…The historical romance novels that I cut my teeth on in the 1980s, the "bodice rippers,” collectively thought that nonconsensual activities between hero & heroine would somehow be “romantic” enough to make the heroine overlook it all in favor of falling for him.
Not every single book, but enough of them that a backlash against those tropes in the late 1990s and early 2000s actually had some historical romance authors authors addressing past NC moments in the lives of the main characters, and depicting the PTSD that often accompanied such things, plus offering ways for the harmed party to regain some trust with a partner worthy of them. (Aka non-abusive and non-self-centered.)
But in the 1980s, that was the “romantic” thing to do…because women were still expected to “hate” actual lovemaking. The mindset was that “If he makes me enjoy it, then I am free to enjoy it! I can’t be guilted over it because it wasn’t of my own free will!”
Yes, it’s messed up, but it was a major constituent of steamy fantasies back then. Only some segments of society allowed women to be “sexually liberated,” only under very specific situations, and the vast majority of women were still being repressed by societal expectations about how “good girls” behave–you can have an orgasm, but only if you didn’t demand it or expect it because only those girls did such things!
Again, it’s messed up, but that was the social context at the time.
And you know what? That mess actually led to discussions of consensual sex scenes being far better, and suddenly it became okay for women to expect to have a good time, and not have to be “forced into it” at the start.
We have this level of freedom now, because of that level of constraint then.
Context.
Is.
Everything.