Should I avoid having sexual abuse or rape involved?

It's hard to create a generic reference, a one size fits all approach but the less direct detail then the more room for the reader to fill the blanks with their own experiences

 

The general principle is that, if the woman is raped only to characterize the man, then the narrative is agreeing with the rapist's worldview that she's an object that was used, rather than a person who was violated (even if the narrative tries to disagree with the action that he took within this worldview). "Making the story being about him committing rape, but then feeling bad about it" is just one possible version of this general principle.

Even if the focus of the story as a whole is on him, the focus of this specific part of the story should be on her (even if, as with the rest of the story, this specific part is still told from his POV).

I am so sorry to hear that. Thank you for being willing to share this.

Absolutely. So many rapists get away with it because society doesn't deem their actions to be "as bad" as those of some hypothetical super-boogeyman, and it would be extremely good for a writer to show that the "less horrific" assaults and abuses are still horrific.

If you show the effects of a character's trauma from the event going forward in their lives, but if a reader doesn't believe that it happened because they didn't see it explicitly on the page, then that's the reader's problem. Not yours. If you don't want to go into explicit details of the event itself, then by all means, you don't have to. I'm pretty sure I won't be.

The best fiction challenges the popular misconceptions, such as "men can't be rape victims."

By all means, feel free to challenge this.

 

If it is as vague as "I'll never forgive him for what he did to me" then your overlaying your own experience onto that statement and making it as bad as you see it... That is how allusion works. So it depends on how direct the words are not how direct your thoughts are, but showing concern for how your words inflict on the reader is what people are saying you should do in this thread

 

I'd be sure to include that the stories main focus is on my MC and what he's been going through. The villains main goal is for power and ownership, sexual abuse is just one of his acts of abusing his power even further.

Thank you for agreeing and understanding. This should also be a good motive for me to write this.

If I do decide to include more details as proof, I'd probably wait to further reveal some of that much later in the story, where the readers have already fell in love with the MC will now relate to his pain even further.

I couldn't agree more, thank you.

 

Well the sexual abuse part in the MCs life wouldn't be the major playing point in his roles for who he's become or act for vengeance. In fact he would have moved on for a while after not being under the command of the villain. It's as an adult he begins to realize how horrible the villain was, the bad things the villain made him do, the bad things the villain did to others and to other children. The MC will not only want to stop the villain for what terrible acts the villain has done to the MC and to others but for the guilt the MC now feels for supporting the villain in his orders when he was younger and was unaware what the villains main intent was and now he feels he must put an end to the villain and his bad causes. Won't be easy since the villain holds a high power and can easily blackmail and frame the MC and try to have him killed with the power he holds.

Anytime I hear about male rape in fiction, it's always some comical relief like it's seen as some joke. The Hot Chick and Half Baked come to mind. And for a female raped victim it's usually a traumatic shock value at a young age that either destroys her or as a plot device to kill in revenge. Mine would be different.

 

Probably get lynched for writing it in the current climate of yew tree and #metoo

 

Interesting, so when the right time to bring up the sexual abuse that happened to the MC, bring it in the villains narration of view, while still maintaining him as a ruthless deceiving scumbag?

 

That sounds fantastic.

Apparently, the "comedy" film 40 Days and 40 Nights ended the same way :/

My own character is extra-tricky for a few reasons, including what you just said:

Spoiler

1) Amy Carmine is a homicidal, sociopathic villain protagonist who self-medicated with serial murder when her PTSD was at its worst, so I need to emphasize that being raped at 15 did not turn her into a serial killer: she attends survivor meetings every week, and she's confident that if any of the other people there tried to make themselves feel better the same way that she did, then they'd just traumatize themselves even worse because they're not wired to enjoy violence the way she is.

