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

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?"