Oh, wow. I’m really glad you provided that link. It totally clarifies things.
Y’all are CRAZY.
This might be a good example: a character was raped as a child, and mayyybe there’s a salacious attitude here. It establishes the character as a victim.
Not remotely salacious: there’s an attempted rape that someone is saved from, as a way to establish that the savior is a Good Guy. The question is, is discrimination a worse sin than saving someone from rape is a virtue?
What a goddamned stretch. A racist character makes a shitty joke about how black people rape. It establishes her as racist and therefore a Bad Guy. The question is, would you favor a hyper-competent person who’s deeply terrible over someone less competent but really good?
I mean, maybe salacious? There’s a guy who’s really competent and also a rapist. The question is, would you favor a hyper-competent person who’s deeply terrible over someone less competent but really good?
Not even rape. A promise of sex extracted under duress but not collected on under duress. The question is, is a promise made under duress enforceable?
Again no rape. The question is, would you assist someone in engaging in degrading work for money?
Oh ferchrissake. Rape is mentioned here as an example of the worst thing a person can do. This is not even remotely salacious.
Okay, dude. The point here is, which is worse: the murder of a bad guy, or the torture of a good guy?
There’s no pattern here of getting rocks off to description of rape. Now, yeah, there are a lot of sex crimes mentioned–but no more than you’ll find in the average modern thriller, wherein, much like Skald’s threads, sex crimes are used as shorthand for “very bad person,” and rescuing someone from sex crimes is shorthand for “good person.”
Personally I find such shorthands lazy, which is part of why so many modern mystery thriller novels irritate me: yet another murdering pedophile ain’t a particularly interesting character.
But the pattern y’all are seeing here? It’s bullshit, and embarrassing for y’all.