She comes down very strongly on the side of Nature over Nurture, and if anybody tried telling her that being raped turned her into a serial killer, then she'd tell them that millions of people in America go through what she went through without turning out the way she did (Lady Gaga, Oprah Winfrey...), whereas hundreds if not thousands of people in America turn out the way that she did without going through the things that she did (Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer...). She feels she has the most in common with people who share her Nature and her Nurture (Aileen Wuornos, Henry Lee Lucas...), but if she had to pick just one, she'd say she has more in common with the likes of Ted Bundy than she does with the likes of Lady Gaga. (This second part about Ted Bundy vs. Lady Gaga, I have not worked explicitly into any of the dialogue in the first book, but I have worked the bit about survivor groups into the first book, and I'm looking for ways to work the Ted Bundy / Lady Gaga bit into future books).

2) She's not the main character. Amy's female friend Charlie Petersen is the main character of the story, and their male friend Alec Shorman is the first-person peripheral narrator, so I need to be careful to emphasize – through Alec telling Charlie's story – that the impact Amy's trauma has had on her own life is more important than the impact it's had on Charlie's and Alec's.

Granted, the fact that I'm using the first-person peripheral narration in the first place (Alec relating the plot that Charlie's driving) is proof that it's possible to focus on one person's story through the eyes of someone else, but just because something can be done well doesn't also mean that it can't be done not-well.

This. It's so easy for writers to put things into our villains that we know are evil, and that we hope to use to characterize our villains as evil, but which inadvertently reinforce those ideas in the minds of readers who don't already know there's anything wrong with it.

 

And this is made harder by media (TV shows especially) that has a buffoon saying or doing the evil thing (usually racist/sexist speech). They pretend that the point of the bit is to associate the joke with the buffoon, when really it's just a thinly-veiled excuse to tell the joke for laughs.

 

The worst thing is when someone agree's with the idiot. There's a racist statement by someone on tv who is clearly a representation of an idiot and someone in the room feels justified in backing up the statement or justified in their own thinking... It's easier to seethe until you leave than tell a freind about their freinds.

 

Thanks! Basically the rape/sexual abuse part won't be his main quest for revenge on the villain, rather that he will now know as a full adult that what happened to him as a child was wrong, that the military orders he was forced to do was wrong, forced into recruiting other children for the villain, unaware of their fait that the villain planned to do to them just like when he was a child was wrong. and just about everything in his life, so it would be a mix of revenge, guilt and redemption.

Yikes, almost forgot about that one ;/ yeah that's another example of how badly perceived male on male rape really is. And it's crazy to think that this is a real issue going on in our world today that many fail to understand or take seriously.

It's almost like my MC! Well kind of, in a sense he does start in the beginning as a killer, more like a gun for hired or assassin killer, even though it's not the same, it's still what he has become, and no it's also not because of the rape sex abuse as he's been through a ton of more trauma than just that. He's become who he is cause of how he was basically forced and manipulated in a sense into this lifestyle. When he finally realizes all that had happened to him and to others was wrong and was the responsibility of the villains causes, not only angers the MC but creates a lot of guilt in finally understanding what really happened, yes even the rape/sexual abuse part he finally realizes was bad, and no he does not become that "guy" thinking rape is ok. It's just part of what happened to him along with other traumas as he was mainly brainwashed into only serving one purpose to fight and take orders, the sexual abuse was just a way for the villain to show "I have power over you, but you can never be as good as me"

ACTUALLY , what I could do is make it so the MC did not even understand what rape was or what was happening to him, it would still affect him in many ways but he could not of noticed it as much or understand why he's so affected later on in life. It's like when a child sees something on T.V and they think it meant something ok, even though it was bad and they didn't really understand what it meant then years later they look back and are like shocked how they thought that was a good thing when they were a little kid and didn't know what it meant at the time.

 

I just realized something, if the MC finally realizes how bad the villain was when he was younger and realizes the villains sexual abuse acts were meant for wrong reasons then how do I explain how the MC didn't turn up growing up like the villain in being lead to believe sexual abuse is ok? I don't want my MC to be that way but if he was brainwashed by the villain and didn't know what was right from wrong, surely he would of done the same to someone while he got older, thinking it's ok and normal. How do I describe the actions of the MC not ever taking part in such acts like the villain did, considering the MC would of never found out how terrible the sexual abuse was or realized it until now?

