Controversy Surrounding Rescue Me Episode

[MrsSpringsteen]

I used to watch this show occasionally, one of the reasons I don't anymore is the depiction of the female characters and the relationships. It got to be tiresome and degrading in many ways. So they have him receive some sort of " karmic payback" and that ties it all up into a neat little bow? Yeah rape is the "technical term". Haven't seen the episode but depicting rape in that way doesn't sound all that appealing or appropriate to me. The sex on the show is quite graphic and "raw", but they really seem to have blurred and crossed the line with this one.

http://www.calendarlive.com/printedition/calendar/cl-et-channel26jun26,0,6506788.story

Taking risks comes naturally to the creators of "Rescue Me"; the series, after all, is a delicately balanced comedy-drama that explores the screwed-up lives of a group of fictional New York firefighters, the same fraternity who were dubbed "America's Heroes" after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. But last week's episode, co-written by Tolan and star Denis Leary, went way too far for many fans and critics.

In the closing scene, after Tommy Gavin (Leary) and soon-to-be-ex-wife Janet (Andrea Roth) argued over custody of a chaise longue, he knocked her onto a sofa, ripped off her clothes and forced himself on her sexually. Then he apologized — not for the rape, but for tearing her shirt. ("It wasn't one of my favorites," Janet replied dazedly, a line that, in suggesting her lack of anger over the violation, did as much to incense some viewers as the act itself.)

Accept Tommy as a boozy, faithless, neurotic lout? Sure. He redeems himself by risking his hide to save people trapped in burning buildings.

But accept him as a rapist? No way, said many viewers. Not goin' there.

The Chicago Tribune's Maureen Ryan blogged that the rape scene "hit a sickening new low." Newark Star-Ledger critic Alan Sepinwall attacked "Rescue Me" for "a pattern of misogyny and pathetic characterizations of women" and said the scene "made me uncomfortable and unhappy in a way even the most extreme TV and film almost never does." Fans began heatedly deconstructing the scene on Web forums.

...

TWOP started in 2001, but Tolan learned of it only last month, from an article in Entertainment Weekly. Surprised by the strong reaction viewers had to the rape scene, he thought he would use the TWOP arena to remind them of its context within the series.

He wrote: "I'll admit this is extremely dicey stuff. The idea of any woman 'enjoying' being raped is repellent, and caused all of us (and the network) a great deal of concern. But again, these are seriously damaged people who are unable to express their emotions — and so expression through brutality has become expected."

"Many TWOP denizens were pleased that the executive producer of a series had bothered to join a discussion. But others were hardly star-struck, including one who suggested that Tolan was merely making fancy excuses for a poorly written script.

Tolan followed up with a protest that some of the discussion was "combative."

"The scene was not written to be provocative," he told me Friday. Asked if he believed what Tommy did to Janet constituted rape, he paused and replied: "Yeah, I guess I'd have to say that. That's the technical [term]. But we never called it that, because we were trying to hook more into the relationship."

Will the rumpus from fans affect the rest of this season's stories? Probably not. Tuesday's episode was the fourth of 13 episodes. Nos. 9 and 10 are being shot now; Tolan is currently rewriting the 11th. But Tolan made a point of noting that Tommy will get his "karmic payback" for the rape in a future episode: "There is a consequence, and it's an unexpected one."

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I hope it's disturbing to any viewer male or female. Yes it's just a TV show but what message is it sending?


http://metromix.chicagotribune.com/tv/mmx-0606240236jun25,1,2387527.story

"Rescue Me" has crossed a troubling line.

Sure, Tommy Gavin, the bad-boy firefighter at the heart of the FX drama, has done awful things in the past. But when he raped his estranged wife, Gavin (played by "Rescue Me" co-creator Denis Leary) hit a sickening new low.

On the June 20 episode of "Rescue Me," Gavin had a conversation with his estranged wife about how to split up their possessions. The conversation grew heated, and he became violent with her, shoved her on the couch and forced her to have sex with him.

It apparently wasn't enough that the show depicted Gavin raping a woman, but it had to show that Janet Gavin appeared to enjoy it by the end of the act.

The worst part? Gavin exited the house with a huge smirk on his face.

