otherwise not potentially interested in him -- the idea that there could be a reliable method should immediately become obviously false.

And of course the variety of socially acceptable manners changes based on the micro-society you enter. If you go to a BDSM play party, there are a different set of acceptable opening gambits (although if you go to a BDSM play party thinking there are no rules, you will quickly find yourself ejected; subcultures often have far stricter rules than society as a whole).

Also, as I have tried to make clear in every response to you, yes, I am looking at the creation of what is sexually appealing in fiction. That's what this post is about, that's what every response I have tried to make is about. It absolutely does not obligate me to be interested in your question, anymore than the fact that you find a woman attractive obligates her to be interested in you. And while I might potentially be interested in the question of how complicated people express complicated attraction in a complicated world, I would (1) not be interested in it in a post about fiction, and (2) not be interested in it with somebody who begin their argument by saying "don't you see how this is unfair to men?"

Re: This reflects a serious double-bind in real life too.

[fox1013]

What I'm confused about in your comment is the way in which you appear to be moving goalposts without realizing it. You appear to be saying that while of course in real life these behaviors aren't on the same continuum, in fiction they are. And that's simply not true. Aside from a few extremes, behavior like that isn't held up as appealing in fiction.

When you look at fiction on a meta level, the reason stories work is that the two precise characters chosen click in some way that makes for an interesting narrative. We don't hear about the 40 other girls who realized Edward was watching them sleep and either pressed charges or moved away; they don't fulfill the extratextual demands of a love story. Edward may have felt the same way about all of them, but it doesn't matter; the very concept of fiction mandates that the two characters at the forefront will be the ones to form that connection.

It's not sexual attractiveness that determines whether behavior is creepy; someone very attractive can be super creepy. As Deborah said multiple times, the constructs of fiction allow for implied consent. Because, as you say, there is no author in real life, the only way to achieve consent in life is to actually discuss and negotiate it. This is not a slippery slope.

Re: This reflects a serious double-bind in real life too.

[alterid]

In real life, these extreme possessive behaviors are dangerous

Rereading your post, I'm not sure whether you intend "these extreme possessive behaviours" to mean murder/theft/spying/etc., or pressing someone against a wall and starting a conversation, as in the example you gave earlier. FTR my reply just now assumed the former.

Re: This reflects a serious double-bind in real life too.

[deborah]

I can't speak for the meaning fox1013 intended, but pushing a stranger against the wall and starting a conversation is also dangerous.

Re: This reflects a serious double-bind in real life too.

[fox1013]

I'm curious as to how 'starting a conversation with someone you don't know well' became 'pressing someone against a wall and starting a conversation.' These are not equivalent!