Can someone please help me out on this one

 

For the villain to chose that behaviour shows a complete lack of sympathy, empathy, compassion and morals = psychopath. He had a choice to some extent to act on his impulses or not.
MC does not have the impulses and clearly has sympathy, empathy and compassion to see that it is wrong. He was forced to behave that way by the villain.

All soldiers in all wars do terrible things because they follow orders, (a common reference to the Nazi's post WW2, "we were just following orders"). At the time they are doing the right thing because the person in charge gave the order, and thus they were a good soldier no matter how much of a terrible person they were in the moment... Then you go home and be normal and fit in pretending everythings fine because you know everyone will blame you for doing what you did... "And I think to myself, what a wonderful world"

 

That's all very true. But if the MC was forced to behave that way, unlike the villain who's always had no empathy, compassion and sympathy for others, which led him to take pleasute in killings, abuse and sexual abuse, how do I explain how the MC remained to have compassion and sympathy and no signs of ever wanting to commit sexual abuse on kids when he himself was trained by the villain as a child and exposed to all the horrible things the villain has done? Especially since the villain was very abusive and commited sexual abuse on the MC himself?

 

Like growing up in a family you don't know how wrong things are because there is no guide book. Then when you start seeing something beyond your family you have an opposing veiw to make a judgement. So with the second army they behave differently and he see's how wrong it was with the 1st army. He is picked up by the 2nd and he is expecting/waiting for those things to happen but they don't behave that way, then he has a chance to question his own life beyond the rigid structure previously inflicted on him and understand the reality of how wrong it was... Also psychopaths are born not made so MC wasn't born with those traits he was just following orders with the first army.

 

Ah got it, that is true. He was never born like the villain was and some people are just born crazy like in the villains case. Some people were telling me that the MC needs to turn bad like the villain cause he'd be influenced by his ways, which is what I don't want but you're right there are so many other ways around this. He learns differently from the other army.

Sorry for editing the post as I felt it was too long and I was going off topic a bit

Perhaps I can have a student/comrade rival from the MCs time serving the villain and that rival could of ended up following into the villains footsteps becoming the next created monster follower so to speak.

 

That's why MC was dumped and left for dead, surplus to requirements. Never quite displayed the right attributes the villain required so he was just a 'lab-rat' for the villain to test people, the one who defeats MC is the true 'one'

 

Maybe he knew how much he personally hated it, but figured that because it was normal, therefor he would hate it just as much with anybody else, and he avoids physical relationships because he thinks he wouldn’t be good enough at it?

 

Very well captured and expressed, they should have an agree button because 'like' isn't always accurate

 

That would help a lot of online discussions, yes.

 

Yeah that works, so I don't have to make my MC into a sadist sexual predator like the villain is! MC is better than that and realizes how even more wrong it was.

Great post! I couldn't agree more.

 

Hey so after carefully going over my story I think I may just leave out the rape/sexual abuse part happening to my MC by the villain during time as a child soldier cause it might be too controversial for readers to accept that part of the MC's backstory. Instead maybe I can just have it that the MC was badly physically and emotionally abused and beaten by the villain as a child soldier (similar to how that kid got beaten bad in Hunger Games 2 by that lieutenant enforcer guy with that cat o nine tails whip) and also forced to witness the villain sexually assault a woman staff member or something. Would that be more nuance in my choice?

 

People didn't hate hitler because of his finely groomed moustache, vegetarianism or attempts at painting (then again the art world is highly critical)... Something has to have happened to the MC to justify to the reader that the villain deserves to die at the hands of the MC. The less controversial the reason the more detail you can go into. It really depends on how much of the story is dedicated to that time of the MC's life.

If it is set in the MC's adult life and referencing prior events then there might not be much room for a long descriptive process so a more controversial act would have the impact without dragging the reader through the details. If it's a time line as it happens then you have to write scene's in detail the reader will have more connection to exactly what happened.