Professor Fancypants von Deth, Esq (dwg ) wrote in lkh_lashouts ,
  • Mood: thoughtful

Anita Blake: Faux Champion of Sexual Agency

This article popped up in my Google alerts, and while it's probably preaching to the choir here at Lashouts, it's still an interesting read. It brings up that virtually none of Anita's sexual encounters are initially consensual:
But let us examine this straw man a little closer – Anita is a sexually pro-active woman. Is she? Because I question this a lot.

Now, I very much like a book that includes a woman who is in charge of her own sexuality, has sex as and when she wants to, with whom she wishes, without pressure and without shame. I love that and praise that. But Anita Blake is not that woman, primarily because Anita Blake did not choose her sex life, did not seek it out – and most dramatically, did not consent to it.
Read the whole thing here

I particularly like that it delves into Anita's sexual encounters pre-ardeur to point out that this pattern has been happening since well before Narcissus In Chains, and touches on how virtually all the villains in the universe are rapists. I sorta feel like this should segue into a discussion on Hamilton's over-reliance of abuse as a shortcut for characterisation - I'm blanking on a single character that's had a happy, well-adjusted past or when non-sexual comfort is offered - but that's probably a broader topic for another day.

This article also effectively torpedoes Hamilton's blog about whether JC actually loves Anita or her power. Power simply cannot be happiness, rainbows and fuzzy ducklings when it constantly robs characters of their agency and forces them into 'fuck or die' situations.
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded