The moment they exit the city, Fran and Hannah have inverse reactions: While Fran takes deep breaths and glories in his freedom, Hannah begins to feel the walls of the RV closing in on her, and sticks her head out the window to try to find more space.That we are meant to understand this as female-on-male rape is, to me, obvious. Ray protests — while continuing to drive, with Hannah ordering him to keep driving — and (after the rollover crash) Hannah taunts him about his failure to get an erection. He was plainly nonconsenting.
What follows are some of Hannah's worst decisions, all lined up one right after another. She breaks up with Fran at a desolate rest area, refuses his offer of a ride home, calls each of her friends to try to get them to pick her up, finally deigns to call Ray, forces a blow job on him (?!) while he's driving her home, causes him to crash the enormous coffee van, and then leaves him by the side of the road so she can hitchhike back to the city.
The theme of female-on-male violence repeats as Hannah is riding with the man who picked her up hitchhiking. She becomes fearful of him (when she sees a gun in the backseat) but as they talk, we learn that he is fleeing from a girlfriend who physically abused him — and he never hit back. He fled. He could be lying. We never see those scenes. But my point is: The show is not presenting the female characters as victims. They babyishly think of themselves as victims, but that is not the point of view of the writers.
One of the best lines in that episode, delivered by a male character (Adam) who is holding a baby (Sample), responding to a female character (Jessa) who is upset that the baby spit up down her back and screamed "Why aren't you helping me?!": "You're an adult. She's a baby. Why do you need more help than a baby?"
ADDED: I'm looking at a couple other recaps, and these are perfectly blind to rape. Here's Entertainment Weekly:
Hannah decides to reward Ray with some oral stimulation as he’s driving. Ray says no at first, but Hannah keeps going because screw boundaries.Key words: "reward" and "at first." And here's MTV News:
But somehow Hannah manages to make her inelegant break with Fran a high point, as she spends the rest of the episode curled in the fetal position under a sign before Ray shows up, blowing Ray once they’re on the road, and then abandoning him to hitchhike back to New York once her failed attempt at sexual favors has resulted in the crash of Ray’s $50,000 coffee truck.Zero attention to Ray's lack of consent.
Posts
97 comments:
As I've written before in relation to Sunday morning "talking head" shows, thank you for watching this televised dreck, Professor, so that we don't have to.
I am thankful I did not have to grow up with this kind of stuff all around me.
I am curious if Lena is conscious of the point-of-view of the writers.
Serious, here.
Perhaps she views the scene the way the recap writers of EW and MTV portray it, and is oblivious to the perception of the NY Magazine recap -- and Althouse's view of it -- and whatever layers the writers imbued.
I'd be curious if Lena actually thought it was rape.
My guess is she would think it was bad behavior, but not 'rape'. Because.
I am Laslo.
Unwanted blowjobs have long cast a dark shadow over my life. We can all be grateful to Lena Dunham for spreading light on this once taboo subject. Bathroom falls and unwanted blowjobs have blighted so many lives.
I think Lena Dunham's influence on public life can be summed up in two words: unwanted blowjob.
Girl with the Pony Tail on the Treadmill:
That was embarrassing.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I mean, I didn't even like the guy that much.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I just figured I'd give him a blow-job, because: free dinner.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
And then the asshole didn't even get it up.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Said he had to be to work early in the morning.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
It couldn't have been me.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Maybe he had too much to drink.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Maybe he just has a dead dick.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
But if you have a dead dick why would you even bother taking a girl out to dinner?
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
It couldn't have been me.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I didn't even want to give him the blow-job, anyway.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I've given plenty of blow-jobs, and the guys seemed to like them.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
What a dick.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
He drove a Kia, for God's sake.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I give good blow-jobs.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I am Laslo.
We asked the interns of their interest in Girls and Dunham. The interns are aware but thankfully, reassuringly they merit little reaction whatsoever. The self indulgent Dunham exists to satisfy the dark psyches of the self indulgent demographic tail of the baby boomers and little else.
"Zero attention to Ray's lack of consent." Thanks for noticing and everything, but faux surprise, right? I mean, who cares if men consent. We all know even the drunkest frat boy is more in control and therefore accountable than the soberest co-ed. And we all know the difference between rape and rape-rape.
From what Althouse describes, the show appears to be unwatchable nonsense.
Maybe, it's Fantasy Island for a bratty, clueless young feminist (Lena Durham) and how she views her bleak existence in Manhattan with other young unproductive and shallow miscreants in her social circles.
HBO's had some incredible shows (The Wire, Rome, Curb Your Enthusiasm). This ain't one of them.