The smirk seemed to say, "Women love me, no matter what I do to them." After all, Gavin had just gotten a string of phone calls (on "crazy chick call-in day," as he dubbed it) from four of the women in his life, all of whom are needy or shrewish or sexually obsessed with him -- if not all three.

It's one thing to create a show about a troubled alcoholic with rage issues. But it's another thing entirely to make the lead character of the show a scary sociopath who assaults women.

That's disturbing to any viewer, male or female.

But there are signs FX wants to expand its viewer base beyond its largely male demographic; Glenn Close had a terrific run on "The Shield" and both Susan Sarandon and Marisa Tomei make appearances on "Rescue Me" this season. Still, allowing the lead character on one of the network's flagship shows to be not just a sexist jerk but a rapist as well is not a good way to keep FX's female viewers, let alone attract new ones.

 

[BVS]

There have been other violent "sex" scenes on film that have blurred this line. The first one that comes to mind is from 'History of Violence'.

Although it's not how I would like to define sex, I don't think it technically defines rape. It sounds like she was of consenting mind and didn't say no...doesn't mean I approve, just doesn't sound like the legal term for rape.

Of course I haven't seen it, so I can't say for sure.

 

[Irvine511]

i would have to see the scene to make a judgement.

i am all about art, especially art that pushes boundaries and makes us uncomfortable especially if it leads to deeper understanding and complexity (for example, Dr. Melfi's rape in Season 3 of The Sopranos was tremendously unsettling due to its frank depiction, however it also lead to one of the more profound statements on the cyclical nature of violence that the show explores).

it doesn't sound as if this episode was as artistically valid.

but i'd have to see it.

 

[AliEnvy]

Hmmm...I guess I'd have to see it too but considering the furor, I'm guessing it's safe to call it a rape. Knowing the show, I can't say this comes as a big surprise, especially from Tommy.

I dunno, this kinda reminds me of when people thought Trainspotting advocated heroine use. Personally I thought all around it was a great anti-heroine story. All the Rescue Me characters are hugely flawed and depicted as pathetic stereotypes, not just the women.

Does that advocate or sanction pathetic behaviour or just describe it? The great art debate. I guess it will remain to be seen whether Tommy faces any repercussions for what he did. I don't follow the show closely (I like Leary in general but it's too depressing), but it seems the worse his behaviour, the worse karma bites back at him and continues his downward spiral.

 

[nathan1977]

"It wasn't one of my favorites," Janet replied dazedly...

But isn't this a true depiction of the reaction some women have to rape? A girl I knew who was raped in college was so stunned initially that it took her days to process what had happened -- going from shock to grief to self-doubt (and self-blame) before going after her accuser.

 

[AliEnvy]

I really hope they have written that same arc of realization for Janet into coming episodes then because the most despicable part(s) of this scene (even though I haven't seen it) are that she succumbs to enjoy it and Tommy leaves with an empowering smirk on his face.

Regardless of how honestly that may portray their fcuked up relationship, unless there is hell to pay for Tommy, the messages it sends are disgusting.

I hope she has the last laugh before the show is cancelled...which I'm guessing may be soon.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Well given the way they describe it, it would never qualify as art to me to portray a man and a woman in a heated argument and to have that as a result-whether they actually had her say no or not, the message is disturbing to me. It also perpetuates the notion of a "rape fantasy", which is disgusting to me as well.

The fact that they had him "smirk" says to me they were trying to portray that he had shown her, that he exacted some sort of sick twisted power or something over her. I would have to see the episode to form a complete opinion. It also really disturbs me that the writer said rape was the "technical term" but they never called it that. So if you never call it that and never have her say no, it's not rape according to them, it's just "character development".

I didn't care at all for the scene in History Of Violence either, it made me extremely uncomfortable

 

[BVS]

I didn't care at all for the scene in History Of Violence either, it made me extremely uncomfortable

Yeah it was extremely uncomfortable...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Another article I found

http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-rescuemecontroversy,0,2935668.story?coll=zap-home-promo1

She fights back but then she submits and enjoys it. Grossly inappropriate message, no matter what other messages they are claiming they were aiming for- we will fight at first but we really want it, we are only somehow pretending otherwise. Yeah I get that their relationship is disfunctional, but there are so many other valid ways in which to convey that. She can stand up to him in so many powerful ways other than in a rape scene in which they are suggesting that she wants it or enjoys it somehow. Sounds like he (Tolan) thinks that is female empowerment, he needs a different angle. I wonder if there are any female writers on that show. Here's some empowerment for you-have men on that show who treat women with respect and depict some healthy male/female relationships. That empowers everyone. Fantastic physical attraction to me is mutual and non-violent.

