Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

So I've read a few Octavia E Butler books, and I've only now noticed a pattern. She portrays quite a few unequal relationships; where one part of a pair (or more) is significantly more powerful than the other. Often the more powerful one is fond of the less powerful and wants to protect them, but neither are they willing to let them go. Often the less powerful is attracted to the more powerful, but they are attracted against their will or better judgement and resent the fact that they cannot leave.

Books of hers that I think have such relationships are Dawn, as we've seen, Fledgling, Bloodchild and Other Stories, and Wild Seed. In Kindred, a black woman is compelled to save her white slave-owning ancestor from brushes with death, and he tries to control her and keep her from leaving. The relationship isn't really romantic, but it is still unequal.

So I have to wonder why this kind of relationship was so compelling for Butler that she chose to portray it multiple times. Was it a way to try and communicate the types of relationships that her black slave ancestors would have been forced into? That humans set at odds with themselves do interesting things?

I've only read this trilogy and not the other books you mention, but I noticed something similar. I was thinking how the ooloi's scent helps them win over mates, and how cologne or perfume does the same thing in a less effective fashion. I was left wondering "how far do you have to go towards guaranteed attraction before it's coercion and rape?"

I think it's an interesting and true observation, that people in less secure circumstances will pair off according to strength and weakness. Even in a middle class, U.S. relationship, where people like to think they are equals, many couples (business partners too I think) will admit that they balance each other.

The more extreme the circumstances, the more extreme the traits that become important for survival. The weaker (physically or otherwise) will gravitate toward a protector who is either strong in body or in personality. And the stronger person will necessarily have to be in charge, in control.

It's when society dictates who the "superior" is, regardless of physical/mental/emotional strength, because of sex, race, or wealth, and the "inferior" people fight back, that things get interesting.

It doesn't have to go as far back as slavery. The civil rights movement only happened in the 1960s, and both minorities and women are still marginalized in many places. I would think that being a woman and being a minority, writing in a genre that isn't historically inviting to either, and in a society that is the same, would make exploring the dynamics of unequal relationships pretty central to one's body of work.

This might be one reason why I find Butler's work so compelling, though it hadn't occurred to me before reading the intro post. It seems to me that most modern dialogue taking place about power dynamics in relationships tends to focus on, and be defined by, its use to abuse others.

Over time I have come to suspect that power orientation (like gender identity and sexual preference) is to a large extent biologically hardwired, with rationales strongly rooted in evolutionary psychology, so the more free we feel to address it in open dialogue, in my opinion, the better.

So, Walter, I really don't want to pick a fight with you. I think it's entirely possible for couples to enjoy playing with dominance and submission within the context of consent and have it all be safe and fun. But I feel very strongly that what the Oankali are doing constitutes emotional and sexual abuse.

No need to pick a fight, Joanna, since I agree with you on both counts. :)

When I referred to hardwiring as regards power exchange, my point was that I believe it to be an orientation, like sexual preference. People certainly do participate in consensual domination and submission, or bdsm, but some don't. My point was, whether they do or not, they're expressing something that feels entirely natural to themselves. And as long as such activities are consensual, imo, they're perfectly legitimate practices.

Which is why what the Oankali are doing is wrong on multiple levels, since there is no consent involved. I posted something to this effect on a different thread in this folder; if you run across it, you'll see my comments on the subject there.

Walter wrote: "I posted something to this effect on a different thread in this folder; if you run across it, you'll see my comments on the subject there.
"

*looks up Walter's profile and reads recent posts*

Ah, thank you. :)