It takes a very special woman to make a blowjob unwanted. Lena Dunham is that special. In fact, she has the incredible ability to make me question (only as long I'm thinking of her) if I even like sex, and that is truly a phenomenal skill. As the girls like to say: "Eeeewwww!"
So, sexual assault is a "favor" women grant men according to Entertainment Weekly.
rehajm said...
The interns are aware but thankfully, reassuringly they merit little reaction whatsoever.
You should be extremely thankful. I suspect if you drew a Venn diagram of the set of people who like Girls and the set of people who would file a sexual harassment complaint about being asked if they like Girls there would only be one circle.
This could lead to a re-assessment of the concept of rape.
Maybe.
Rape is a tool of war and subjugation of woman. It's not much of a tool of college guys hooking up with hysterical college gals who later accuse them of rape.
Whoopi (is that how you spell it?) referred to "rape rape", and that was a useful concept. It's not something you get to decide later is rape. This guy getting blown in the driver seat...that's not rape rape.
Did we need any more evidence that most of the Left doesn't take seriously the ideas and concepts they insist everyone live by? It's a Fen's law situation, sure, but that's not unique. I guess the surprising thing is that the show was written that way at all and maybe that's what's causing the interest here...but no one should be shocked that most people on the Left (including, naturally, most feminists) don't really believe the things they claim to believe (regarding consent, for example) and don't hold themselves (nor their allies) to the same standards they insist everyone else be held to. The same Media that will come down like a ton of bricks on any innocuous slip of the tongue (by someone they dislike) will either ignore or in fact just fail to see actual bad behavior (intentional acts, etc) by someone they like. Sure, obviously, that's the "who, whom" deal we all get.
Is the interesting thing that the Media commenters don't see the consent problem (thus showing their own lack of belief in the concept as they describe & teach it) or that they see it but give Dunham's character a pass, or what? They're full of shit; of course--they always are.
Is the baby named Sample? Is that, like, a DJ thing, or something worse?
There are many reasons why I don't watch that show. I could not even finish reading this post.
Well, in a way, the lack of consideration of the consent of men is fairly normal in male/female marital and parental relationships, as well as female expectations of deference and privilege from the overall society that they assert is "equality".
So, it makes sense that consent from men isn't viewed as important by the modern Woman Cult.
GIRLS is all about what twenty-something women want. Not what they need or what would be good for them or what might benefit society and certainly not would benefit their male partners. Pity that poor baby Sample. Sample is lucky her male uncle is there to care for her. There is not a female on GIRLS including her mother competent enough to keep her alive.
Ray gets a blow job because Hannah wants to give him—his needs/wants be damned.
As I was reading this, I wondered where that show is. HBO, of course. The cable channel I don't subscribe.
And for that reason among others.
My wife and I watched a DVD of "Lonesome Dove" last night. I've seen it 20 or more times but still enjoy it.
There's a reason for the double standard. Paternity is in question, maternity isn't.
If a guy refuses oral sex when he's driving, it's because it's a distraction or not of interest, not a threat to his personality.
She distracted him anyway. The moral is don't distract the driver.
Ugh.
Well after all, Ray is just a splooge stooge.......
Women can't be rapists anymore than blacks can be racists. Women and blacks are on the losing end of the cultural power imbalance. Therefore, they can never be anything except victims, they can never be victimizers.
People who don't accept this point of view support Trump.
So, do you think the writers intended this to show Lena's character in a bad light?
Or did then intend to show the current definition of rape in a bad light?
The way I see it, if something is so trivial that it could be stopped with a small amount of pushing the other person away, or ( stopping the car and ) walking away, then maybe we shouldn't be treating it as such a big deal.
( Note: I consider rape to be a very big deal. I've been emotionally close to two different girls who were violently raped. I wish that their situations had been such that they could have gotten up and walked away. If so, they would not have been raped. )
"I am curious if Lena is conscious of the point-of-view of the writers."
Not all episodes are written by Lena Dunham, but that one was.
That episode very clearly shows that Dunham's viewpoint is not Hannah's. Hannah is an alter ego who is more stupid, more evil, more immature, etc. etc.
"From what Althouse describes, the show appears to be unwatchable nonsense."
Have you ever read Tolstoy's summary of Wagner's "Ring Trilogy"?
More stupid, more evil, more immature? than this twit Dunham?
..because men are supposed to be as easy as the light switch. If the switch won't go into the up position and turn the lights on, you need to call the electrician to put in a new switch.
Stupid man. Switch wouldn't work. He'll need to fix that before he gets the next call to bail her out of trouble.
As long as a guy has reached puberty, is conscious and significantly more powerful than the woman physically (including not being tied up or having a gun pointed at his head), the concept of "rape" in my shallow mind just does not apply (yes, even if a significant age difference).* I think this attitude was shared by most men over last 200 years; it is only in last 20 years that people have been trying to "girlify" the concept of what a man is to make him more vulnerable and sensitive. Most people here may see this as progress. I don't, but hope you enjoy all the wimpy little non-men at your colleges crying about safe spaces and victim status.
* I concede, of course, that men can be sexually harassed under these circumstances.
"GIRLS is all about what twenty-something women want. Not what they need or what would be good for them or what might benefit society and certainly not would benefit their male partners..."
I think you have that almost backwards. The show is extremely critical of the 4 young women and continually satirizes their immaturity and sense of entitlement. If women in the same stage of life enjoy the show, they are either on a path toward maturity or not understanding what's in front of their eyes.
Haven't seen this episode yet.
But "Girls" is not the expected heapin-helpin of leftist tripe you might expect from Dunham in real life.
I've grown to like the show's balance of holding nothing sacred, especially leftist notions.
"That episode very clearly shows that Dunham's viewpoint is not Hannah's. Hannah is an alter ego who is more stupid, more evil, more immature, etc. etc."
That would apply even if she thought she was just making a sad-sack character -- but still not perceive it as rape.
This part of my point still stands, I believe:
"Perhaps she views the scene the way the recap writers of EW and MTV portray it, and is oblivious to the perception of the NY Magazine recap -- and Althouse's view of it ..."
Have you ever read Tolstoy's summary of Wagner's "Ring Trilogy"?
From a dramatic standpoint Anna Russell has no match for your Ring trilogy. Saves so much time, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN5dAQLYYrs
I haven't seen Dunham's work - it sounds no worse to me than TV in general - but she's an Oberlin graduate, featured in the alumni magazine a couple of years ago.
Stupid, evil and immature doesn't catch it. It's pop culture at the edges of female consciousness.
For guys, it's just your girlfriend is crazy. What else is new.
Althouse wants equality of rape, not understanding that rape is a crime against modesty and depends on that. Guys have no modesty. Feminine modesty is not supposed to exist any longer, but there it is, persisting in sexual difference.
The characters on "Girls" are stupid. The actresses who portray them are also stupid.
So you have stupidity squared.
The girls and women in my life aren't like the girls in "Girls". The girls I know (a) raise kids, (b) work hard, (c) drink wine, (d) coach volleyball, (e) cook splendid meals, (f) volunteer at school, (g) throw parties, (h) make quilts, (i) lead Girl Scout troops, (j) watch "Game of Thrones, and (k) and give nice hugs.
The girls in "Girls" might be mutants, designed to repel healthy positive relationships with normal human beings. One big "Yuck" to Dunham and her cohorts.
Debussy wrote that Wagner was a beautiful sunset mistaken for a beautiful sunrise.
"That episode very clearly shows that Dunham's viewpoint is not Hannah's. Hannah is an alter ego who is more stupid, more evil, more immature, etc. etc."
Can you elaborate on that? Why are you certain that Dunham's viewpoint is not Hannah's? Is it obvious in the interactions of other characters? Or is it that your interpretation is that no one could present Hannah as anything other than a negative portrayal?
"As long as a guy has reached puberty, is conscious and significantly more powerful than the woman physically (including not being tied up or having a gun pointed at his head), the concept of "rape" in my shallow mind just does not apply (yes, even if a significant age difference).* I think this attitude was shared by most men over last 200 years; it is only in last 20 years that people have been trying to "girlify" the concept of what a man is to make him more vulnerable and sensitive. Most people here may see this as progress. I don't, but hope you enjoy all the wimpy little non-men at your colleges crying about safe spaces and victim status."
Once rape is defined to include more than physically overpowering the other person, it's important to apply the legal definition properly.
How do you feel about the domestic violence problem also presented in that episode? The female was beating up the male. He never fought back. Some people think that's the rule: The woman can hit the man all she wants (though perhaps not with objects (such as golf clubs)) and he can never hit back. I would look at the definition of the crime and apply the law equally to males and females. I would be critical of women who think the law doesn't apply to them and they have some sort of immunity based on a real or perceived vulnerability.
"I would be critical of women who think the law doesn't apply to them and they have some sort of immunity based on a real or perceived vulnerability."
And I believe that Lena Dunham agrees with me about that.
Unlike some of you who express strong opinions here, I watch the show. (I've seen every episode and have rewatched many episodes.)
Ahhhhhh! The planets have realigned. Gotta Pee Lil Lena has returned to her rightful place. I was beginning to worry.
Once rape is defined to include more than physically overpowering the other person, it's important to apply the legal definition properly.
It's the gay marriage thing again. The old word remains. It's not marriage, and it's not rape, respectively.
If the law takes a stand the other way, the law can lose the ensuing cultural battle.
