![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
megwritesI'm a fan of the SFF Romance genre, I'm not going to lie. Although, I tend to like my stories to have more SFF than Romance. Still, it's a genre I dip into every once and a while.
With romance, often times, comes sex.
I've got nothing against sex (really!). What I do have against sex in higher type fantasy (scifi and fantasy set in the present day is another matter*) is sometimes I pick up a story, notice that a lot of people are going at it like bunnies (heterosexually) and nobody's getting pregnant or sick.
(*Sci-fi/ present day fantasy gets a pass. Sci-fi, especially, if it's one of those highly politically centralized worlds with high technology, because I can make up something about everyone getting birth control when they go to the doctor as a matter of course, or something like that. And it being so normal nobody thinks about it. Present-day fantasy 'cause I can just pretend like someone's on the pill or using a diaphragm or got the shot or *something*. Fantasy, however, doesn't get this luxury. Fantasy gets dragons and mages, though. Fair trade.)
I'm willing to let the STD thing go, especially if we're talking a different world. Because I can probably work out some excuse for your world to have no or low occurance of diseases and if you really impress me otherwise, I can show you to the "I'll Let It" slide.
The pregnancy thing, not so much. Especially when the author seems like they sidestep the issue. I mean come on, give me some sort of spell or charm or potion or *SOMETHING* that characters can take to prevent themselves from getting pregnant.
Why does this make me mad?
Because I live in 21st America. Argueably the place and time in history where birth control is most available and effective. I mean, dude, Plan B just went OTC. And even I, in this very technologically advanced, birth-control RICH society, have to be freaking dilligent about birth control lest I accidentally create a mini-me that I don't want.
So how is that a bunch of people in a world that's anywhere from 12th to 18th century-level advancement can have way more sex than I ever will and nobody is making babies? Are in a world where the women magically are infertile whenever the author says so? Is this the Women Don't Have Ovaries World?
(Let's not talk about how PISSED this makes me when the author is female herself and I know that she, a literate woman capable of writing a novel, has GOT to know better).
I'm not asking that every single female in fantasy situations who has sex get instantly get pregnant. 'cause that would be equally bad and I'm so over the 19th century, really.
I would just like that at some point the author either acknowledge the possibility with the old "here's a magical charm to prevent pregnancy" trick or at least having it be a concern.
I'm not asking for an entire chapter. I'm asking for one damn line, somewhere, somehow, to show me that these characters are rational enough to know the consequences of their actions.
I mean, come the *frell* on, if the ladies keep puttin' out like broken candy machines, eventually somebody is going to get pregnant. Why?
Because SEX MAKES BABIES. There is no stork. No cabbage patch.
There's just *sex*. And when Tab A goes into Slot B, quite often, you end up construct your very own HUMAN BEING.
And unless you are working in a VERY, VERY different world, that fact doesn't change. Ever.
If you're working in a world that's suffering a vast infertility problem, ala Oedipus, then feel free to ignore me.
If you're not, then *you* as an author need to make sure you realize that fact before you go off on your merry "and then they done sex" way. Because I, your sensitive and intelligent reader, am definitely going to take note of that fact.
I can excuse a small handful of incidences of unprotected sex. I can probably, with the right timing and circumstances, excuse up to about 15.
Fifteen.
*Fifteen*.
That's a hefty sex bank I'm giving you. Don't abuse it.
But I, knowing a thing or two about the female reproductive cycle, know that if Character A and Character B are inserting tab A into slot B every day of the month for two or three months, eventually new people will start getting created.
The only excuse I'll give is if eventually one of your characters notices this and starts to wonder if they (or their partner) are infertile. Then that's a whole other thing and it means that someone IS paying attention and I'm cool with that.
Otherwise, I'm totally putting you on restriction and if you keep messing up, I will revoke your access to my *brain*.
And you wanna be in my brain, 'cause my brain makes me buy books.
*sigh*
It maddens me when people create worlds with different sexual scruples and don't write it like they have any idea of why social-sexual rules/norms exist.
The short answer being is: sexual mores exist because sex makes babies and babies are people. Society has to be able to control this or things get out of hand (or so society thinks).
Nota bene: No society is perfect. Thus, no society's sexual mores are perfect. Some of them are downright cruel, but they're not just cruel 'cause they can be. They're cruel for a damn reason.
Here, how about a little lesson in this that I learned in Anthro class (which is the study of societies, something I think every SFF author should take if only for the ability to think about societies in a useful way).
In European culture (one I'm sure we're all familiar with), it's quite frowned upon for men and women to have sex outside of marriage. Now, there's a difference between how frowned upon it is for men versus women.
