Controversy Surrounding Rescue Me Episode

[Liesje]

but isn't the reaction of the woman precisely what defines rape?

Nope. I mean, I see your point and understand what you were saying in previous posts, but rape = forcible penetration. It's not defined by the victim's reaction. I cannot remember seeing a single crime that was defined by the victim's reaction, the last time I had to study the MCL (Michigan crime statutes). Crimes are defined by the action and intent of the perpetrator. I know you were quick to dismiss the example of domestic violence, but let's say you were right and a crime CAN be defined by the victim's reaction, then doesn't that imply that a man beating on his wife with a baseball bat didn't actually commit a crime if his wife said "I deserved it and I still love him"? Dangerous presumption, IMO.

 

[AliEnvy]

but isn't the reaction of the woman precisely what defines rape? what happens if -- as seems to be the depiction in the TV show -- a "no" does turn into a "yes"? and i mean this all theoretically.

This is why women have had to persistently push the concept of no means no. It doesn't turn into a yes - unless perhaps it's in the hands of bad television writing and/or a bad actress. It's hard to say without seeing the scene firsthand what constitues "enjoying it" to some people.


[q]this sounds much more like an urban myth than anything. this is precisely the kind of story the media loves to run with and let Katie Couric report to scare the moms.

can you provide sources?[/q]

That could be true - I saw it on Oprah - and she loved James Frey at one point too so ya never know lol. I'm inclined to think it exists but maybe not as common as the media portrays it to get shock value from it.

[q]really? i thought i had argued the opposite -- that media might have some influence, but it is highly overrated, particularly as people get older.[/q]

I must have been thinking about advertising and children then as far as your past commentary. This is a different topic altogether but suffice it to say that I'd argue even FYM demonstrates the powerful influence of media, television and movies on people's outlook and opinions.

[q]again, i'm not defending the show or defending what happened in this episode, i'm just looking for a bit of a less visceral reaction (as understandably difficult as that might be) because i think some interesting questions about the nature of rape.[/q]

Oh I know you're not defending it - and I'm not trying to be defensive - just want to debunk the myths around what rape means to women.

 

[BVS]

It doesn't turn into a yes - unless perhaps it's in the hands of bad television writing and/or a bad actress.

But it doesn't just occur on TV, sometimes it does turn into a yes. I've seen relationships like this. As unhealthy as it is, these relationships occur.

So the question may be what issues does this woman have that it does turn into a yes? And like I said before maybe this is what they were trying to explore, I don't know.

But we can't deny that it happens. We need to be asking ourselves why.

 

[AliEnvy]

But it doesn't just occur on TV, sometimes it does turn into a yes. I've seen relationships like this. As unhealthy as it is, these relationships occur.

Can you be more specific about how you've witnessed consensual rape in relationships?

 

[BVS]

Can you be more specific about how you've witnessed consensual rape in relationships?

I posted it earlier.

 

[AliEnvy]

Her friend is in a relationship like this, they fight, it gets heated, they start getting rough and then it turns into rough sex. So I told her that it didn't sound too healthy. I asked her if she thought it was rape. I was a little shocked from her response. She said it's just like when you're young and your boyfriend starts tickling you, you fight it off and push him away but then it leads to making out. My response was

Do YOU think it is rape when a heated argument turns into rough sex? I see your friend's analogy in that arguing for this couple is just a more grown up version (although unhealthy) form of foreplay than tickle-fighting.

But I'd hardly describe pinning down a violently unwilling woman and forcing penetration as just rough sex in the midst of an argument. It doesn't sound like the scene was trying to depict rough passion rather Tommy was being territorial and showing her who's boss by violating and humiliating her. That's rape.

 

[BVS]

Do YOU think it is rape when a heated argument turns into rough sex? I see your friend's analogy in that arguing for this couple is just a more grown up version (although unhealthy) form of foreplay than tickle-fighting.

But I'd hardly describe pinning down a violently unwilling woman and forcing penetration as just rough sex in the midst of an argument. It doesn't sound like the scene was trying to depict rough passion rather Tommy was being territorial and showing her who's boss by violating and humiliating her. That's rape.

From the definition that's been given in this thread, yes. She was hitting back in the process of removing clothes and then stopped. I would say it was the same thing.

