Necessary to be able to write the opposite gender?

I don't have a link to adduce evidence for the assertion (though in this thread, it seems that doesn't necessarily even discourage some people from proclaiming things as "incontrovertible fact" ), but I believe that's probably true everywhere, isn't it?

 

This is off-topic (perhaps the subject would need its own thread), but: to seize and carry away forcibly? Isn't that abduction? If I grab a guy and drag him out of, say, my house or a bar because he's acting like an ass, I'd say that's hardly rape. Was there no clarification as to what "seize and carry away" entails?

What do you mean by "violation of one's mind"? Because I'd see actual physical rape (for the sake of an example, let's say forced vaginal or anal penetration) as a more devastating experience instead of... would "violation of one's mind" be like some sort of brainwashing alá KUBARK or what?

I did some research on the subject a few years back and, if my memory serves me right, that does hold true at least in most Western countries (dunno about the rest of the world): most women who have been raped, have been raped indoors and by someone they know.
Recently though, at least here in Finland, rapes committed outdoors by strangers have increased in number, a part of them related to culture clashes.

 

?

That was Webster's New World Dictionary; mid 60's edition. I was surprised, too, but it's there.

Mental rape? Post Traumatic Stress Disorder might be compared to its possible results. Waterboarding might be another example. A rapist with ED certainly would need a new way to force his will upon his victim. A woman rapist would need to do the same. Even the legal definition of rape, in some states, consider it statutory rape to take a girl (certainly boy as well now) across state lines and progress to heavy petting or undressing. To rape someone's mind they would need to forced to do something, such as murder a loved one or watch it happen, with such intensity that they are emotionally scarred for life.

 

@DrWhozit, okay, now I understood. Yeah, heavy petting and undressing following an abduction would count as rape in my book, but if you remove the petting / undressing, it'd just be abduction.

Waterboarding, on the other hand, is torture, not rape, imo (even though rape can be used as a method of torture).

KUBARK was CIA's counterintelligence, interrogation, and torture manual from 1963. It discusses methods of brainwashing in one part.

 

And hell, some women don't even know women. *points to writers of The Rules* *Shudders*

 

Once again. If ever I want a cursory, itemized definition of any word, I crack Webster's. If I can't find it there I Bing it. If not there and I really want to be certain, I have a 60's edition Library Webster's and an American Heritage. It was surprising to see what amounts to abduction being classified as rape.

As for the topic, it became tougher to decide once the rape part became the major issue. Rape, or abduction, torture or molestation alike are not romantic by any means. Let me throw this at you though. More than a few women have a rape fantasy. Is it romantic for a man to satisfy that fantasy? This discussion has also brought in the rape of a male. Do gay men ever have a rape fantasy?

 

Let's just all agree that rape is wrong, and all agree to never do it. Problem solved.

 

Without asking.

 

This is kind of rape too, or at the very least sexual harassment.

 

Some states in the US see it as the former.

 

Good for those states.

 

"Hi, Jack!"

 

Eh? What is this?

 

A suggestion that some of the discussion, diverging as it certainly does from the question asked in the original post, is "hijacking" the thread (i.e. deliberately trying to change the subject in order to confound the objectives of the original poster - not my own opinion of what happened, here).

It's a common forum phenomenon, though: some people prefer discussions to be confined exclusively to their original questions; others prefer their conversations to flow more freely, sometimes changing the subject and (typically) involving more of the members that way; some people prefer to take part in discussions; others prefer to criticise their participants.

It's all part of "forum life's rich tapestry".

 

You spelled literary discussion wrong, I think.

After four pages of comments the original subject has been exhausted.

 

Cogito - not I.

You and I appear to share a perspective, on this point.

That had to happen, eventually, in some discussion, according to the so-called "law of large numbers".

 

That is exactly the point, most men aren't the type portrayed in romance novels. Okay, most men except me. Imagine if romance novels had to rely on the average guy profile to fill their pages with? Can you image the sex scenes; they would be, like, half a paragraph. Maybe! While speed reading. the scent of jackhammer dust sent a ripple of excitement through her thighs... please let it be pepperoni and mushroom pizza tonight...

 

I would've imagined the exact opposite: delving into great detail when it comes to observing the girl's body, especially the most interesting parts, what she does, how it feels what she does, how she sounds, how she looks when she comes... that could take a few pages.

Then again, I do know guys who are the exact opposite: more interested in the bottle than their woman and their idea of sex is, indeed, a quick wank into another person's body.
Maybe guys are more divided in this matter, 50/50 or so?

 

I say we have a poll. With a polygraph suitably notarized.

 

Yes, we do have a... Oh. Wait.

And who the heck is Polly Graff?

 

[stereotype]This is also why you don't want realistic portrayals of men in romance. The female reader doesn't want to read about the female protagonist in great detail. Lots of details on the guy, the bare minimum about the girl[/stereotype]

 

@KaTrian, exactly why many straight men prefer lesbian erotica / porn: you don't have to sprain your eyeballs trying to dodge hairy man-asses, veiny schlongs, and wrinkly nutsacks (or, the worst of all, try to tune out guy-groans and man-moans which are an abomination to begin with ). I'd imagine the same applies to literature.

 

Not sure how much men I MEAN HUMANS self-insert.

Basically when you target romance/erotica to women, you're supposed to allow the reader to self-insert, that's why first person works so well (like in Twilight or 50 Shades), I'd imagine.

 

This is why I don't think my love story qualifies as a romance. My characters are individuals.

 

You need to read A Billion Wicked Thoughts. Which, I think, if you want to write erotica, would help set in your mind the type of character traits you'd want to establish based on your target audience. If nothing else it will jar you into a new reality.