Swirl Swirl Red Whirl
I don't know why people believe I'm trying to make this trope about male sluttiness. My latest edit is about anything but. All i'm saying is that Reformed Rakes is a plot that is always about a female dreaming to redeem a male criminal with love. It never happens the other way around.
I mean, how many romance novels are there where the main character is a man who tries to redeem a criminal woman through love and understanding? It doesn't exit. When the romance is between a good man and a "bad woman" it's always a Hooker with a Heart of Gold, never a murderess or an embezzler, and it never is the center of the plot either, nor does she goes beyond the Temporary Love Interest level.
But you know what? Do what you will. I have no intention of sparking an Edit War so I'll just leave it at that. It just baffles me that whenever something is said in favour of women, it always passes off as feminism or man-hating propaganda.
Edited by Alrune Hide / Show Replies
As far as I can tell 'reformed rakes' is about men who are slutty being bad partners. Where does criminality come into it?
I believe the reason why there aren't any romances where the love of a Purity Sue hero redeems a bad girl (aside from High-Heel–Face Turn) is that 1. it's not believable that a man's love is pure enough to redeem and 2. the market for romances is women and women prefer the 'my true love will redeem' him schtick more then the reverse.
Personally I don't have a problem with making this trope about romances in which a heroine 'reforms' a criminal bad boy. It would actually distinguish it from Lady Killer In Love. Currently the relationship between the two tropes is: Lady Killer In Love is the 'redeemed bad boy' plot line done right and Reformed Rakes is it done wrong. Seems like an arbitrary distinction to me. Further Reformed Rakes appears to be asserting that male sluts make bad husbands which... well... would any one assert that female sluts make bad wives?
Edited by MercuryInRetrograde
My Girl Is Not a Slut much? Of course EVERYONE would say it.
Who says a man's love isn't pure enough to redeem?
My Girl Is Not A Slut is describing slut shaming as wrong, not endorsing it as appropriate as 'Reformed Rakes' does.
My Girl Is Not A Slut == the double standard is bad when it's directed at women. Reformed Rakes == slutty men make bad partners.
My Girl Is Not A Slut is also full of historic and cultural inaccuracies as male promiscuity has been severely punished throughout most eras, sometimes more then female promiscuity. eg. unwed teen mothers in the 1960s being objects of pity and compassion, unwed teen fathers being beaten, male genital cutting being instituted on a large scale to curtail male sluttiness, Puritans punishing men more harshly for adultery and sodomy and in this day and age there being no statistical difference in people's attitudes towards male or female sluttiness.
And the general lack of male 'puritysues' and the belief that male sexuality is degrading to women would suggest men's love isn't pure enough to redeem.
References:
Progressives Stigmatize Male sexuality: http://www.libidomag.com/nakedbrunch/archive/progressives01.html
No Double Standard found: http://www.thenationalstudent.com/News/2012-09-06/students_dont_respect_promiscuous_friends.html
the Ephemeral
Because modern day romance novels which use the trope generally quote it as : "Reformed rakes make the best husbands"
Edited by Nobodymuch
I'm rather bothered by the dismissive tone many articles here tend to take toward works and genres heavily oriented toward a female audience, in comparison to male-targeted ones. The sheer amount of unnecessary snark directed at their characters and fans strikes me as misogynistic.