"At issue is one of the more polarizing scenes in a TV drama in recent memory. In the June 20 episode, called "Sparks," firefighter Tommy Gavin (Denis Leary) and his estranged wife, Janet (Andrea Roth), were having a testy though reasonably grown-up conversation about dividing their assets. A throwaway comment about a dining-room set, though, sets Tommy off, and he forces himself on Janet, tearing her shirt and forcibly having sex with her.

Janet fights back, clawing at him and punching him in the face, but then seems to accept the situation, if not even enjoy it a little. And Tommy leaves her house with a smirk on his face. Those two details, as much as the act itself, have sparked debate among fans and critics about not just whether Tommy raped his wife but whether the show was somehow condoning his actions."

"Rescue Me" co-creator Peter Tolan has been a part of that back-and-forth, posting a number of times about the episode, which he co-wrote with Leary.

"Our feeling has always been that Tommy and Janet are in a highly dysfunctional relationship (obviously), a negative vortex fueled by only one positive -- a faint glimmer of love that is constantly overshadowed by truly fantastic physical attraction," Tolan writes in one of his posts. "In terms of the scene ... I never wrote the words 'don't' or 'no' at any point in the scene, and when I talked to Andrea about the playing of the thing, I pretty much told her that she had to stand up to Tommy -- that he had taken so much away from her over the years, that she had to stare him down from a position of strength while he was forcing himself on her. I told her to shame him with the words she was given - to let him know she couldn't hurt her anymore, no matter what he did."

That said, though, Tolan acknowledges that a lot of viewers didn't interpret the scene that way. "

It's on tonight, I will watch to see if anything happens to him. But the Red Sox are on too.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Gee what a surprise, they didn't even mention it. Just from the recap they showed at the beginning-well..sure looked like rape to me. Fighting back like that means no to me, no does not have to be verbalized. Why would any guy continue after that unless his intent was to force someone into submission against their will and humiliate them? I will try to catch the rerun of this episode if they show it.

I did like that line to Tommy that she (not his wife, whoever that other woman is-can't remember) can't live up his ass because he took up residence there a long time ago and the Susan Sarandon character seems like female character other than the typical one on that show.

So his payback is supposed to be getting an STD from the teacher?

 

[BVS]

Fighting back like that means no to me, no does not have to be verbalized.

This is true.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

There are some interesting comments on huffingtonpost.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/26/rescue-me-creator-_n_23833.html

"I saw the episode, and it was definitely a rape scene, without question. She screams in his face "Does this make you feel like more of a man?" and punches him in the face trying to get him off of her and writhing away, and he holds her down by force and mounts her as blood drips out of his mouth onto her neck. It was very hard to watch, and as he finished he had a look on his face that was filled with rage and pain and failure. She just tried to hold out until it was over.

The scene made sense for the characters, and it made sense in the context of the show. Maybe what really disturbed the viewers was that the scene looked like something that had happened before between the couple, something she'd put up with for a long time and knew how to cope her way through and something he'd done before but denied every time immediately thereafter (neither of which, of course, stop it from having been rape). I hope they explore that event more as the season progresses. While it's reassuring to hear that they intend fot the action to have consequences, I'm not surprised -- they do a good job on the show with the way that characters pay for their misdeeds.

In any event, people who don't expect Tommy Gavin (Leary's character) to be an utter failure at pretty much all of life's ideals missed the other episode this season where he nearly kills his brother with his bare hands for having a relationship with his ex-wife. He's not a good guy, and it's odd to think that viewers would think he was, as everyone on the show -- including Gavin himself -- think he's an asshole."



"Having been date-raped -- and by someone I knew and thought I liked beforehand -- I can tell you from first-hand experience, that even though I'd found him attractive beforehand (hence, the date) once force was applied, all sexual desire was gone on my part.

