Scifi with aggressive sexuality

[thestrangequark]

@Zaku If I remember correctly the friend was a good person, just comforted her -- but there may have been more complexity there. This was almost 20 years ago.

A lot of people, unfortunately but obviously, ranked the victim as being partially to blame for dressing seductively and seeking comfort from a male friend. I was rather vocal about my disagreement, and used some very colorful and eloquent phrases to voice my stance. Hence detention.

 

[Zaku]

@Zaku If I remember correctly the friend was a good person, just comforted her -- but there may have been more complexity there. This was almost 20 years ago.

A lot of people, unfortunately but obviously, ranked the victim as being partially to blame for dressing seductively and seeking comfort from a male friend. I was rather vocal about my disagreement, and used some very colorful and eloquent phrases to voice my stance. Hence detention.

Blame the victim is a still working tactic. For example:
Brock Turner's Lawyer Tried to Blame the Victim's Drinking During the Stanford Rape Trial

Newly released court transcripts illuminate exactly what the victim in the Stanford rape case meant when she said Brock Turner's lawyer tried to turn her into "the face of girls gone wild."

On Tuesday, the Guardian published excerpts of the exchange between the victim, named Jane Doe in the documents, and attorney Mike Armstrong. He asked her about her height, her weight, her dinner — and he embarked upon a line of questioning that would seem to suggest she had it coming.

"When you drank the quantity of vodka in the red cup," he asked. "You drank it all down at once, right?" She replied that she had.

"Like, chugged it," he continued. "And that was a decision you made, right?"

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Came across this today. It feels relevant somehow.

Yes, this is a real ad by a major deodorant brand. What the fuck?

 

[Kelthaz]

I remember in ninth grade we were given this story to read about a woman who was raped: the scenario being that she wanted to visit her boyfriend for a date and planned to have sex with him, and wore a sexy dress. To get to his house she had to cross a river and hire a boat to take her. The captain of the boat found her alluring and raped her on the way. When she got to her boyfriend's she told him what happened and he got mad at her for sleeping with the captain. She then went to a friend who comforted her (and maybe confronted the boyfriend, I can't remember).

Our assignment was to rank the characters in the story by morality.

From best to worst:

Friend > Boyfriend > Captain. The woman doesn't get ranked because she didn't do anything right or wrong. My opinion of the friend's morality would change depending on what "comforted her" means, but either way the rankings would stay the same. I cannot imagine how anyone could rank these characters differently. I'd at the very least hope that your classmates unanimously put the captain last.

 

[thestrangequark]

I did some googling and found a few different versions of the lesson, more complex than I detailed here, and interestingly, the different versions phrase the circumstances slightly differently to make it easier in some cases than others to rank the characters. Some versions have the sailor only willing to take the woman if she'll have sex with him, and her agreeing because it's the only way she'll ever get to her lover. Other versions don't mention what she's wearing at all...interesting
One thing I forgot was that the friend was outraged by the boyfriend's treatment of the woman, and beat the boyfriend brutally in retaliation.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I did some googling and found a few different versions of the lesson, more complex than I detailed here, and interestingly, the different versions phrase the circumstances slightly differently to make it easier in some cases than others to rank the characters. Some versions have the sailor only willing to take the woman if she'll have sex with him, and her agreeing because it's the only way she'll ever get to her lover. Other versions don't mention what she's wearing at all...interesting
One thing I forgot was that the friend was outraged by the boyfriend's treatment of the woman, and beat the boyfriend brutally in retaliation.

What kind of a lesson for elhi sex-ed is it to go full Kobayashi Maru and make everybody wrong?

 

[Zaku]

One thing I forgot was that the friend was outraged by the boyfriend's treatment of the woman, and beat the boyfriend brutally in retaliation.

That's more interesting. He had every reason to be angry with the boyfriend, but this didn't grant him the right to use violence.

 

[Zaku]

What kind of a lesson for elhi sex-ed is it to go full Kobayashi Maru and make everybody wrong?

Don't forget the version where the woman goes kill bill and snuffs every other character

 

[thestrangequark]

What kind of a lesson for elhi sex-ed is it to go full Kobayashi Maru and make everybody wrong?

It did remind me the details of the version I was given, because a lot of them specify that the river waters are alligator-infested. In the version I was given, the sailor gives the woman a choice between having sex with him or being thrown in the waters.

Some of the boys in my class apparently thought a woman should die rather than having sex with a man that wasn't her boyfriend. Mostly their argument rested on "she was dressed sexy so he couldn't resist her."

Sorry if this if this is coming of as weirdly revisionist..this was literally 19 years ago, so it's coming back in bits and pieces.

 

[Zaku]

Can you provide some links to the story?

 

[thestrangequark]

Here's just some of what I could find. Based off my memories, none of these read exactly like the one I was given, but here are multiple versions used for the exercise, ranging from long and complicated to short and simple(r). Different tellings make the morality of the characters at play more ambiguous.

http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-7296.html


http://www.nais.org/Articles/Pages/Moral-Education-on-the-Banks-of-the-Alligator-River-145457.aspx

This interesting take replaces the friend with two characters, one of which is named the Uninvolved Man, who, upon hearing that the woman is being pressured into sex as the only way to reach her fiancé, doesn't do anything to help. Interesting.
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?t=10969

There seem to be a shit ton of versions of this story out there.

ETA: Looking at about this now, I'm rather proud of Seattle Public Schools for challenging a bunch of 14 year old kids with this exercise and discussing sexual manipulation, rape, and emotional consequences openly and freely -- and I do mean freely, I was sent to detention for my choice of words and...volume...not my opinions.