Why? Because European society is patrilineal and patriarchal (traditionally). Therefore, you are sorted in society based upon your father. Your name, your status, your property, your freakin' profession in life (at times) is based upon who your father is. Thus, it's very *very* (VERY!) important to know the answer to the all important question: "Who's your daddy?"
It's also why men cheating vs. women cheating is treated so differently. Because paternity is an elusive little bugger. You can never really be sure who the father is.
So if a man cheats, he's got plausible deniability on his side. Which is why Caesar picking up Cleopatra's baby was so galling to the Romans of his time (who pretty much followed the European pattern). Because he had every chance to walk away and say "this ain't my kid" and dude, in the pre-Maury Povich era if the man denied paternity, the woman and the bastard kid were just stuck like chuck. You can say "he looks just like you", but you got no evidence.
So as far as Roman society is concerned, the only attachment the kid has in life is with it's *mother*. Caesar picks it up, and is confirming paternity. And is confirming that this kid has some kind of right to his name, his stuff (including his authority). It also puts into jeopard succession and his other children (by his proper Roman wife, btw).
So a man can deny cheating and keep things in order. Which is why European society (England in the 17th century particularly) had this anxiety about bastard children. Why the word has turned into an insult and cuss word.
It's about the same as the Sioux insult, "You are a person with no family". Because it means you're a kid with nothing to place you in society. You rely on your mother and hope she can marry well enough to a nice guy who'll give you his name and some of the furniture when he passes on. But otherwise you're free floating. And society hates floaters, dude. Society has OCD. Can't stand things not to be stacked up neatly.
Which was why women cheating was so much more punished. Because you a) can't really deny you had a kid, (especially if everyone in the town/church saw you pregnant) and keep things in order and b) if your husband/lover denies paternity - you and your kid are screwed and c) it could also lead to that most disastrous of situations in which one man is raising and taking care of another man's kids, possibly at the expense of others that are his.
Thus, the patriarchy of Europe (not the Orthodox church, but they also tend to frown on gettin' the ding-ding without a wedding ring) really needs for women to be faithful and not have kids that aren't their husbands'.
Also, men are runnin' the show at this point in time.
This also explains, if you're smart about it, why the upper classes get a pass on this. Why Caesar can get away with having an out-of-marriage kid. Why it's worth a woman's while to cheat with a king or prince or duke or something.
'cause if Daddy is rich/powerful enough and/or enough of his other children die off (quite possible!) then there could be something in it for the baby (and the baby mama). A king can have all the bastards he wants. He's king. They'll all live very well, and so will their mothers.
But this will also tell you why "wife-stealing" is so accepted and so a part of a lot of Plains Indian cultures.
Because in LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of American Indian cultures things work way different. Things are matrilocal, matrilineal. Meaning, you inherit your status, name, stuff, and position from your *mother*, and households are set up in the mother's house. The mother is the stable axis around which people rotate.
Sometimes (in other Native American cultures), your father (or the person you call father) is just your mother's brother and not even the guy who got busy with your mom. Or, even better, sometimes you call both your mother and your aunt by the title of "mother", and they both raise you because you all come from the same grandmother, thus you're all on the same tier and the person who physically bore you doesn't matter (socially! I'm sure that on a personal/emotional level, things are different).
So it doesn't matter as much WHO your mother is doin' it with. Doesn't matter who donated the other chromosome to give you the XX or the XY.
Somebody comes along and steals you and your mother and takes you to another teepee (please, please realize that I'm probably not using exactly correct terms), it's no big sweat. The line is still the same. Your mother didn't change, just where you're living and how big the teepee is.
It's actually a GOOD idea for a woman to cheat (or, yanno, ask for someone to come steal her and the kids at around half past noon tomorrow) on her husband with a richer, stronger, faster, better looking man that should happen along. Thus, women aren't punished for it. And it doesn't matter if a man giving out food to his kids or someone else's. Even if they were his, it's not like he could give them much anyway.
And if you're really Machiavellian about it - it's in his best genetic interest to father children with a really smart woman who'll attach on to the strongest man possible and make sure his kids get the most food/stuff, even if it's not with him. Less work and more grandkids for you, dude.
(I will not insert how great things are when men just let women run the show. I will refrain. I will refrain).
Even if we're talking Eastern and Southeastern Native American tribes, the same thing seems to apply. Everything is parsed out according to your mother. The Cherokee, the Iroquois, and any other major tribe you might have heard of are probably matrilineal (meaning your name, your line, your clan comes from mommy dearest) and matrilocal (you live in your mother's house, and the women stay around the mother).
Which leads, coincidentally, to women having quite a bit of nonsexual power.
And of course, good ol' Europe sends over it's brightest and best to SCREW the whole thing up.
But that's so not even CLOSE to relevant. The point is this: you can now see how this leads to a different set of sexual morality.
Good.
