Rough subject: Thank you for your comments, folks

[KTC]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

The paragraph I posted is the final in the article, written by a journalist.

If you read the article, you'll see the rapists' thoughts, the words of the two victims, and Tom Junod's impressions.


I posted that to illustrate that grief over raping someone? Meaningless. Who cares? Rapists *do* deserve to suffer, for the rest of their lives, for what they've done. Cry all day long; it changes nothing. It doesn't mean you're an okay person who had a momentary slip. Crying is selfish. It's self-pitying. It's regretful, but not remorseful. It doesn't do a goddamned thing for the person who was raped.

Victims may forgive; that's their prerogative and for some may be part of the healing process, but it in no way changes, minimizes, or offers redemption to the rapist for the tremendous violation, assault, dehumanizing act of rape.

If you break another human, that's it for you in terms of ever being a truly decent person.

This is 100% accurate. You never earn back your decent person card once you have committed this crime of humanity.

[Amadan]

Originally Posted by KTC

This is 100% accurate. You never earn back your decent person card once you have committed this crime of humanity.

Well, isn't that true for anyone who's committed a terrible crime, then? Can anyone who's done something truly terrible ever earn back their decent person card?

[HoneyBadger]

Originally Posted by Amadan

Well, isn't that true for anyone who's committed a terrible crime, then? Can anyone who's done something truly terrible ever earn back their decent person card?

Maybe. Depends on what your definition of "terrible crime" is.

Rape is one of those things where there simply is not an exception; there are zillions of valid reasons one might kill, steal, or hurt another person, but baring "you rape this guy or I'll kill you both" kind of situations, there is no such animal as justifiable rape.

Rape really *is* different; the psychology of a rapist and the impact of the rape itself sets rape and sexual assault apart from other forms of assault, and other crime in general.

[Amadan]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

Maybe. Depends on what your definition of "terrible crime" is.

Rape is one of those things where there simply is not an exception; there are zillions of valid reasons one might kill, steal, or hurt another person, but baring "you rape this guy or I'll kill you both" kind of situations, there is no such animal as justifiable rape.

Rape really *is* different; the psychology of a rapist and the impact of the rape itself sets rape and sexual assault apart from other forms of assault, and other crime in general.

Murderers, arsonists, torturers, con men, pimps, drug dealers, mob bosses, dictators... I can think of numerous terrible crimes that mark the perpetrator as someone fundamentally lacking in humanity and causing lifelong misery to his victims. I understand why rape is such an emotional subject, but I really can't agree that a rapist is automatically worse than, say, Bernie Madoff, who destroyed thousands of lives, simply because rape is a more personal and viscerally disgusting crime than stealing old people's pensions.

I believe very few people who commit terrible crimes ever become redeemable, but if it is possible for very bad people to redeem themselves, then I don't see why rape is the one crime above all others that makes it impossible.

We're drifting a bit, but trying to relate it to the OP: people seem to be saying categorically that a rapist is evil, period, can never be redeemed, period, can never love his victim and be loved by his victim, period, and no story that depicts that is acceptable or believable, period. I think that's both wrong and unhelpful.

[mccardey]

Originally Posted by Amadan

We're drifting a bit, but trying to relate it to the OP: people seem to be saying categorically that a rapist is evil, period, can never be redeemed, period, can never love his victim and be loved by his victim, period, and no story that depicts that is acceptable or believable, period. I think that's both wrong and unhelpful.

Again, to be fair, we're not all saying that, and even those who are saying some of it, are saying - well - only some of it. And as answers to a request for our opinions, all the answers are helpful, because they're our opinions. And that was what was asked for.

I have a question. . .let me preface it. I wrote a novel, Cherry. I've posted some on SYW. The mc is a guy, not such a nice guy. He's twice-divorced, drinks, blah blah. He ends up picking up a kid one night (the "kid" is 18, fyi), a male prostitute, and winds up having sex, then he's enamored with the kid. He can't figure it out.

Anyway.

At one point, he rapes this person. This is how I handled it: He's drunk. It's after the fact. He recounts, in his journal, the events that led it up to it. He's pretty explicit about what he wanted to do, but the actual rape isn't described. He says, "And I. . .and then I. . .my God."

Later, he finds out the kid cried and cried, had to use laxatives for a week. . .

