Avoiding Dark Implications

Part of my work features one of the protagonists staying with a seemingly kind, friendly and helpful household. One significant scene is late in the first installment when he accidentally walks in on one of their servants bathing in a river and notices she's covered with bruises and is extremely ashamed about it,realizing that they weren't as kind as they appeared.

A previous scene shows one of the family's associates sleeping with one of their servants, and keeping this in mind, I've realized that the climactic scene could easily be interpreted as "they sexually abused their servant" rather than "they use corporal punishment on their servants (which is also very shitty)"

This setting isn't supposed to be a Sugar Bowl by any means, but the darkness of the situation could betray the tone of the rest of the piece. Any tips for trying to keep my audiences from jumping to darker conclusions?

Well, why was the associate sleeping with one of the servants? Was there a romantic relationship there? (If so, show it.)

The associate was married and I wasn't planning on portraying it as much more than a "non-romantic lady on the side" kind of thing. The protagonist only hears about it when a friends staying with them mentions they accidentally walked in on them having sex without them realizing it. It's agreed by both of them that him cheating on his wife is pretty shitty, but they overlook it for the time being. While it's left ambiguous whether or not the household actually doesn't know this is happening or they just refuse to talk about it.

Would adding some foreshadowing and implying their relationship is at least somewhat romantic make the other servant's abuse later seem less "rape-y"?

Hum... First, let me say that I'm a little dozy at the moment, and so may be missing something.

That said, I'm inclined to suspect that as long as the sexual encounter is depicted as having been consensual, and there aren't suggestions that she was "given" to the associate by the householders, then you'll likely be okay for the most part. I imagine that at least some people will still suspect that rape is going on, but I also think that there's likely to be a sub-set of readers who will suspect that anyway.

I would wonder if the sexual scene is completely necessary too, especially if the protagonist isn't the one experiencing it. In writing if you add something like that we assume it's going to hold significance later, especially if it's revealed to the protagonist, "if you're taking time to add this instead of focusing on the protagonist's experience than it must be important." (The Law of Conservation of Detail) So if the two scenes are close together and it is treated as a reveal than we will naturally assume they're related.

My two cents.

edited 21st Sep '14 11:41:30 AM by Slysheen

The sexual situation is used along with a couple other scenes to point out the family's hypocrisy and hint at their Jerkass tendencies. Some other scenes include them implying that they refuse to let their (poorly paid) staff anywhere near where they keep alcohol because they believe they are all drunks, while one of their good friends (who comes from a distinguished family) proceeds to binge drink into a stupor without them raising an eyebrow.

edited 21st Sep '14 12:08:25 PM by TheMuse

Hmm... But, if the sex is consensual, then how does it go to those tendencies; if it's not consensual—even if simply by coercion—then how is the situation not at least close to as dark as you're trying to avoid? If it's being used to point out hypocrisy in their attitudes towards sex (if, for example, they vocally oppose cheating on one's spouse, but have no problem with their associate doing it in private), then making that connection clear (and, again, making it at least reasonably clear that the act was consensual) should reduce the probability of the unwanted connection.

edited 21st Sep '14 4:40:08 PM by ArsThaumaturgis

If it's implied that the rest of the household doesn't know about the associate sleeping with a member of the help, then I think you're good. Mixing violence and sex is a very, very bad thing, but so long as the violence is coming from one group of people (the owners of the house) and the sex is coming from another (the associate), without them colluding with each other, then there's no reason to assume the violence played a role in the sex.

All the readers really hear about the situation is: the associate is married, another character walks in on he and a member of the help having sex (This isn't particularly elaborated on (he's actually pretty nonchalant about it as well as when they relayed it to the other character, partially due to the fact that they were pretty drunk when they observed it) other than the fact the character mentions they saw them copulating and the detail that "...she pulled up her dress to *here*...")

• It's mostly to show how the people the family associates with aren't the most morally upstanding people. Does anything in the previous paragraph look like it could foreshadow sexual violence when looked at in the context of the later abusive incident?

edited 22nd Sep '14 6:26:50 PM by TheMuse

I just remembered that when they actually see her injuries, they ask to see her at a later time. She is extremely anxious when they see her and she proceeds to almost break down into tears when they tell her they're going to give her enough money that she can quit her job and leave. I was thinking the anxiety could be slightly implied to be caused by the fact she expects that they'll blackmail her into sleeping with them to keep them from telling the family that they saw that she had been abused, but now I'm thinking that I definitely SHOULDN'T go use that because it implies that sexual coercion happened in the past and all the bad shit that Dub Con entails.

edited 22nd Sep '14 6:42:57 PM by TheMuse

Why not just split the Gordion Knot and have the abused servant be one character and the servant who is the associates' sex toy be another character?

Oh, I'm sorry that I didn't make this entirely clear. They are two completely different characters.

.....Then as long as it is clear that the two problems are unique to each particular servant, why is there an issue? If that was the case, I don't think anybody would get the even worse impression.

edited 23rd Sep '14 4:23:45 PM by shiro_okami

I was worried that when people see "guy having sex with female servant" and later "woman is being physically abused by her employer" (the fact that she's naked when they see the evidence of it is also a factor. Even though there are plot relevant reasons for it and it is very much played for Fan Disservice, people will see some sexual implications for it) and connect them somehow. (sex + violence is not a good combination)

• But do you think that them confronting the servant about it (to get her help) her being anxious and implying that it's because she assumes they're going to blackmail her in some way (most likely sex) could imply that situations like this could have happened before?

edited 24th Sep '14 7:03:53 AM by TheMuse

I wouldn't worry about it, but then I would assume that anyone who even has servants is a rapist until shown otherwise. Especially if they beat their servants.

Maybe have your protags confront their hosts before they leave? The hosts could be all like 'well of course we beat them' but be completely nonplussed/disgusted at the idea of rape ('what would everyone say?').

The reason why the protags are staying with the family in the first place is because they're on the run from the law. They never confront the owners before leaving because they know how easily they could turn them in, so they quickly leave after addressing it.

Perhaps I could have them also find and speak to the woman who was having sex with one of their friends and ask her about it (implicitly if her employer abuses them sexually) which she quickly says no to, essentially saying that Even Evil Has Standards.

How does that sound?

edited 24th Sep '14 3:01:38 PM by TheMuse

I'd say one good way to really separate the two would be to have them look down on the associate, not for cheating, but for sleeping with the help.

That wouldn't be mentioned at this point in the story but that does give me the idea of using that as a Call-Back later in the story...

They wouldn't have to confront the family in puboic with teeth bared etc, but... they could, say, be suddenly obviously uncomfortable around the family, until one of their hosts quietly asks what's wrong. It doesn't have to be a shouting match — their voices might not even rise much above whispers.

The thing is, the protags manage to slip out relatively easily due to some bullshit excuses. If either of the members of the household found out that they knew that they beat their servants, they definitely wouldn't let them go so easily. They know enough about the protags backgrounds to know that they likely have objections against it and there is also the chance they'd tell other people (They a quite prestigious family they don't want a bad rap)

You could always have one nicer member of the family be the one to be the one who talks to the protags about it.

That seems like it would work. Depending on the execution, of course — but then, so does everything.