I might have had sex with the same man, unforced, and I might have enjoyed myself.

But my enjoyment wasn't the point, was it? When force and violence is added, it's for the thrill of the sadist and rapist, not the victim.

It's a sick male fantasy that rape turns a woman on -- and perpetrating that fantasy encourages rapists, the idea that men should use of force to get sex, and the idea that women don't mean "no" when they say "no."

I'd had it with "Rescue Me" -- a misogynist's tale on it's best day -- and can only hope none of the writers or producers involved are ever raped at knifepoint, and forced to learn empathy and reality from personal experience."

 

[AliEnvy]

Gee what a surprise, they didn't even mention it.

The following episode? No mention??? Wow.

You know, they could have Tommy pay dearly for HIS actions in a variety of ways (or not as they haven't so far) but they can't write anything into the story to explain, justify, take back or fix the perception that many people (mostly men) who saw the scene took away the idea that once he forced her to give in, she enjoyed it.

Even if Tolan's intent was that she was "standing up to him" and not giving Tommy the satisfaction of thinking he was victimizing or controlling her, how could anyone possibly get that unless they've been a woman in that twisted type of relationship? Not to mention that the majority of the audience is men.

And now, since we're supposed to think she was standing up to him of course she won't say he raped her and if she does, he wins and he'll make her look like a vindictive bitch playing a pseudo-victim.

Now all this publicity will boost ratings.

 

[greeneyedgirl]

My boss has been telling me what a great show it is and that I should try to catch it.
This is the first episode I have been able to watch.
I'm not impressed and probably will not waste my time watching another minute of it.
I was very much disappointed with a few of the characters, having been told how "funny" they are.
However, I was amused by the two roomies in 'denial'

 

[maycocksean]

I haven't seen it, and I hate to make judgments without having seen something for myself. But I have to admitt it sounds pretty bad.

I've only seen a few episodes of this show last season, and I didn't care for it. It was just too cynical, too "dark" for me.

Tommy is definitely an anti-hero, but here's the thing about anti-heros. They're still our heros. We still root for them. People won't watch a show with no one they can "root for." The antihero is someone we "cheer on" even when what he's doing is wrong. It's like the thieves in so many chase movies--these flashy, charming, debonaire men and women, who we wish every success as they take what does not belong to them. As much as I enjoy films like this as much as the next person, it's always bothered me a little bit because A) Stealing isn't so "cool" when I've been robbed. I should know because I have been robbed a few times. B). Real criminals aren't like this--"good guys who just happen to steal for a living" They are selfish, mean, assholes. That's why they steal.

It would seem Rescue Me has taken this whole formula still further, and taken it too far. Because at the end of the day it is perpetuating the worst kinds of myths about rape and viewers (especially male ones) will take that home with them.

But it's "art" some will say. . .

And for me this raises the question: Does art have any responsiblities? And if so what are the responsibilities of art? Are there certain messages about humanity and life that art is required to communicate or can it "say anything?" Can art communicate evil, offensive, and wrong messages, or is that no longer art? Is all art okay? Or is some art "unacceptable" and if so, who decides what is acceptable and what is not?

I don't know the answers to these questions but I'm curious to know what others' thoughts on this are?

 

[BVS]

And for me this raises the question: Does art have any responsiblities?

I'll answer this, if mods feel like this will be taking the thread off subject let me know and we can do a separate thread.

Does art have responsibility? NO! The artist should create without any self censorship. Distributers of the art have the choice whether to censor or control when and where the art is to be heard or seen.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't think art should be censored, but I do believe in some self restraint and introspection in some circumstances. When it comes to an issue such as rape, I think the writers and producers of a TV show (which is the lowest art form in my humble opinion , some much lower than others) have a responsibility to their audience to be as accurate and responsible as possible in their portrayal of the issue. To do otherwise can be dangerous and disrespectful. Yes the ultimate responsibility lies within the viewer- to be educated and discerning.

Like I've said I haven't seen the episode, but from what I've read it was irresponsible. She fought him until he was bleeding, and to turn that into just some extension of their relationship is just gross in my opinion-rape is not just a "technical term". I would love to know how the mostly male audience of that show views it. Do any men still believe in such a thing as "rape fantasy"?