Now write like it.
I gotta do everything around here. *headdesk*
With romance, often times, comes sex.
I've got nothing against sex (really!). What I do have against sex in higher type fantasy (scifi and fantasy set in the present day is another matter*) is sometimes I pick up a story, notice that a lot of people are going at it like bunnies (heterosexually) and nobody's getting pregnant or sick.
(*Sci-fi/ present day fantasy gets a pass. Sci-fi, especially, if it's one of those highly politically centralized worlds with high technology, because I can make up something about everyone getting birth control when they go to the doctor as a matter of course, or something like that. And it being so normal nobody thinks about it. Present-day fantasy 'cause I can just pretend like someone's on the pill or using a diaphragm or got the shot or *something*. Fantasy, however, doesn't get this luxury. Fantasy gets dragons and mages, though. Fair trade.)
I'm willing to let the STD thing go, especially if we're talking a different world. Because I can probably work out some excuse for your world to have no or low occurance of diseases and if you really impress me otherwise, I can show you to the "I'll Let It" slide.
The pregnancy thing, not so much. Especially when the author seems like they sidestep the issue. I mean come on, give me some sort of spell or charm or potion or *SOMETHING* that characters can take to prevent themselves from getting pregnant.
Why does this make me mad?
Because I live in 21st America. Argueably the place and time in history where birth control is most available and effective. I mean, dude, Plan B just went OTC. And even I, in this very technologically advanced, birth-control RICH society, have to be freaking dilligent about birth control lest I accidentally create a mini-me that I don't want.
So how is that a bunch of people in a world that's anywhere from 12th to 18th century-level advancement can have way more sex than I ever will and nobody is making babies? Are in a world where the women magically are infertile whenever the author says so? Is this the Women Don't Have Ovaries World?
(Let's not talk about how PISSED this makes me when the author is female herself and I know that she, a literate woman capable of writing a novel, has GOT to know better).
I'm not asking that every single female in fantasy situations who has sex get instantly get pregnant. 'cause that would be equally bad and I'm so over the 19th century, really.
I would just like that at some point the author either acknowledge the possibility with the old "here's a magical charm to prevent pregnancy" trick or at least having it be a concern.
I'm not asking for an entire chapter. I'm asking for one damn line, somewhere, somehow, to show me that these characters are rational enough to know the consequences of their actions.
I mean, come the *frell* on, if the ladies keep puttin' out like broken candy machines, eventually somebody is going to get pregnant. Why?
Because SEX MAKES BABIES. There is no stork. No cabbage patch.
There's just *sex*. And when Tab A goes into Slot B, quite often, you end up construct your very own HUMAN BEING.
And unless you are working in a VERY, VERY different world, that fact doesn't change. Ever.
If you're working in a world that's suffering a vast infertility problem, ala Oedipus, then feel free to ignore me.
If you're not, then *you* as an author need to make sure you realize that fact before you go off on your merry "and then they done sex" way. Because I, your sensitive and intelligent reader, am definitely going to take note of that fact.
I can excuse a small handful of incidences of unprotected sex. I can probably, with the right timing and circumstances, excuse up to about 15.
Fifteen.
*Fifteen*.
That's a hefty sex bank I'm giving you. Don't abuse it.
But I, knowing a thing or two about the female reproductive cycle, know that if Character A and Character B are inserting tab A into slot B every day of the month for two or three months, eventually new people will start getting created.
The only excuse I'll give is if eventually one of your characters notices this and starts to wonder if they (or their partner) are infertile. Then that's a whole other thing and it means that someone IS paying attention and I'm cool with that.
Otherwise, I'm totally putting you on restriction and if you keep messing up, I will revoke your access to my *brain*.
And you wanna be in my brain, 'cause my brain makes me buy books.
*sigh*
It maddens me when people create worlds with different sexual scruples and don't write it like they have any idea of why social-sexual rules/norms exist.
The short answer being is: sexual mores exist because sex makes babies and babies are people. Society has to be able to control this or things get out of hand (or so society thinks).
Nota bene: No society is perfect. Thus, no society's sexual mores are perfect. Some of them are downright cruel, but they're not just cruel 'cause they can be. They're cruel for a damn reason.
Here, how about a little lesson in this that I learned in Anthro class (which is the study of societies, something I think every SFF author should take if only for the ability to think about societies in a useful way).
In European culture (one I'm sure we're all familiar with), it's quite frowned upon for men and women to have sex outside of marriage. Now, there's a difference between how frowned upon it is for men versus women.
Why? Because European society is patrilineal and patriarchal (traditionally). Therefore, you are sorted in society based upon your father. Your name, your status, your property, your freakin' profession in life (at times) is based upon who your father is. Thus, it's very *very* (VERY!) important to know the answer to the all important question: "Who's your daddy?"