The word came into being to reflect an interest. That interest remains what it was.
The Lena Dunham issue of the Oberlin Alumni Magazine.
Ann Althouse said, "I would look at the definition of the crime and apply the law equally to males and females. I would be critical of women who think the law doesn't apply to them and they have some sort of immunity based on a real or perceived vulnerability."
Yes. But don't let's be stupid. Women are never going to be accused of rape for real, except when they have sex with <18yo boys. There's an SNL skit on the subject.
Men and boys are accused of rape for real.
This is a problem. I went my son's freshman orientation at college some time ago. There was a little panel up front, including the head cop on campus. Some lady in the audience stood up and asked what they were going to do about the campus rape epidemic. The cop stood up and carefully said that they were going to do everything possible to do right by the female students. Not a word about boys or due process.
Our boys are being destroyed! This is no small matter, and just saying boys and girls should face the same rules is not a solution.
Nobody ha said it yet? Okay, then. "No" really means "yes", right?
Buckle up ladies - and I use that term loosely (hah), you reap what you sow.
Blogger EDH said...Haven't seen this episode yet.
But "Girls" is not the expected heapin-helpin of leftist tripe you might expect from Dunham in real life.
It's true that the show is much more sophisticated and subtle than most of the people here who don't watch it give it credit for, but Girls never really questions the "liberals good/conservatives bad" dichotomy. I give as evidence the storyline when Hannah had a black republican boyfriend. He was a perfectly nice guy who her friends hated solely because he was conservative. They were relentlessly rude to him and he was endlessly patient with them. She ultimately broke up with him because he didn't like a story she wrote and she couldn't bear the criticism.
So far so good, but as this storyline unfolded, I couldn't help but notice that he never once voiced a conservative opinion, not once was there a discussion of differing views. They never got into details about how a person could be conservative also not be a monster. It was just "I know what I believe," and "I believe what I believe".
Either they couldn't imagine having him say what he believes while still being likable, or it was just too hard for them to think of a conservative argument.
Some lady in the audience stood up and asked what they were going to do about the campus rape epidemic.
Correct answer: Why do you believe there is a campus rape epidemic?
You are forgetting that oral sex isn't sex since the Clinton years. Stick with the narrative.
tim maguire said...
Girls never really questions the "liberals good/conservatives bad" dichotomy. I give as evidence the storyline when Hannah had a black republican boyfriend. He was a perfectly nice guy who her friends hated solely because he was conservative. They were relentlessly rude to him and he was endlessly patient with them. She ultimately broke up with him because he didn't like a story she wrote and she couldn't bear the criticism.
So the show demonstrated a worthy conservative immune from the supposed cause of liberal hate but the liberals hate him anyway, and you conclude this supports the "liberals good" narrative? I think you're starting with the presumption that the main characters are heroes to be emulated and working back from that. If you drop that presumption the conclusions come out quite differently.
This reminds me of The Shield where the main characters are awful. The writers take advantage of your natural desire to root for the main character by placing them first in normal circumstances but later have them act horribly to see if you go along.
Wait, the baby's name is Sample?
Maybe you didn't watch
Maybe??
It is the same when listening to an opera of Wagner’s. Sit in the dark for four days in company with people who are not quite normal, and, through the auditory nerves, subject your brain to the strongest action of the sounds best adapted to excite it, and you will no doubt be reduced to an abnormal condition and be enchanted by absurdities.
But then Tolstoy didn't like Shakespeare or Beethoven, Dante, Milton, etc, etc, etc. Tolstoy was a bit of a crank.
Tolstoy on the Beethoven's Ninth Symphony.
not only do I not see how the feelings transmitted by this work could unite people not specially trained to submit themselves to its complex hypnotism, but I am unable to imagine to myself a crowd of normal people who could understand anything of this long, confused, and artificial production, except short snatches which are lost in a sea of what is incomprehensible. And therefore, whether I like it or not, I am compelled to conclude that this work belongs to the rank of bad art.
The only way HBO would take the show required hipsters to be portrayed in a negative light. Market research shows that Americans hold a dim view of hipsters. Dunham is therefore a hipster traitor, taking the big paycheck to flush her fellow hipsters down the creek. But accidentally, she has created an accurate portrait.
Slow news day?
I need eye bleach now, but I perused the comments on the EW article. Not only did the article fail to address the lack of consent, but I couldn't find any comments about it either. So...had to register and leave one :)
I am curious if Lena is conscious of the point-of-view of the writers.
Exactly my thought as I read AA's post.
Tolstoy just hated Beethoven's ninth because Natasha couldn't dance to it. Not Slavic enough.
See Orlando Figes.
@buwaya puti
Thanks for the heads up. I think I will order that book. Checked it out on line, sounds very interesting.