 

[Muggsy]

And for me this raises the question: Does art have any responsiblities? And if so what are the responsibilities of art? Are there certain messages about humanity and life that art is required to communicate or can it "say anything?" Can art communicate evil, offensive, and wrong messages, or is that no longer art? Is all art okay? Or is some art "unacceptable" and if so, who decides what is acceptable and what is not?

I don't know the answers to these questions but I'm curious to know what others' thoughts on this are?

^
some ideas i have

* Art in general has a responsability as a manifestation of the Human's nature. I mean, through art we will see how people used to perceive the reality (Humans symbolize their own reality) in a certain era. Obviously, art can't be all around the beautiful and the light, it explores our dark and ugly side too and that whats makes art so icky for many people. To deny the ugliness and the cruelty in art is in fact deny the ugliness and the cruelty in our lives.

* when you talk about art that doesn't "mean" anything, we can talk about an aesthetic research: the inner "beauty" of the piece of art. But even if that piece isn't intended to mean something it has to produce some emotional reaction, and the public will relate that piece with many of the symbols that they have in their heads. When you give a piece of art to the world is not your piece anymore... maybe you had an argument behind that piece, but all the ones who will look at it will give their own arguments too.

* there are many artists who want their art to be "unnaceptable" and that's a part of their artistic position. Many artist want to generate visceral reactions in their public and that reactions are part of the piece, it is not complete without the rage, the disgust of the people who will see it. Obviously the artists has an ethic who will restrain them to certain point.

*Art sometimes is like and open wound... it hurts, and it is ugly but it let us to take a peek inside of ourselves, the flesh and the maggots.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

a video report on cnn.com

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/pla...z/2006/06/28/vargas.rescue.me.rape.scene.affl

Denis Leary says something like "some people got it and some people didn't, that's the difference between those who should watch the show and those who shouldn't" That's quite an arrogant statement. Hmm what exactly does he mean by that?

It sure looked like a violent rape in that scene, they even put a graphic content warning on the report.

 

[Irvine511]

^
some ideas i have

* Art in general has a responsability as a manifestation of the Human's nature. I mean, through art we will see how people used to perceive the reality (Humans symbolize their own reality) in a certain era. Obviously, art can't be all around the beautiful and the light, it explores our dark and ugly side too and that whats makes art so icky for many people. To deny the ugliness and the cruelty in art is in fact deny the ugliness and the cruelty in our lives.

* when you talk about art that doesn't "mean" anything, we can talk about an aesthetic research: the inner "beauty" of the piece of art. But even if that piece isn't intended to mean something it has to produce some emotional reaction, and the public will relate that piece with many of the symbols that they have in their heads. When you give a piece of art to the world is not your piece anymore... maybe you had an argument behind that piece, but all the ones who will look at it will give their own arguments too.

* there are many artists who want their art to be "unnaceptable" and that's a part of their artistic position. Many artist want to generate visceral reactions in their public and that reactions are part of the piece, it is not complete without the rage, the disgust of the people who will see it. Obviously the artists has an ethic who will restrain them to certain point.

*Art sometimes is like and open wound... it hurts, and it is ugly but it let us to take a peek inside of ourselves, the flesh and the maggots.

great post.

i've been thinking about these questions, and i'll come back later with a response (am having a very busy week at work)

 

[BVS]

Do any men still believe in such a thing as "rape fantasy"?

Unfortunately yes. I started to write about this sooner, but then decided I didn't want to get into it. But I brought this episode up to one of my friends last night and we discussed it. 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

So to me, there's obviously issues on both sides of a relationship like this. Usually rape is a one sided assault, the perpetrator we see as the one with the issues. But in this scene where we actually see the woman submit and maybe even enjoy we see that both have issues. Maybe this was the point of the artist, I have no clue.

 

[AliEnvy]

Does art imitate life or does life imitate art? Probably a bit of both, IMO.