It's also why men cheating vs. women cheating is treated so differently. Because paternity is an elusive little bugger. You can never really be sure who the father is.
So if a man cheats, he's got plausible deniability on his side. Which is why Caesar picking up Cleopatra's baby was so galling to the Romans of his time (who pretty much followed the European pattern). Because he had every chance to walk away and say "this ain't my kid" and dude, in the pre-Maury Povich era if the man denied paternity, the woman and the bastard kid were just stuck like chuck. You can say "he looks just like you", but you got no evidence.
So as far as Roman society is concerned, the only attachment the kid has in life is with it's *mother*. Caesar picks it up, and is confirming paternity. And is confirming that this kid has some kind of right to his name, his stuff (including his authority). It also puts into jeopard succession and his other children (by his proper Roman wife, btw).
So a man can deny cheating and keep things in order. Which is why European society (England in the 17th century particularly) had this anxiety about bastard children. Why the word has turned into an insult and cuss word.
It's about the same as the Sioux insult, "You are a person with no family". Because it means you're a kid with nothing to place you in society. You rely on your mother and hope she can marry well enough to a nice guy who'll give you his name and some of the furniture when he passes on. But otherwise you're free floating. And society hates floaters, dude. Society has OCD. Can't stand things not to be stacked up neatly.
Which was why women cheating was so much more punished. Because you a) can't really deny you had a kid, (especially if everyone in the town/church saw you pregnant) and keep things in order and b) if your husband/lover denies paternity - you and your kid are screwed and c) it could also lead to that most disastrous of situations in which one man is raising and taking care of another man's kids, possibly at the expense of others that are his.
Thus, the patriarchy of Europe (not the Orthodox church, but they also tend to frown on gettin' the ding-ding without a wedding ring) really needs for women to be faithful and not have kids that aren't their husbands'.
Also, men are runnin' the show at this point in time.
This also explains, if you're smart about it, why the upper classes get a pass on this. Why Caesar can get away with having an out-of-marriage kid. Why it's worth a woman's while to cheat with a king or prince or duke or something.
'cause if Daddy is rich/powerful enough and/or enough of his other children die off (quite possible!) then there could be something in it for the baby (and the baby mama). A king can have all the bastards he wants. He's king. They'll all live very well, and so will their mothers.
But this will also tell you why "wife-stealing" is so accepted and so a part of a lot of Plains Indian cultures.
Because in LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of American Indian cultures things work way different. Things are matrilocal, matrilineal. Meaning, you inherit your status, name, stuff, and position from your *mother*, and households are set up in the mother's house. The mother is the stable axis around which people rotate.
Sometimes (in other Native American cultures), your father (or the person you call father) is just your mother's brother and not even the guy who got busy with your mom. Or, even better, sometimes you call both your mother and your aunt by the title of "mother", and they both raise you because you all come from the same grandmother, thus you're all on the same tier and the person who physically bore you doesn't matter (socially! I'm sure that on a personal/emotional level, things are different).
So it doesn't matter as much WHO your mother is doin' it with. Doesn't matter who donated the other chromosome to give you the XX or the XY.
Somebody comes along and steals you and your mother and takes you to another teepee (please, please realize that I'm probably not using exactly correct terms), it's no big sweat. The line is still the same. Your mother didn't change, just where you're living and how big the teepee is.
It's actually a GOOD idea for a woman to cheat (or, yanno, ask for someone to come steal her and the kids at around half past noon tomorrow) on her husband with a richer, stronger, faster, better looking man that should happen along. Thus, women aren't punished for it. And it doesn't matter if a man giving out food to his kids or someone else's. Even if they were his, it's not like he could give them much anyway.
And if you're really Machiavellian about it - it's in his best genetic interest to father children with a really smart woman who'll attach on to the strongest man possible and make sure his kids get the most food/stuff, even if it's not with him. Less work and more grandkids for you, dude.
(I will not insert how great things are when men just let women run the show. I will refrain. I will refrain).
Even if we're talking Eastern and Southeastern Native American tribes, the same thing seems to apply. Everything is parsed out according to your mother. The Cherokee, the Iroquois, and any other major tribe you might have heard of are probably matrilineal (meaning your name, your line, your clan comes from mommy dearest) and matrilocal (you live in your mother's house, and the women stay around the mother).
Which leads, coincidentally, to women having quite a bit of nonsexual power.
And of course, good ol' Europe sends over it's brightest and best to SCREW the whole thing up.
But that's so not even CLOSE to relevant. The point is this: you can now see how this leads to a different set of sexual morality.
Good.
Now write like it.
I gotta do everything around here. *headdesk*
no subject
Date: 2006-08-31 02:04 pm (UTC)*loves you*