The guy really regrets what he did. The kid still loves him.

Anyway, here's the thing: I've had a few people read the novel and one comment is, Your mc is despicable and what he did is unforgiveable. He should die at the end. Kill the son-of-a-bitch. Or. . .take out the rape, totally. Take it out because "I know somebody who was raped," or "I was raped" (I understand the visceral responses) or "Agents won't touch that with a ten foot pole. . ." (Some, I’m sure; but all?)

I’m cognizant of how reading about a rape might really affect some people. I certainly don’t want to cause anybody pain. I did my best to handle it with restraint. . .

Still. . .

I think it’s important to keep it in my story. It defines the mc, it’s integral to the story and shaping the relationship between him and the kid.

So, my question is: what does the AW community think?

See? (Bolding mine)

[Amadan]

Originally Posted by mccardey

Again, to be fair, we're not all saying that, and even those who are saying some of it, are saying - well - only some of it.

I didn't mean everyone was saying that.

[HoneyBadger]

We're at a philosophical point anyhow, I think.

I'm primarily a moral relativist, which means I don't believe in universal rights and wrongs; there are situations where any act is understandable, justifiable, and forgivable to me, including rape, but only under extremely rare situations involving duress.

This thread wasn't about Bernie Madoff; it's about a guy who rapes his already vulnerable and emotionally wounded lover. That right there? Not redeemable in the context of this story as I understand it.

The OP said "but it doesn't break Cherry." That's good. I'm glad for Cherry. But when Dave raped him, he had no idea if it would break him or not, and that's sort of, I think, what all the brouhaha here is about.

It's all very interesting for sure!

[ViolettaVane]

I don't think the act of rape itself is morally unique at all, or that a rapist is more evil than, say, a murderer or a nonsexual torturer.

I do think that the act of rape is treated uniquely in most cultures, so that the victim gets blamed for it way more than with other crimes. That's what makes rape uniquely horrible to me... the cultural expectations supporting it, excusing the perpetrator, forcing the victim to bear the weight of the crime.

[kkbe]

mccardey: KKBE - there was a thread operating last night (my time) which kind of morphed into a discussion about pedophiles and rapists in books, and what kinds of reactions they produced in (AW) readers. If you're still interested in your initial question, it might hold some interest for you. Do you want me to have a look for it?

Hi, mccardey. I guess my answer is, sure, why not?

Waxing philosophically. . .

I thought I ended this thing back at post. . .what was it, #79? No, #74. I changed the thread title, too; did you notice? Trying to slip it into the background, I took the word 'rape' out of the title, got rid of that yellow exclamation-point thingie, thanked everybody. . .

And yet, here we are. To which I ask, Seriously? To which I answer, Apparently so.

You know, before I started this thread, I asked a mod about it, about whether or not this was something I could post, should post, how I should frame the question. . .the mod's response was, go ahead and ask your question, ask as you asked me, see what happens. . .

So I did.
----------------------------------------
I just deleted a paragraph. Felt rather freeing. I don't think anybody's gonna notice.
----------------------------------------
For some reason, this thread continues to inspire debate; at times, honing in on my question, at other times, morphing into conversation distant to my initial question, such that it was.
----------------------------------------
I just edited out the rest. Highlight, delete. Easy breezy lemon squeezy.

[mccardey]

Originally Posted by kkbe

I thought I ended this thing back at post. . .what was it, #79? No, #74. I changed the thread title, too; did you notice? .

Yes, but when you've got a bunch of writers talking about writing, the thread will always take on a life of its own.

Still looking for that thread I mentioned...

ETA: - Can't find it.... Anyone? Bueller?

[KTC]

Originally Posted by mccardey

Yes, but when you've got a bunch of writers talking about writing, the thread will always take on a life of its own.

Still looking for that thread I mentioned...

ETA: - Can't find it.... Anyone? Bueller?

it was split off...that part of the discussion is landfill.

[mccardey]

Oh well - it may not have been all that pertinent. I don't know how it ended, but just at the start there were the same sorts of reactions we saw here. I thought in a more neutral setting (ie: as Amadan said, not one concerning an actual WiP) it might be a good way to see what's what.

Never mind. It was probably much like this thread - opinions divided but for the main part surprisingly strongly worded.