 

[AliEnvy]

Are you saying once a woman stops fighting back after forceable penetration that's basically her consent and the incident is just rough sex that she's free to enjoy?

 

[maycocksean]

On the question of art. . .

I'm still formulating my opinions here but after having read what others have said and thinking about here's where I'm at.

Art is not inherently good or bad. It just is. What makes it good or bad, morally or ethically, anyway is based on this:

Good art is True. I say this in that it communicates something true even if it is made up fantasy, even if is made up entirely of things that are not real, or that are not concrete, art should tell the truth.

So from an artistic point of view, perhaps what makes this episode bad is that it does not truly represent the nature of rape. But then I think another question that it raises is whether it shows something that ever actually happens? Because if it does. . .then it is being honest.

On the question of the nature of rape. . .

It seems like men really have to take the word of women on this regardless of whether there appears to be some "enjoying" of it. If a woman does not want to have sex, and a man forces himself on her anyway, it is definitely rape, even if she doesn't fight back and even if it's theoretically possible for her to "get into it" later. The point is it wasn't she wanted and that has to take a toll. And perhaps this does happen in "real life." And if it does, it's something that needs to be talked about and it's something we need to raise awareness about. It's kind of like how sometimes people don't see it as rape, if the rapist is the woman's husband. It's like it's allowed or something. Of course it shoudln't be. I think there may be a need to help men AND women understand that forced sex always equals rape, even if the woman doesn't appear to object. I suspect that "going along" or "putting up with it" really takes a toll on the woman's psyche and emotional & mental health.

I remember a friend of mine was raped by another friend of mine while we were in college. At first she told me they had sex (that's what he was reporting to all his buddies as well). A few days later she admitted that he'd raped her. He'd "liked" her for a long time though she had not reciprocated. They'd been partying together a lot and alcohol was definitely involved. I don't know how it all went down. . .but she didn't want it to happen, but it did anyway. At first she tried to tell herself, it was okay, they just "hooked up" before finally facing that this really was rape. Sadly, nothing ever happened to the rapist--he was never held accountable. I guess she just let it go.

A couple of posters mentioned "A History of Violence". I did see that film. The scene on the stairs was disturbing. One could argue though (as was pointed out during the directors commentary on the DVD extras) that it was consensual, because after the hitting and slapping and knocking about turned to kissing and whatnot, there was this slight pause where Viggo Mortenson character seems to stop himself, as if he's thinking, hey this isn't right. She doesn't want this. But then Maria Bello's character start things going again, pulls him back into the sexual encounter that culminates in intercourse.

My question is THIS in any way realistic--does this ever actually happen? Or is this another example of a false "rape fantasy"scene? (I mean I know it never happens with me, but then I'm not a "rough" person if you know what I mean so I don't think it ever would. )

 

[BVS]

Are you saying once a woman stops fighting back after forceable penetration that's basically her consent and the incident is just rough sex that she's free to enjoy?

Wow, what a way to ask me a question and then twist my answer.

No, I was just describing the relationship I spoke about before.

The question I was bringing up was, what is considered consent in such a volatile relationship.

 

[Liesje]

It seems like men really have to take the word of women on this regardless of whether there appears to be some "enjoying" of it. If a woman does not want to have sex, and a man forces himself on her anyway, it is definitely rape, even if she doesn't fight back and even if it's theoretically possible for her to "get into it" later. The point is it wasn't she wanted and that has to take a toll. And perhaps this does happen in "real life." And if it does, it's something that needs to be talked about and it's something we need to raise awareness about. It's kind of like how sometimes people don't see it as rape, if the rapist is the woman's husband. It's like it's allowed or something. Of course it shoudln't be. I think there may be a need to help men AND women understand that forced sex always equals rape, even if the woman doesn't appear to object. I suspect that "going along" or "putting up with it" really takes a toll on the woman's psyche and emotional & mental health.

I remember a friend of mine was raped by another friend of mine while we were in college. At first she told me they had sex (that's what he was reporting to all his buddies as well). A few days later she admitted that he'd raped her. He'd "liked" her for a long time though she had not reciprocated. They'd been partying together a lot and alcohol was definitely involved. I don't know how it all went down. . .but she didn't want it to happen, but it did anyway. At first she tried to tell herself, it was okay, they just "hooked up" before finally facing that this really was rape. Sadly, nothing ever happened to the rapist--he was never held accountable. I guess she just let it go.

