Sexual Consent in Heian Japan
Okay, I did read chapter 20 last night, but I want to talk about two articles first since my thoughts about the chapter are influenced by them. So we'll see how long this takes and whether I get to chapter 20.
Over a year ago, slobbit posted a link to a paper called "Forced Affection: Rape as the First Act of Romance in Heian Japan", by Anthony J. Bryant. In my pokings around the web to get myself back in Genji-mode, I found a related article, "Marriage, Rank and Rape in The Tale of Genji", by Royall Tyler. These articles make related but subtly different points, which I found illuminating (though unhappy).
The first article is mostly a catalog of forced sexual encounters in Heian literature. At the end, Bryant observes that, as a matter of both sexual attractiveness and moral convention, "All court women, it seems, were expected to put up a struggle unless there was some pre-arranged understanding in place." With regard to men of very high rank, or persistent men of lower rank, "refusal is not an option." Bryant notes "that this concept is not strictly a Japanese phenomenon," citing Gone with the Wind and James Bond.
Tyler takes a different angle in considering Genji's gender relations, "from a perspective expressed or implied by the narrative itself." In contrast to Bryant, who concludes that Heian women could refuse sex but their refusal was irrelevant to men, Tyler concludes that high-ranked women were unable to consent.
Tyler first considers treatment of, and responsibility for, women based on their rank. This includes some historical comments on Heian polygamy, and is generally worth reading. Then he moves to rape, about which he says:
An attentive reading of the tale shows that no young woman of good family could decently, on her own initiative, say yes to first intercourse. [She] must be directed to comply by someone with the authority to do so-normally, her father. . . .
The tale contains only rare instances of a man forcing himself on a woman of good family whose father is alive and active in the world. One of these is Genji's first intercourse with Oborozukiyo (chapter 8, 'Under the Cherry Blossoms'), the whole point of which is to be amusingly dangerous. Moreover, Oborozukiyo's failure to resist Genji seriously reminds him that, despite her charm, she has unfortunately not been brought up to what he considers the highest standard. . . .
. . . As for Suetsumuhana [the Safflower Lady, in Seidensticker], . . . if [her father] were still alive she at least would not have been all but destitute, with her women starving and her house slowly collapsing around her. She would also have had someone to authorise her to accept a husband. Dedicated as she is to honouring her father's memory, she could not possibly give herself this licence. Genji (who for reasons explained in the narrative is determined to see the thing through) therefore has no choice but to proceed without her consent. His decisiveness saves her life not once but twice [because of her economic situation].
Tyler then considers Murasaki. He argues that from the narrative's perspective, Genji's abduction of her is "outrageous" but improves Murasaki's life on the whole, as she would have been Cinderella in her father's house. He then considers the movement of their relationship from physically platonic to sexual:
He therefore tries in various, discreet ways to arouse her interest in changing the nature of their relationship. However, he fails completely. His hints pass right over her head. She cannot even wonder whether or not to consent, since she has no idea what he is talking about.
. . .
Then what does the author mean by Murasaki's failure to understand him? The answer should be clear already. Her incomprehension proves her quality and promises her future greatness as a lady. For her to say yes would be unworthy of her; for her to say no would place Genji, hence herself, in a very difficult position; and for her to say either would compromise her by showing that she does know what he is talking about. Her utter innocence is what proves her supreme worth. As in the case of Suetsumuhana it is up to Genji to act, and he does. Yes, Murasaki remains furious with him for some time thereafter, but her anger passes, and beyond the chapter in which all this takes place the narrative never alludes to it again. The experience is inevitable, but once it is over, it is over. Its only significant consequence is that now Murasaki can begin her adult life with Genji. That life that will bring her various trials, as anyone's is likely to do, but also great happiness; and in the end it will lift her, for the reader, to a height of grandeur beyond anything her yes or no could have achieved.
Tyler then talks about something that happens starting in chapter 45, which obviously I haven't read yet.
* * *
Both of these readings are supportable, it seems to me, but I think Tyler's is more illuminating, as is probably clear from the amount of space I devoted to it. The narrative's perspective is deeply alien to me and this reading is at least intellectually comprehensible. I am particularly glad to have a plausible explanation for the treatment of Murasaki's post-sex distress.
I am left wondering whether the narrative recognizes the difference between inability to consent and refusal to consent. Poor Lady Nijô, whose family arranged her violent first sexual experience (described in Bryant's article and previously in this comm), certainly does; but I'm not sure that any similar situation is presented in Genji, at least so far. Perhaps that suggests that the narrative does recognize the distinction and doesn't want to go there. (It is my opinion that if a person is confronted with either situation and nevertheless initiates sex, that person has commited rape; nevertheless, precision is important.)
And, of course, I am deeply appalled at Heian culture. But you knew that. (I spared you the exclamation marks that adorn my paper copies of these articles, which were frequent.)
(As an aside, has anyone ever done cross-cultural studies about women's rape fantasies? My guess would be that these are only present in cultures where women are supposed to be less interested in sex than men, but it's only a guess.)