There was a dark comedy element to Rescue Me earlier on that made the characters into caricatures superimposed onto real life in the stories...very similar to Denis Leary's stand up comedy - an unsymapthetic caricature of an a**hole. I thought the show always walked a fine line between making fun off these pathetic characters and saying this is life the way it is for these people you think are your heros (firefighters and cops), deal with it.

Haven't seen it in a long while but it sounds like the cheeky element is gone and it just jumped completely to the dark side. Men rape their wives, it happens and exploring that dark side to push boundaries is one thing but only remotely acceptable when it is shown to be clearly wrong.

WOMEN DON'T ENJOY RAPE

Leaving anyone in the audience with the impression that some do is disgusting and irresponsible.

 

[AEON]

And for me this raises the question: Does art have any responsiblities? And if so what are the responsibilities of art? Are there certain messages about humanity and life that art is required to communicate or can it "say anything?" Can art communicate evil, offensive, and wrong messages, or is that no longer art? Is all art okay? Or is some art "unacceptable" and if so, who decides what is acceptable and what is not?

I don't know the answers to these questions but I'm curious to know what others' thoughts on this are?

You raise some compelling questions.

I try my best to fill my mind and meditate on things "true, noble, reputable, authentic, compelling, gracious—the best, not the worst; the beautiful, not the ugly; things to praise, not things to curse..." I do not do this perfectly, but I certainly try.

I think our minds behave in a way similar to a computer's hard drive and RAM. It is built to have "faster" access to the things which are "most" accessed. Eventually, it can become our default way of thinking. Filling one’s mind with such scenes probably does not do much for the good and very likely contributes to the bad.

 

[Muggsy]

I try my best to fill my mind and meditate on things "true, noble, reputable, authentic, compelling, gracious—the best, not the worst; the beautiful, not the ugly; things to praise, not things to curse..." I do not do this perfectly, but I certainly try.
.

*sorry if I take this away from the original thread *

that reminds me a lot the things that we talk about in my Children's literature class. the parents and educators try to encourage little kids to think the way you do through the books and the images we make for them... and surprinsily kids choose the books with honest views about the life and all the sad and ugly things that we find in our enviroments. Obviously the books we write (and in my case, I illustrate) are in a code, we use metaphores ( to name what can't be named), but kids, who are in so in touch with their feelings and their instints are clever enough to choose the books who tell them the truth over those who try to keep them in a sugar pink shell (yeah,, those with goodie goodie kids and happy endings). I brought this because I think that it is really important to keep good thoughts in mind but sometimes we have to feel rage or sadness or envy and we have to face and deal with those emotions eventually

welll... now I will stay quiet and go back to the original post

Lore.

 

[Irvine511]

WOMEN DON'T ENJOY RAPE

so, to ask some provocative questions, if Tolan (the wife, i think) actually did enjoy the encounter, at least after the fact, is it then rape? is enjoyment, or lack of it, the defining characteristic of what is and what isn't rape? does it have to be as unwanted at the end as it was at the beginning? could she have been playing along the whole time?

i also think it's fair to say that many women (and gay men, for that matter) have what might be poorly termed "rape fantasies" -- though it's important to note that no one actually wishes to be raped, it's more that they wish to be dominated and made to be submissive in the context of role play. it doesn't sound like this is the scenario presented in the show, but i do think it's worthy of discussion -- within the weird and sometimes wild world of sexual fantasy and desire, some adults enjoy partaking in the role play of certain sexual situations that would be considered at best risque and at worst taboo in the real world. the difference between this, and what seems to have happened in "Rescue Me," would have been the mutually discussed and agreed upon parameters of the role play (i.e., having a "safe word").

it does seem to me (again, i haven't seen the show) as if this incident was intended to be a small piece of their dysfunctional relationship that should, ideally, open up a greater understanding of just how dysfunctional their relationship actually is, though it doesn't seem as if the show was successful.

i also think that while we might see the depiction of either a rape fantasy or actual rape as deplorable, i also don't think we should underestimate the audience too much. i can't imagine too many men are going to watch the show and say, "hey, you know what? i'm going to give it to some chick just like Dennis Leary did."

i really can't a single scene from a single show (with hugely flawed characters) altering anyone's attitudes towards rape.

 

[AliEnvy]

so, to ask some provocative questions, if Tolan (the wife, i think) actually did enjoy the encounter, at least after the fact, is it then rape?