I think your post points out the problem I'm having with examples other people are presenting regarding the gray era between violent sex and rape. I'd wager a bet that these women DO feel violated and raped, but because of the trauma, they are just convincing themselves that "yeah ok, maybe I did enjoy it....maybe it was just rough sex after all..." It would be less natural for a rape victime to NOT be in some state of denial. IMO, forcible penetration = rape, always. I don't care who enjoys it and who doesn't.

 

[AliEnvy]

Wow, what a way to ask me a question and then twist my answer.

No, I was just describing the relationship I spoke about before.

The question I was bringing up was, what is considered consent in such a volatile relationship.

Ok phew! I was half asleep when I read your response last night and decided it was time to go to bed since I probably didn't get what you were trying to say. Thanks for clarifying.

Even though they have a volatile relationship, somehow in the pattern of their sex life it sounds like they have defined the limits of consent outside what would make many people comfortable and they have a mutual understanding of what's acceptable even if it's not a verbal understanding.

There was no foundation for this being an aspect of the sex lives of the chararters on Rescue Me otherwise it wouldn't have been a controversy.

 

[AliEnvy]

I understand consent can be grey because some woman feel compelled to deny wanting sex because our society labels woman who want sex as sluts. So it's true, this double standard causes some to say no when they mean yes.

Is it really that hard for a guy to tell the difference? Really? So what's a horny man to do?

[q]Be A Man HOW-TO

So how can a lad with a jock that's rarin' to go tell if the lass is playing him for a rogue, or if she's cold to his lovin' ways?

Fortunately for everyone involved, this is the real world, and you can tell. If she physically grabs your cock and makes it go away, take the hint.

If she kicks you in the balls (or otherwise fights), take the hint.

If she coldly looks you in the eye and says "Seriously, I'm not into this, asshole." take the hint.

If she gives you mixed signals, alternately groping and fighting, kiss her hard and then politely but intensely ask if she likes rape fantasy or rough sex (have confidence, big man!).

If she says "pantpantpant No, please oh my god no damnit motherfucker oh shit no nonononononono... wow no! I should be going home, sorry about the sheets!" don't take her shit, man!

Ahem, sorry.

Anway, the way to deal with a girl who has the bodice ripping kink is to be strong, dominant and sure, not insensitive, self-centered and grasping. Most women react to strength traits, which makes our job that much less complex.[/q]

 

[Irvine511]

Nope. I mean, I see your point and understand what you were saying in previous posts, but rape = forcible penetration. It's not defined by the victim's reaction.

i guess i find this confusing. would the reaction tell us about how wanted the penetration was? also, could forced penetration, in some relationships, be desired as part of sexual expression and fantasy and role play? (not that this is the case here)

i really find this whole thing interesting because i feel like i'm in the position of someone who could be raped, but would could also be accused of being a rapist, and i honestly can't imagine myself at all in either situation (whereas most women i know can easily imagine themselves a rape victim) so i'm just trying to understand it better.

and also, based on 2nd hand experience, i know that these things can be more complicated than they initially appear. a friend of mine was in an ugly he said/she said situation, where it was basically a drunken hook up that led to sex (which was actually a bit rare for where i went to college, where people would drink and hook up, but usually didn't have one night stands). what was particularly difficult was that she was a very good friend of mine as well, and listening to both of their stories, i basically concluded that what happened wasn't rape, it was a bad hook up, and it seemed as if regret and embarassment on her part led her to conclude that it wasn't 100% consensual, and of course, alcohol clouded everything, so who actually knows? including the two involved? i also think it's a mistake to automatically assume the woman is a victim -- that, to me, is quite patronizing and, ultimately, anti-feminist.

and i mean no offense by this, and i do not mean for this to stand as typical or even common of the majority of college/university rape-or-not-rape situations. this is a single incident that i can speak of, and all it did for me was not to think, "there must be many women who feel slutty the next morning and then conclude they must have been raped," but to think that, "yes, it can be more complicated than we initially think."

and i'm not totally sure where i'm going with this, but i guess my main point is that this is, understandably, a very difficult issue to discuss with any sort of emotional detachment precisely because of the extremely emotional nature of the crime.