Art imitates life. Didn't she admit in her book to molesting her brother or sister when she was young?
She reminds me of Nixon when he said it's not a crime when the President does it. I guess it isn't rape when she does it.
Didn't she admit in her book to molesting her brother or sister when she was young?
No, she didn't. She told stories that sounded like sexual abuse to readers. For example, she tried talked about caring for her baby sister and calling over her Mom to report that she had she something strange in her sister's vagina. When her Mom examined the baby, pebbles began to fall out--a handful of them. Readers sussed that there was no way a baby would fill herself with pebbles, and if she tried, a normal big sister would stop her. She was supposed to be watching her aferall.
@Ann:Once rape is defined to include more than physically overpowering the other person, it's important to apply the legal definition properly.
How do you feel about the domestic violence problem also presented in that episode? The female was beating up the male. He never fought back. Some people think that's the rule: The woman can hit the man all she wants (though perhaps not with objects (such as golf clubs)) and he can never hit back. I would look at the definition of the crime and apply the law equally to males and females. I would be critical of women who think the law doesn't apply to them and they have some sort of immunity based on a real or perceived vulnerability.
This. Keep saying this. This is what our society needs to hear right now: that laws apply equally and not based on "Who? Whom?"
It is as wrong for a poor man to pick a rich man's pocket as it is the other way around. When the government punishes only the "privileged" it is for the purpose of destroying competing sources of power.
After the prosecutor finished describing the troublesome case, Stalin sat in quiet thought for a moment before asking an unexpected question of the increasingly agitated prosecutor.
“How much does the State weigh?” asked the Soviet ruler in a disarmingly gentle voice. “All of the buildings, the farms, the weapons and equipment? All of the officials, police, soldiers, and prosecutors?”
The prosecutor, who by this time was probably about to suffer a stress-induced coronary, replied that he didn't know the answer, and doubted that anybody could know.
“How long could one man hold the weight of the State on his back?” Stalin persisted, his voice still atypically mild.
“Comrade Chairman, no man could bear the weight of the State for an instant!” answered the prosecutor.
“Exactly,” replied Stalin, his voice suddenly transposing into a quietly threatening register that induced a perceptible chill in the room. “Remember this well, and go back and get that confession.”
AA: Unlike some of you who express strong opinions here, I watch the show. (I've seen every episode and have rewatched many episodes.)
Fish -- goldfish bowl -- not understanding concept of "wet"
On the recommendation of my wife's friend, who, to her credit, loves football, I watched a few episodes of "Girls." I want those hours of my life back:)
I usually agree with rhhardin, but on this, I think he's full of crap.
Hypothetical: I'm driving down the street. 2 women with guns get into my car quicker than I can lock the doors. They're both armed. One holds a gun to my head and tells me I'm going to fuck the other girl, and if I don't get it up, I'm gonna get my head blown off. Rather than be shot, I comply.
Have I been raped? Most definitely, certainly, YES. End of story. Cultural changes mean nothing in the above scenario, even if there are guys who fantasize about this very thing.
What Michael K said. The appropriate response to crap like this is to not watch it. I took in Breaker Morant Saturday night- treat yourself to something substantive & good. Read a good book, for that matter. Life is short. Leave Girls for people who actually like that sort of thing, or, who feel compelled to try to study and understand popular culture.
I like the thought of a show written by a women, from a woman's point of view, that is at times sympathetic to them and at other times takes them to task. As a young woman, I often hung out with women like me who were highly educated and liberal, and at times entitled, snarky, selfish, and clueless. The main thing we were clueless about was how clueless we were. I am less clueless now but still clueless, and less entitled but still entitled. Since she wrote this episode, it sounds like LD is somewhat self aware, which enables her to add layers to her writing. I will probably wind up watching Girls on Amazon. Right now I am into The Good Wife, which among other things takes aim at selfishness and liberal cluelessness. As a selfish liberal, I enjoy that because it's thought provoking.
Why do you need more help than a baby?
Let me know when they make a pro-life episode. I'd like to see it!
I usually agree with rhhardin, but on this, I think he's full of crap.
It's forced sex in your scenerio, but it's not rape.
That's the ingrown sense that rape has, that won't go away under modern redefinition. Nor will intuitions about it.
Althouse depends on the for-females-only intuition about rape to assert the need for gender equality.
You guys are basically girls.
rhhardin said...
It's forced sex in your scenerio, but it's not rape.
4/12/16, 11:48 AM
If I am understanding you correctly:
a) man puts gun to women's head and performs intercourse with threat of death for failure to comply equals rape.
b) woman puts gun to man's head and performs intercourse with thread of death for failure to comply not equals rape.