So if a man beats his wife and she still loves him afterwards and makes excuses for him, does that make the beating ok?

If a man molests a 12 year old girl through seduction and she enjoys it, is it any less a violation?

Tolan is the producer (or director not sure) who wrote in a blog somewhere the intentions of the scene. I believe he meant the actress who portrays the wife to come across as defiant in light of her out of control situation. Maybe that is what is coming across to people as pleasure.

i also think that while we might see the depiction of either a rape fantasy or actual rape as deplorable, i also don't think we should underestimate the audience too much. i can't imagine too many men are going to watch the show and say, "hey, you know what? i'm going to give it to some chick just like Dennis Leary did."

i really can't a single scene from a single show (with hugely flawed characters) altering anyone's attitudes towards rape.

Except perhaps the teen boys all over middle class America who participate in rainbow and chicken parties. Not to mention the Lacrosse players at a certain university.

 

[Irvine511]

So if a man beats his wife and she still loves him afterwards and makes excuses for him, does that make the beating ok?

If a man molests a 12 year old girl through seduction and she enjoys it, is it any less a violation?

Tolan is the producer (or director not sure) who wrote in a blog somewhere the intentions of the scene. I believe he meant the actress who portrays the wife to come across as defiant in light of her out of control situation. Maybe that is what is coming across to people as pleasure.

you missed my point -- apologize for not making it clearer. you yourself said that "WOMEN DON'T ENJOY RAPE." i was asking you if lack of enjoyment is a necessary condition for what is called rape. i think your first example isn't correct because there is a difference between enjoying an episode of violent sex versus being beaten and then making excuses for someone afterwards. these strike me as very different situations so the comparison holds very little water for me.

we are also dealing with adults here, not minors (who are unable to consent to sexual activity).

i understand this is a touchy topic, and i am risking being misunderstood when i ask provocative questions, but please take my questions as they are intended.

Except perhaps the teen boys all over middle class America who participate in rainbow and chicken parties. Not to mention the Lacrosse players at a certain university.

what is a rainbow and chicken party?

it's looking like there was no rape whatsoever at Duke.

and how are these events directly related to this particular episode?

 

[AliEnvy]

Actually I didn't miss your point at all. I meant to illustrate that the reaction of the victim in some circumstances does not condone or change the nature of the behaviour of the violator.

Sure it's a touchy subject. Especially when it goes down the road of suggesting that rape is just violent sex and since some people like violent sex and dom/sub role play, well then rape must be enoyable to some people.

Rape is forcing a woman (or man) to submit to sex against her will...it's not a game (even in the most dysfunctional relationship) and is an act of violence, not passion, in an attempt to hurt and humiliate. It's a brutal intrusion which is why it's offensive for Rescue Me to misrepresent rape and perpetuate a few myths that surround it.

At a rainbow party boys go from girl to girl (I say boys/girls since they are as young as 11/12) who are wearing different coloured lipsticks and get oral sex from each of them - forming a rainbow. Similarly at a chicken party, girls line up on their knees with their mouthes open bobbing their heads in an assembly line.

I haven't followed the Duke story so if they've been acquitted, I retract my statement.

I think you've related the very real connection between media influence and behaviour in other threads so I don't think I need to explain the type of influence a show like this may have on boys and young adults who already show this type of objectification and low level of respect for the opposite sex and may have no way to separate myth from fact.

 

[Irvine511]

Actually I didn't miss your point at all. I meant to illustrate that the reaction of the victim in some circumstances does not condone or change the nature of the behaviour of the violator.

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.



[q]At a rainbow party boys go from girl to girl (I say boys/girls since they are as young as 11/12) who are wearing different coloured lipsticks and get oral sex from each of them - forming a rainbow. Similarly at a chicken party, girls line up on their knees with their mouthes open bobbing their heads in an assembly line. [/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?

I think you've related the very real connection between media influence and behaviour in other threads so I don't think I need to explain the type of influence a show like this may have on boys and young adults who already show this type of objectification and low level of respect for the opposite sex and may have no way to separate myth from fact.

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

advertising, however, is a different story, particularly amongst children. and this is hardly a show for children.

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.