i also think that the spectre of rape can do much to limit and simplify women's sexuality and sexual expression. why can't women have complex sexual needs? why can't they have active fantasy lives? why can't a woman enjoy rough sex? why can't a woman enjoy being submissive? or being dominant?

and i hope i don't get in trouble for this post. i am really just trying to post questions as honestly as i can.

the last thing i wonder is that if part of the power of rape comes not from forced penetration, not from genetalia used to commit a crime, but to certain dynamics that exist between men and women that wouldn't necessarily apply to same sex couples. perhaps it's the combination of opposite-sex interactions, combined with (on average) greater male strength and his possession of "the weapon" that turns rape into a multi-layered violation on a physical, emotional, and psychic level, and that it's ultimately much more than simply an unwanted penetration.

 

[Liesje]

i guess i find this confusing. would the reaction tell us about how wanted the penetration was?

Because earlier you said:

but isn't the reaction of the woman precisely what defines rape?

So my answer is no, rape is forcible penetration, a crime, defined by the actions and intent of the perpetrator, not the degree of consent of the victim. Whether or not is punishable depends on the victim's reaction, but that's not the same as whether or not a rape occured. I realize there are more dimensions to it than simply the act, but how people react physically, emotionally, etc do not determine whether or not the act occured.

Rough sex and role playing are not rape, just like if you're in a play and your character gets shoved to the ground by another character, that is not assault.

I understanding what you are saying re the complexity of sexuality, but as a women, I personally don't need or want any gray area between rough sex and rape.

 

[AliEnvy]

I understanding what you are saying re the complexity of sexuality, but as a women, I personally don't need or want any gray area between rough sex and rape.

Same here. Bottom line seems to be that despite the complexity, the onus is on the man to alleviate confusion and be absolutely sure there is consent.

 

[BVS]

I think some of us are going back and forth and talking about slightly different things.

I think it's fair to say that in a healthy relationship there will never be any grey area of consent.

But in the real world there are many unhealthy relationships. So is the concept of consent still that black and white?

Everyone keeps saying forced penetration is rape. But is there a difference in forced penetration and forceful penetration?(I hope this makes sense)

Was the scene in 'History of Violence' forced or just very forceful?

And I guess this is what I'm trying to get at about the scene here in question, was it forced or just very forceful? Or does it matter?

 

[AliEnvy]

was it forced or just very forceful? Or does it matter?

The diffrerence between rough sex and rape is consent. So when we are saying forced penetration is rape, we are implying the absence of consent (verbal or non-verbal).

It sounds as if the scene starts with a very clear absence of consent and then blurs that line inappropriately in a way that wouldn't happen in a real situation. So either there should have been better physical clues from her at the beginning of the attack that showed a level of mutual intent OR they shouldn't have shown her enjoying herself a few minutes into the scene. Do you know what I mean?

Either depict a rape OR dysfunctional rough sex but suggesting both is offensive and adds to the obvious and dangerous confusion.

 

[Liesje]

But in the real world there are many unhealthy relationships. So is the concept of consent still that black and white?

But why loosen the definition of rape because it happens too often?

Was the scene in 'History of Violence' forced or just very forceful?

I don't know, I'd have to watch it again. I remember thinking at the time "um...ok....not my idea of a good time, but...." I don't remember thinking the word "rape", but then again, I wasn't expecting that scene to happen, so I didn't put a lot of thought into it.

 

[Irvine511]

So my answer is no, rape is forcible penetration, a crime, defined by the actions and intent of the perpetrator, not the degree of consent of the victim. Whether or not is punishable depends on the victim's reaction, but that's not the same as whether or not a rape occured.

so a woman could be raped and not think it was that big a deal? it's only a big deal if she presses charges? some rapes are better than others? does this not then play into the notions of a rape fantasy? that a rape could be pleasurable?

i'm not suggesting that this is the case, i'm trying to understand the outline you've proposed above. it seems to me that if rape is defined by the actions an intent of the perpetrator, and not in the reaction of the victim, and if the victim has a positive reaction, then it's a rape but not a crime?

i'm genuinely confused.