[Literateparakeet]

The other discussion was moved to the "Landfill" thread. It's located here:

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/show...dfill&page=110

It starts at post #2736...or close to that anyway.

[kkbe]

what else can i edit? i'm not gonna write anymore. i'm just gonna edit stuff. it's so much easier, oh my god why didn't i think of it before!?
----------------------------------------
wait, have to write this, which is, i guess, an edit in reverse? no, it's an actual edit or revision, i guess.

To q.l.: This is not a "dog sniveling in the corner" posting.

just statin' the facts. not that you'll ever read this, i just wanted to make it official.

okay. nuff said.

[buzhidao]

I don't think the act of rape itself is morally unique at all, or that a rapist is more evil than, say, a murderer or a nonsexual torturer.

You know what's interesting...

(Not about the OP hardly much at all but now we're all philosophical and shit so that's cool right?)

I'm a huge fan of the show Dexter (although I haven't seen the most recent season yet so NOBODY TELL ME ANYTHING *lalala*), which, if you haven't heard of it, is about a serial killer. A deeply conflicted and tortured serial killer, who murders people, methodically and clinically, over and over, and I like him.

To me, he is redeemable. He only kills people who have hurt others--other killers, mainly, and often people way more depraved than he is, so you're like YEAH KILL THAT ASSFACE YOU GO GET THAT SARAN WRAP DEXTER. He also saves people in trouble, sometimes, like Julia Stiles. He has a Horribly Traumatic Childhood Event, so there's a Reason. Voila, redemption. We like our serial killer protagonist. (Well I like him. Not everyone, probably. Everyone else is a boob, though.) (<<not in seriousness, just to be clear)

But I try to imagine what it would be like if he were a serial rapist who only raped other rapists and also saved good people from rape occasionally and...it's...somehow not the same. I don't know if it would work like that. And I have no cogent ideas about why that is, but it is.

Murder is seen as much more justifiable than rape--that is, there are a lot more reasons for it seen as legitimate. I also watch a lot of prison documentaries, and the sex offenders (particularly pedophiles) are the ones who are most ostracized even in prison society among murderers and stabbers and...and...(my brain just started in on "Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves" but I feel like I shouldn't go into it).

Which is a very long way of saying the exact same thing that HoneyBadger said...murder is seen as having some legitimate reasons sometimes. Rape...I can't think of any. There's a much narrower window of redeemability.

I understand why rape is such an emotional subject, but I really can't agree that a rapist is automatically worse than, say, Bernie Madoff, who destroyed thousands of lives, simply because rape is a more personal and viscerally disgusting crime than stealing old people's pensions.

(bold mine)

I definitely see your logic there, but, in my view, morality/redeemability/sympathy/condemnation are not things that depend on logic. At least not completely. Empathy and sympathy trump logic. That's why those ethics questions are so damn difficult (e.g. "if you can push a man in front of a train to save fifteen other people from dying, would you?") even though the logical answer is clear. That's why morality is such a gray and crooked thing.

A lot of it depends on feelings, visceral and cultural and irrational. And in terms of empathy, feelings, humanity and the like--direct contact, direct touch, direct violation, and the absolute disregard for the human being screaming in front of you implies a more dangerous lack of empathy than the disregard for thousands of distant and therefore only nominally real folks that you rob and never see.

And yet, here we are. To which I ask, Seriously? To which I answer, Apparently so.

Is the idea of initiating an open debate about an interesting philosophical topic abhorrent to you? Why, I've got a mind to call up a possibly-misquoted Voltaire's Ghost upon thee (<<again not in seriousness, all in fun, jab jab nudge nudge, s'all good?)

[kkbe]

buzhidao: Is the idea of initiating an open debate about an interesting philosophical topic abhorrent to you?

At this point? Maybe.

I was silly earlier. I apologize for that. kkbe

[richcapo]

Off topic but related: Their Eyes Were Watching God has its main character realize her love for her rapist while he's raping her. And as I recall, Spike Lee notes in an essay on one of his movies (The Girl's Gotta Have It, maybe -- never saw it) that his female protagonist falls in love with her rapist during her rape, too. Yuck to both, I say.

[kkbe]

Appreciate the comment. You're right. . .off topic but related.

I'm tempted to respond that Cherry doesn't fall in love with Dave during the assault. I'm tempted to support my assertion with carefully selected passages from my novel.