Is that right? If a not equal b, why? Is it your opinion that only women can be raped? Is it the act of penetration that makes it rape? What about a man forcing anal or oral on another man? Is that not rape? What specifically is your definition of rape? Thank you.
Rape is a crime of violence. You are trying to hurt a person. Once you see that, a false rape allegation makes perfect sense. You are attempting to dupe the state into committing the violence for you.
We have countless incidents of false rape in our culture. People who do this who are almost never punished. It's rather like abortion, an example of out-of-control female power and a right-to-commit-violence against innocent people.
If you are not a feminist, but instead a humanist, you would notice this violence and be upset about it.
But Lena is a feminist. So she ignores all these real life evils committed by women, and instead creates some ridiculous and absurd attempt to show a woman as a rapist. He's helpless because he's driving a car!
if this were a college campus where you need to get consent at every step of the interaction, his first protestation would be grounds for rape charges, or at least cries of rape. Why does the show Girls promote rape culture?
Next on Girls!
"After enduring a spiritual crisis, following her sexual assault of friend, Ray, Hannah goes to Church on Sunday, finds ordinary decent people there who work, love, raise families, serve their country, and volunteer at Community food banks. Recognizing her own shallow, narcissistic behavior, Hannah vows to clean up her act, lose weight, abandon an unhealthy pre-occupation with sex, and actually read a few books this year. In the course of her spiritual awaking, Hannah meets a nice young accountant from Brooklyn at local grocery store, falls in love, gets married, moves to Yonkers and has a baby." Sunday at 9:00 pm.
Ignorance is Bliss said...The way I see it, if something is so trivial that it could be stopped with a small amount of pushing the other person away, or ( stopping the car and ) walking away, then maybe we shouldn't be treating it as such a big deal.
Where have you been for the last 35 years IiB? What the hell? Your statement is "objectively pro-rape!"
Small amount of pushing?! Look, it's rape even if the person being raped says nothing and does nothing to indicate that they don't consent to the action taking place (or about to take place). Shouldn't be treating it as such a big deal?! People are in jail now, people have been kicked out of school, lost jobs, and had their lives ruined in the real world for situations where the alleged lack of consent was much more ambiguous than the scene described here! Whoops, I guess, huh?!
Look, the legal definition of rape and sexual assault, and the one used by schools, courts, etc, is what counts. If you're saying that "we" shouldn't treat things as they're treated under the law, ok, but the bad news for you is that the culture & society absolutely do and you lost that battle many years ago. We're just getting around to putting the consequences of that change into place in a lot of areas (colleges most notably) but those changes were made and if you were on the other side, sorry--you lost.
Prof. Althouse is pointing out that the very groups who are so keen to apply those standards in most cases not only don't apply them here but seem to be blind to their own lack of application. That's worth noting, but to me only in the context of "these people don't really believe this stuff themselves--they just "believe" it when convenient insomuch as it can be used as a weapon against people they dislike or to advance their agenda generally." That fact, of course, does nothing to help the people they attack using that weapon, but that's what happens when one side "wins" a cultural/societial battle--they get the power, they set the rules, and God help you if you're on the other side.
Vae victis!
Ann Althouse said...Some people think that's the rule: The woman can hit the man all she wants (though perhaps not with objects (such as golf clubs)) and he can never hit back. I would look at the definition of the crime and apply the law equally to males and females. I would be critical of women who think the law doesn't apply to them and they have some sort of immunity based on a real or perceived vulnerability.
Some people? Some people to include most law enforcement, most prosecutors, most judges...yeah, some people.
Professor Althouse the MRA, who knew?!
Just kidding; there's a splooge stooge attack waiting back there somewhere.
Oh, it must be the case, though, that both Dunham's character and the male characters mentioned in the synopsis aren't part of "the backbone of society," though, right? As such I'm not clear on why we should give a damn about their problems/any illegal or unjust treatment they deserve.
Was it really a rape? WEll only if you apply the SJW version of rape. I've been in situations where I said no initially but ultimately caved in and said yes. With someone I was intimate with. Did she "RAPE" me?
Is that right? If a not equal b, why? Is it your opinion that only women can be raped? Is it the act of penetration that makes it rape? What about a man forcing anal or oral on another man? Is that not rape? What specifically is your definition of rape? Thank you.
It's assault and battery, not rape, with men.
Penetration is an attempt to find something common to transfer the term to men.
Rape is a crime against feminine modesty. That intuition will always remain with the word.
That makes the word useful for suggesting new doctrines through context vs intuition, as we see.
jr565 said... I've been in situations where I said no initially but ultimately caved in and said yes. With someone I was intimate with. Did she "RAPE" me?
