![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anghraineIgnore if I have!
A large part of the reason that I get so annoyed by the idea that Austen’s heroes would obviously be having Period Mandated Sexual Exploits (aside of your sociology is bad and you should feel bad) is because yes, there are plenty of references to period-typical male sexual behaviour in her books.
like:
- Frederick Tilney leads a bratty but beautiful girl on to the point she thinks he’s going to marry her, then is like “bye, babe.”
- John Willoughby seduces a vulnerable young girl, gets her pregnant, and abandons her. He proceeds to carry on an increasingly intense flirtation with the seventeen-year-old dependent cousin of a local squire, then vanishes and marries an heiress.
- George Wickham stalks the fifteen-year-old daughter of his benefactor and tries to seduce her into an elopement to steal her large fortune, and only fails because she confides in her brother. Later on, he runs off with a sixteen-year-old girl because she’s pretty and available; he has to be bribed into marrying her.
- Henry Crawford flirts with two sisters, one of whom is engaged. After the latter’s marriage, they begin an affair. When it’s discovered, they run off together, but he doesn’t marry her or even stay with her–he gets bored and ditches her. The narrator remarks in passing that it’s a pity that men aren’t punished as harshly for this kind of fuckery as women. Another man in the novel suggests that both should be flogged.
- Frank Churchill falls in love with a poor governess and proposes to her, but insists it has to be kept secret until his rich aunt dies. He uses another, oblivious woman to conceal it, carrying on a very public flirtation with her before his fiancée’s eyes. (Fun fact: his wife dies young.)
- William Elliot, heir to a baronet cousin, pretends to some interest in the daughter of that cousin to repair bridges, then begins an affair with his apparent LI’s widowed friend to keep her from marrying the cousin and maybe having children to cut him out of his inheritance. He sets her up as his mistress.
Do you not see a common theme here?
And the thing is, people joke about the omnipresent seducer/rake/shitheel character in Austen’s novels, but it really isn’t the same character. These men are not particularly similar to each other. Their misdeeds range wildly from “careless with the feelings of two women” to “impregnates and abandons a young girl.” The women in question vary widely: the confident and charming queen bee of town, a painfully shy heiress, a middle-class widow, a dissatisfied aristocratic wife, an illegitimate girl of uncertain social position. Some of what goes on is blatantly WRONGWRONGWRONG, some isn’t.
But they do have something very important in common, and it’s probably not what you’d expect. People often call one or the other of Austen’s villains “rapists.” This is not true. All of these relationships are consensual. Every! single! one!
Austen is not looking at male violence. She’s not looking at anything unusual or particularly forbidden. None of these men are really condemned by society; Captain Tilney continues in his vaguely sleazy life, Willoughby retains a tendre for Marianne but enjoys being rich, Wickham goes off to enjoy himself in the city, Henry Crawford returns to his normal life, nobody has the heart to condemn Frank Churchill, and William Elliot suffers no real consequences. She’s not looking at anything criminal or scandalous in male behaviour; she’s looking at things that are common, expected, and in general widely tolerated. Boys will be boys, Georgian edition.
That is, she’s looking at the ways in which typical male sexual behaviour exploits women, whether it involves actual sex or not. She’s not giving any of it a pass. Every single one of these characters are, in the end, presented negatively. Apart from (maybe) Frank Churchill, she condemns all their normal, consensual douchery as predatory and appalling.
And she contrasts it to the heroes. Like the villains/quasi-villains, they vary dramatically–from Wentworth, the lively and energetic self-made man, to Darcy, the awkward, clever, obstinate aristocrat. Even the clergymen differ: sober Edmund, charming Henry, shy Edward. But every single one of them is the sort of man you could comfortably take home to meet your elderly great-aunt. And she’d probably say “what a wholesome young man!” They’re responsible, they’re kind, they pretty much all have significant personal flaws, and they don’t prey on women.
In Austen, you go to the villains for everyday exploitation.
For the full Tumblr experience, the tagging post script:
I'm not saying every Austen [male] lead is pure as the newly driven snow, but "well, that's what men did back then" is just ... could you miss the point more? If Austen's male love interests have anything in common it's being squeaky clean. There are some I definitely don't see as OMG VIRGINS (*cough*HenryTilney*cough*), but they're also not in sketchy power dynamics.
And you get thinks like--Wentworth comes home from being at sea, and it's not like "find a courtesan, stat!" It's like, okay, suddenly I am totally onboard with finding a wife. Anyone remotely attractive will do, I'm not picky, but marriage NOW. Darcy is like, oh God, I argued with Elizabeth and it was kind of hot ... but since I can't actually marry her, what if I'm leading her on??? No more sexy arguments, must ignore her (help). Even with someone like Mr Bennet, we're told outright that he doesn't cheat (as happens "too often").
Honestly, women's novels of the period overwhelmingly treat sex as inextricably bound to marriage, while acknowledging that it's not true irl. If we all think very hard, we might be able to guess why that is!
But yeah, the thing is, Austen knows what goes in irl, and is refusing to normalize it, which makes "but it was normal" just ... /headdesk.