I shall spare you both.

[richcapo]

Originally Posted by kkbe

Appreciate the comment. You're right. . .off topic but related.

I'm tempted to respond that Cherry doesn't fall in love with Dave during the assault. I'm tempted to support my assertion with carefully selected passages from my novel.

I shall spare you both.

Don't spare a thing, I say. Write what you wish as you wish. There's an audience out there for transgressive fiction, so rape away and such to your heart's content.

[spqrobert]

I'm going to avoid the debate and focus on your original post because I think I have a perspective that might be useful to you. I have frequented male-only spaces in my social life because I generally prefer the company of other men, and because these kinds of places are in decline in the US because they are places where you can pick up male prostitutes and get drunk and rowdy if you want to -- they're frequented by all kinds of guys, gay, straight, young, old, married, single, but are disproportionally frequented by drunk divorced gentlemen like your main character. And I'm being very honest here because most likely you haven't had the experience of male-only spaces, but men don't have the same concept of rape that women do. Rape is talked about, and not even discouraged. It's not a taboo word or act, and, in fact, stories about rape are often used as posturing, and is not such a sin that would require a strong turning away like you had him write in his diary. I found that redemptive act unbelievable since he was the aggressor; remorse instead of redemption would be more believable to me. There has been no concomitant movement among the men to parallel the women's movement since the 60s to educate about similar ills happening to men, and so the men who have little contact with women and live in a male world have the same attitudes about rape among themselves that they mostly held about women before women mobilized for their interests (i.e. the rapist might brag or even find the act liberating, and the raped stays silent). I know this is dark, but it's true from my experience. I just watched a good movie that touches on this subject: Poison, directed by Tod Haynes. It features a short about the build-up to and eventual rape of a man in prison, which is a perfect microcosm for understanding how men feel about topics like this.

[kkbe]

spqrobert: I found that redemptive act unbelievable since he was the aggressor; remorse instead of redemption would be more believable to me.

Hey, Robert, your posting was a surprise as I thought this particular thread had passed into the great tomorrow. Thanks for your comments. Re: remorse v. redemption for my mc--he isn't redeemed, but he does feel remorseful, so I think we're on the same side of the fence there. He's a complex guy, conflicted about a lot of stuff, so. . .

Two asides: First, have you ever read "Stone City"? You talk about an eye-opener. Second, I was in education, too. I saw your bio. I can relate, tell you that right now. Anyhoo, thanks again. kkbe

[Red Dog]

Latecomer to this thread. Reading the OP's story line I am reminded of the graphic novel Watchmen, later made into a film. That's the closest I've seen to this kind of plot that revolves around some degree of forgiveness/reconciliation (I'm not saying more to avoid big plot spoilers). I always felt that the rape-and-reconciliation subplot was quite important to the author, but marred the book for me, for the reasons that others have pointed out. However, the OP might take a look at Watchmen to see one way to handle some of this. It has been acclaimed as a modern classic of its genre.

[kkbe]

OP here. I checked it out, Red Dog, albeit not to the extent I'd probably need to grasp the essence of what you're saying. . .

Amadan said: We're drifting a bit, but trying to relate it to the OP: people seem to be saying categorically that a rapist is evil, period, can never be redeemed, period, can never love his victim and be loved by his victim, period, and no story that depicts that is acceptable or believable, period. I think that's both wrong and unhelpful.

Not suggesting that you view my mc as unredeemable, unloveable, unbelieveable, nor that forgiveness/reconcilliation of said mc is unacceptable. Latecomer or no, Red Dog, I certainly appreciate your comments.

[RJLeahy]

American Psycho was a success, though many women found it misogynistic. Some find any BDSM tale (even lightly treated as in 50 shades), to be demeaning to woman.

Every book finds an audience. Yours will too.

[RJLeahy]

Wife just brought up something (she of the, too-busy-to play-on-computers-but-not-too-busy-to-read-over-my-shoulder). Apparently there was a story line in the General Hospital soap opera,a couple known as Luke and Laura. Like your MC, he raped her in a drunken stupor and she later fell in love with him. I'm being told they were one of the shows favorite couples.

She's going by memory here, so someone may want to check that out, but if so, then you aren't breaking new ground.