Yes. Coercion and pestering to overcome a lack of consent means the consent wasn't valid and the action was rape and/or sexual assault.
In Lena's defense, she's not doing a drama.
I think the movie Gone Girl was kind of trashy and silly. But I think the underlying storyline--a woman who makes a false accusation--is very plausible.
That's why Gone Girl is a drama and Girls is a comedy. We can all relax and laugh at the shenanigans on Girls because there is no fear in men of being raped by girls. The whole idea is rather silly.
The way a woman can "rape" you is by taking your kids, taking your house, aborting your baby, putting you in prison for something you did not do. There are many ways a woman can harm a man. But almost all of them are done via the state. To explore this sort of evil, you'd almost have to become a Republican artist. That's not going to happen, at least not until she has a baby.
Hoodlum doodlum wrote:
jr565 said... I've been in situations where I said no initially but ultimately caved in and said yes. With someone I was intimate with. Did she "RAPE" me?
Yes. Coercion and pestering to overcome a lack of consent means the consent wasn't valid and the action was rape and/or sexual assault.
BUt I dont consider that she did in fact rape me. The force was akin to a kid asking for a toy and the mother saying no, and the kid keeps crying until the mother relents. It is a force of a kind, but its not as if the kid holds a gun to his mothers head. Pestering is not necessarily coercion since my lack of consent was temporary. i certainly wouldn't charge her with rape.
Hoodlum doodlum wrote:
Yes. Coercion and pestering to overcome a lack of consent means the consent wasn't valid and the action was rape and/or sexual assault.
People are sexual creatures and dont always have sexual interest at the exact same time. Initially. but can be worked up to it if their minds change. And so, there will always be some degree of pestering or physicality involved on either side and I dont see how you can have that if you immediately say unwanted initiations are rape, necessarily.
My no for example wasn't not a hard no as in "Absolutely not." it was more of a "Not really interested now. but maybe in a bit..." however it was expressed as a no.
She could see, I assume, that I could be persuaded to change my mind and that my no didnt really me no. it just meant No at this particular second.It was the difference of her making the first move as opposed to me making the first move.
(cont) now, if I legitimately was saying no because i found it offensive to have sex with her and she continued anyway i WOULD consider that a rape. However, the context of my no would be different. I guess what I'm saying is "no doesnt' always mean no" it depends on who you're saying no to, and how emphatic your no actually is. Or, it might also mean that if i was dating someone and found them attractive, even if i said no, intitially and even if I meant it, I wouldn't call it a rape because i've said yes plenty of times before, and would again in the future. So, it would be more like a nuiscance, and not an assault.
If it were a first date, obviously it would be different. Unless I found them really hot and wanted to have sex with them ultimately. Maybe my sayin No is a way to get them to try harder, so that I can say yes later.
Rape woudl be reserved for a stranger or lover who actively hurts me. or threatens me. Giving me pleasure at an inopportune time is still giving me pleasure.
but thats just me. I would certainly accept boundaries and would not force myself on others. However, if truth be told, there have been times when i got the "not tonight I have a headache" style line, and then 20 minutes later, tried again. Because the no may have been temporary. Maybe the aspirin helped with the headache. It doesnt hurt to ask.
sexual seduction is not so binary as yes no interactions. The universities want to make you give consent at every step of the process. But that's simply not realistic. I've NEVER been intimate with someone and have to say "may i kiss you here? May I kiss you here? May I thrust? may i thrust again? No, you go in for the kiss. often without the consent (but you presume the consent is there because she's been giving you that look), and you see if she likes it. if she says no, how emphatic is the no. is it playful? does she curl up in a fetal position? Does she punch you in the throat?
In the case of ray he certainly didn't say yes. And he even said no. However guys generally do not have women just start blowing them while driving. So you might initially have a No reaction because you're driving because the first response is "is this appropriate in this moment" and you do t know how to act. Think of when a woman springs th fact that she's pregnant on a guy and his first reaction isn't always cheering in th aisles. Sometimes he looks like you just told him his dog was run over. People may start with one reaction and then mode to another reaction. Without saying a word.
You might also say no because maybe she's a friend and you think it would be awkward to move from friends to lovers wtc etc wtc. But then you realize that she is in fact blowing you and you may enjoy being blown. So your no becomes a yes. Your reaction might be "technically I said no and she therefore should have stopped, but if she hadn't ignored my no then she wouldn't be blowing me now. And I like being blown"
I Callahan, you meant "more quickly".
HoodlumDoodlum said...
...and if you were on the other side, sorry--you lost.
Being on the losing side of the culture war and being wrong are two different things.