A large part of the reason that I get so annoyed by the idea that Austen’s heroes would obviously be having Period Mandated Sexual Exploits (aside of your sociology is bad and you should feel bad) is because yes, there are plenty of references to period-typical male sexual behaviour in her books.
like:
- Frederick Tilney leads a bratty but beautiful girl on to the point she thinks he’s going to marry her, then is like “bye, babe.”
- John Willoughby seduces a vulnerable young girl, gets her pregnant, and abandons her. He proceeds to carry on an increasingly intense flirtation with the seventeen-year-old dependent cousin of a local squire, then vanishes and marries an heiress.
- George Wickham stalks the fifteen-year-old daughter of his benefactor and tries to seduce her into an elopement to steal her large fortune, and only fails because she confides in her brother. Later on, he runs off with a sixteen-year-old girl because she’s pretty and available; he has to be bribed into marrying her.
- Henry Crawford flirts with two sisters, one of whom is engaged. After the latter’s marriage, they begin an affair. When it’s discovered, they run off together, but he doesn’t marry her or even stay with her–he gets bored and ditches her. The narrator remarks in passing that it’s a pity that men aren’t punished as harshly for this kind of fuckery as women. Another man in the novel suggests that both should be flogged.
- Frank Churchill falls in love with a poor governess and proposes to her, but insists it has to be kept secret until his rich aunt dies. He uses another, oblivious woman to conceal it, carrying on a very public flirtation with her before his fiancée’s eyes. (Fun fact: his wife dies young.)
- William Elliot, heir to a baronet cousin, pretends to some interest in the daughter of that cousin to repair bridges, then begins an affair with his apparent LI’s widowed friend to keep her from marrying the cousin and maybe having children to cut him out of his inheritance. He sets her up as his mistress.
Do you not see a common theme here?
And the thing is, people joke about the omnipresent seducer/rake/shitheel character in Austen’s novels, but it really isn’t the same character. These men are not particularly similar to each other. Their misdeeds range wildly from “careless with the feelings of two women” to “impregnates and abandons a young girl.” The women in question vary widely: the confident and charming queen bee of town, a painfully shy heiress, a middle-class widow, a dissatisfied aristocratic wife, an illegitimate girl of uncertain social position. Some of what goes on is blatantly WRONGWRONGWRONG, some isn’t.
But they do have something very important in common, and it’s probably not what you’d expect. People often call one or the other of Austen’s villains “rapists.” This is not true. All of these relationships are consensual. Every! single! one!
Austen is not looking at male violence. She’s not looking at anything unusual or particularly forbidden. None of these men are really condemned by society; Captain Tilney continues in his vaguely sleazy life, Willoughby retains a tendre for Marianne but enjoys being rich, Wickham goes off to enjoy himself in the city, Henry Crawford returns to his normal life, nobody has the heart to condemn Frank Churchill, and William Elliot suffers no real consequences. She’s not looking at anything criminal or scandalous in male behaviour; she’s looking at things that are common, expected, and in general widely tolerated. Boys will be boys, Georgian edition.
That is, she’s looking at the ways in which typical male sexual behaviour exploits women, whether it involves actual sex or not. She’s not giving any of it a pass. Every single one of these characters are, in the end, presented negatively. Apart from (maybe) Frank Churchill, she condemns all their normal, consensual douchery as predatory and appalling.
And she contrasts it to the heroes. Like the villains/quasi-villains, they vary dramatically–from Wentworth, the lively and energetic self-made man, to Darcy, the awkward, clever, obstinate aristocrat. Even the clergymen differ: sober Edmund, charming Henry, shy Edward. But every single one of them is the sort of man you could comfortably take home to meet your elderly great-aunt. And she’d probably say “what a wholesome young man!” They’re responsible, they’re kind, they pretty much all have significant personal flaws, and they don’t prey on women.
In Austen, you go to the villains for everyday exploitation.
For the full Tumblr experience, the tagging post script:
I'm not saying every Austen [male] lead is pure as the newly driven snow, but "well, that's what men did back then" is just ... could you miss the point more? If Austen's male love interests have anything in common it's being squeaky clean. There are some I definitely don't see as OMG VIRGINS (*cough*HenryTilney*cough*), but they're also not in sketchy power dynamics.
And you get thinks like--Wentworth comes home from being at sea, and it's not like "find a courtesan, stat!" It's like, okay, suddenly I am totally onboard with finding a wife. Anyone remotely attractive will do, I'm not picky, but marriage NOW. Darcy is like, oh God, I argued with Elizabeth and it was kind of hot ... but since I can't actually marry her, what if I'm leading her on??? No more sexy arguments, must ignore her (help). Even with someone like Mr Bennet, we're told outright that he doesn't cheat (as happens "too often").
Honestly, women's novels of the period overwhelmingly treat sex as inextricably bound to marriage, while acknowledging that it's not true irl. If we all think very hard, we might be able to guess why that is!
But yeah, the thing is, Austen knows what goes in irl, and is refusing to normalize it, which makes "but it was normal" just ... /headdesk.