[q]Rough sex and role playing are not rape, just like if you're in a play and your character gets shoved to the ground by another character, that is not assault.[/q]


this i totally agree with, however might the scene in "Rescue Me" or the situation BVS has described fall under this definition?

 

[Irvine511]

Either depict a rape OR dysfunctional rough sex but suggesting both is offensive and adds to the obvious and dangerous confusion.

i wonder if this wasn't precisely the point of the scene.

 

[AliEnvy]

The people who made the show don't even agree on what the scene means (Tolan says rape, Leary says no rape) so my tummy tells me they just messed it up and some of the audience is left thinking (or having their assumptions reinforced) that some women secretly enjoy rape.

 

[Liesje]

so a woman could be raped and not think it was that big a deal? it's only a big deal if she presses charges? some rapes are better than others? does this not then play into the notions of a rape fantasy? that a rape could be pleasurable?

Rape is rape. Whether or not a woman presses charges is her decision. Just because she doesn't, doesn't mean it's not a big deal or that she liked it. Whether or not she thinks it's a big deal has no bearing on whether or not a rape is a rape. A LOT of women act like it's not a big deal. Like I said, they're traumatized, in denial, trying to make sense of it and come to ANY conclusion other than: I was grossly violated against my will.

i'm not suggesting that this is the case, i'm trying to understand the outline you've proposed above. it seems to me that if rape is defined by the actions an intent of the perpetrator, and not in the reaction of the victim, and if the victim has a positive reaction, then it's a rape but not a crime?

Rape is always a crime. I was referring to whether or not it gets reported. Most of them don't. But that doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed or that it was less of a rape. I guess it depends on whether you believe a crime is a crime if it doesn't get reported or prosecuted. All I'm saying is that THAT discussion would have NO influence on whether or not a rape occured and how we define rape.

[q]Rough sex and role playing are not rape, just like if you're in a play and your character gets shoved to the ground by another character, that is not assault.[/q]

this i totally agree with, however might the scene in "Rescue Me" or the situation BVS has described fall under this definition?

I don't know, like I said I'd have to see the movie again, and I've never seen this TV show.

 

[AliEnvy]

Like I said, they're traumatized, in denial, trying to make sense of it and come to ANY conclusion other than: I was grossly violated against my will.

Much the same way women suffering domestic violence live in denial, think it's their fault (or that others might think it's their fault) and don't press charges.

 

[BVS]

The diffrerence between rough sex and rape is consent. So when we are saying forced penetration is rape, we are implying the absence of consent (verbal or non-verbal).

I understand this and have acknowledged this.

It sounds as if the scene starts with a very clear absence of consent and then blurs that line inappropriately in a way that wouldn't happen in a real situation. So either there should have been better physical clues from her at the beginning of the attack that showed a level of mutual intent OR they shouldn't have shown her enjoying herself a few minutes into the scene. Do you know what I mean?

Either depict a rape OR dysfunctional rough sex but suggesting both is offensive and adds to the obvious and dangerous confusion.

But no one in here has seen the scene, I just see a lot of conjecture.

 

[Liesje]

But no one in here has seen the scene, I just see a lot of conjecture.

But I think that we shouldn't be re-defining rape based on two scence in movies/TV. I'd like to think that the way I feel about it won't ever change, regardless of a TV show.

 

[BVS]

But why loosen the definition of rape because it happens too often?

No one is loosening anything.

 

[AliEnvy]

Ok forget the scene for a moment. At the heart of this issue is this:

Do you think a woman can possibly enjoy sex that is forced on her against her will? Under what circumstances? Why?

Is it possible that a man who is bi-curious who is raped against his will might decide during the act, hey so this is pretty good after all....

 

[BVS]

But I think that we shouldn't be re-defining rape based on two scence in movies/TV. I'd like to think that the way I feel about it won't ever change, regardless of a TV show.

We're not redefining anything.

I'm just trying to acknowledge that there are unhealthy relationships out there that may not exactly be black and white.

You admitted that you couldn't say yes or no if the scene in History of Violence was concentual or not. So obviously there is gray, that's all I'm saying.

 

[Liesje]

No one is loosening anything.

Then what do you mean by saying that "there are lots of unhealthy relationships, so...." There's lots of unhealthy everything. Rape is rape. Is it possible to enjoy rough sex? Sure! But that's not rape.