"I think you have that almost backwards. The show is extremely critical of the 4 young women and continually satirizes their immaturity and sense of entitlement. If women in the same stage of life enjoy the show, they are either on a path toward maturity or not understanding what's in front of their eyes."
considering what Lena Dunham is like in real life I dont know that I'd say it is satirizing their immaturity so much as providing a non judgemental view of life for girls like Lena Dunham. Because she seems to be as shallow as her character.
jr565 said... The force was akin to a kid asking for a toy and the mother saying no, and the kid keeps crying until the mother relents. It is a force of a kind, but its not as if the kid holds a gun to his mothers head. Pestering is not necessarily coercion since my lack of consent was temporary. i certainly wouldn't charge her with rape.
The question wasn't whether you'd charge her with rape. The question was "was that rape?" And according to the definitions used now, notably on places like college campuses (but not limited to just there) the answer is yes, that could reasonably be considered rape. Using guilt, pleading, convincing/arguing, etc. to overcome an objection or "no" is the same as ignoring a firm objection and if you continue after obtaining "consent" in that way you've committed rape. That's the rule!
Look, you might think it's wrong, or wacky, or wouldn't be used against someone like you (and I hope you're right on that!) but it's the rule in a lot of places.
LoveIsRespect.Org: What is Sexual Coercion?
Money quote: "It’s not consent if you’re afraid to say no. It’s not consent if you’re being manipulated, pressured, or threatened to say yes."
Volokh article: Rape Using Guilt or Arguing
Ignorance is Bliss said...Being on the losing side of the culture war and being wrong are two different things.
Of course. But you have to recognize that you lost, and that the rules are what they are, or you are going to be in a LOT of trouble.
Poster: If you have to convince them, it's not consent.
Is It Rape If You Say Yes? 5 Types of Sexual Coercion Explained
Money quote: Sometimes, it even falls within the realm of rape; studies have documented that victims of sexual coercion can suffer from anxiety, depression, and PTSD at rates similar to to those who have experienced sexual violence. But because there is so little public knowledge about sexual coercion, many women who have been sexually coerced might not even be aware that what happened to them qualifies as sexual assault, and may instead blame themselves for their trauma.
The law is the law and the rules are the rules, jr565.
That's true for simple battery and its true for sexual assault.
Hoodlum doodlum wrote:
The question wasn't whether you'd charge her with rape. The question was "was that rape?" And according to the definitions used now, notably on places like college campuses (but not limited to just there) the answer is yes, that could reasonably be considered rape
but those rules on campus are ludicrous.
"The law is the law and the rules are the rules, jr565.
That's true for simple battery and its true for sexual assault."
Well, the person I was referring to is an ex. I wonder if I can still get her on rape. "Remember a few years ago when you wanted to have sex? And I was reluctant. YOU RAPED ME!"
Why would anyone watch this?
ms. dunham, the show's creator and star, has stated in every interview i've seen that her show is a representation of 'what life is really like for her generation'.
our hostess here, who has "seen every episode...and some episodes several times" thinks that she's watching a satire...and she would appreciate it if you would get off of her lawn.
what el polacko said......
If the Dunham character feels "icky" about the bj later on, the coffee truck driver will have actually raped her. He said/ she said, and we must always believe the victim.
Thank you for calling this out. I was just having a phone conversation with my brother tonight where he remarked, "Did you notice that Hannah raped Ray on the latest episode of "Girls," to which I replied "YES! I completely noticed that!" But what can we do, we thought. We are "privileged" white males. We will be vilified if we remark on the objective fact of a female to male rape on a show. The after episodes comments by Duhnam were particularly inane. "Hannah is more liberal than Fran and he has passive aggressive "fake" niceness." Cool, is Hannah's "liberal" side her rapist side? I really think Dunham is completely in denial of this. To my memory her book was supposed to include an incident where she molested her sister as a child? I didn't read it, I just remember hearing that. I really hope this clear and objective fact gets picked up somewhere. I was on a trial once of a rape case and there is no ambiguity to rape, and this was a rape. And it wasn't funny. Girls is usually terribly unfunny anyway- what a shitty show.
rhhardin said...
It's assault and battery, not rape, with men.
...
Rape is a crime against feminine modesty. That intuition will always remain with the word.
...
4/12/16, 12:50 PM
That would be your opinion and it is fine for you to hold such but that is not how it is accepted by "most" people nor the law.
Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration perpetrated against a person without that person's consent.
and
unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.
I understand that reasonable people can discuss/disagree as to the finer details of "consent" and I have been involved in those discussions myself BUT in my examples above there was absolutely NO consent in either case and as such both are legally rape. The gender of the "assaulted" individual is not relevant. If both a woman and a man are forcibly penetrated anally, either both were raped or neither were raped and according to the law, both were.
Not sure why you are so insistent that the term is only applicable to female victims.
Post a Comment