 

[Zaku]

This interesting take replaces the friend with two characters, one of which is named the Uninvolved Man, who, upon hearing that the woman is being pressured into sex as the only way to reach her fiancé, doesn't do anything to help. Interesting.
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?t=10969

There is a river that is so infested with alligators that it cannot be waded or swam. There are no bridges, and only one boat. On one side of this river is a woman who is engaged to be married. She wants to get across the river to see her fiance, so she visits the man who owns the only boat and asks him to ferry her across the river. He agrees, but only on the condition that she stays the night with him. She refuses and departs from the boatman's house seeking out the uninvolved man to help her change the boatman's mind. But, true to his name, the uninvolved man doesn't want to get involved. She return's to the boatman's house and again asks him to simply take her across the river. The boatman repeats his demand, and she acquieces.
The following morning she is taken across the river and has a tearful reunion with her fiance. They begin preparing for the wedding. However, on the night before the wedding she tells her fiance about the night with the boatman. The fiance is furious. He cancels the wedding and ejects her from his home. Homeless now, the engaged woman is left to wander the wilderness until she comes upon a wealthy man who is in need of a servant. He agrees to let her stay with him as a servant, but makes it clear that he will never ever marry her.

Interesting. In this story there is not a absolutely wrong morally act like rape, but acts that can be evaluated according to the moral scale of the context in which are living the characters.

For example, the uninvolved man: in a Catholic society you have a moral obligation to help someone in difficulties, so in this type of society he is doing the wrong thing. In a more utilitaristic society he has no obligation to help the woman, so what he is doing is morally neutral.

Probably the worst act, regardless of the moral system, is the fiancee that ejects the woman in the wilderness (!!!!). He is putting her life at risk!

 

[Amaris]

Interesting. In this story there is not a absolutely wrong morally act like rape, but acts that can be evaluated according to the moral scale of the context in which are living the characters.

For example, the uninvolved man: in a Catholic society you have a moral obligation to help someone in difficulties, so in this type of society he is doing the wrong thing. In a more utilitaristic society he has no obligation to help the woman, so what he is doing is morally neutral.

Probably the worst act, regardless of the moral system, is the fiancee that ejects the woman in the wilderness (!!!!). He is putting her life at risk!

The boatman is guilty of rape. The fiance is a fucking asshole who enabled that rape. The "uninvolved man" is an asshole who enabled that rape. Actually, all the men in that story are raging assholes who enabled the misery and sexual molestation of that poor woman. Fuck 'em all. End of story.

 

[Amaris]

He took advantage of the woman's needs, but she could have been simply refuse to leave. She wasn't in a life-or-death situation or in an extreme necessity. Sooner or later the fiancee would come to check what was happening. At the worst I would call it extortion.

This is definition of rape according to the U.S. Dept of Justice is:

He didn't use physical force, coercion or abuse of authority. He made a commercial proposal. He was an asshole? Undoubtedly. But she wasn't risking her life. She could wait for the next boat, or for the fiancee, or denounce him to the local sheriff.

She was coerced because the only way she could get to her fiance was if she spent a night with the boatman. It was not of her free will. That is rape. This whole story is setup to exonerate at least one of the men, while condemning the woman for making a choice she didn't want to make while in a terrible situation. It is misogynist, and a prime example of what being brought up in a patriarchy will teach you about how little women are actually worth beyond base objectification.

 

[Zaku]

The boatman is guilty of rape. The fiance is a fucking asshole who enabled that rape.

He took advantage of the woman's needs, but she could have been simply refuse to leave. She wasn't in a life-or-death situation or in an extreme necessity. Sooner or later the fiancee would come to check what was happening. I would call it Sextortion.

This is definition of rape according to the U.S. Dept of Justice is:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

He didn't use physical force, coercion or abuse of authority. He was an asshole? Undoubtedly. But she wasn't risking her life. She could wait for the next boat, or for the fiancee, or denounce him to the local sheriff.

 

[BigJake]

A woman who is engaged to be married is not the equivalent of a man who's engaged to be married. Her identity and social and financial future hinges on the outcome in a way his doesn't. Pressuring her into sexual relations as the price of getting that outcome may not be "according-to-Hoyle" rape, but it's most certainly a profoundly immoral exploitation and not excusable. The boatman comes out the lowest by a comfortable margin. The "uninvolved" incarnation-of-privilege man and the nearly-as-exploitive wealthy man can fight over the next two spots, and the fiance can screw himself for blaming her instead of the boatman.

 

[fireproof78]

@Zaku If I remember correctly the friend was a good person, just comforted her -- but there may have been more complexity there. This was almost 20 years ago.

A lot of people, unfortunately but obviously, ranked the victim as being partially to blame for dressing seductively and seeking comfort from a male friend. I was rather vocal about my disagreement, and used some very colorful and eloquent phrases to voice my stance. Hence detention.

"Blame the victim" is a facet of human psychology that is still present in many issues, not just rape. Unfortunately, it also comes out in those cases, making it creepy and sexist

Came across this today. It feels relevant somehow.

Yes, this is a real ad by a major deodorant brand. What the fuck?

I don't get it. Another example of what women go through that men don't even think about it. I would not get in to costume and sit there and wonder if I was going to get gropped. Ridiculous!

 

[Amaris]

He took advantage of the woman's needs, but she could have been simply refuse to leave. She wasn't in a life-or-death situation or in an extreme necessity. Sooner or later the fiancee would come to check what was happening. I would call it Sextortion.

This is definition of rape according to the U.S. Dept of Justice is:

He didn't use physical force, coercion or abuse of authority. He made a commercial proposal. He was an asshole? Undoubtedly. But she wasn't risking her life. She could wait for the next boat, or for the fiancee, or denounce him to the local sheriff.

No. You're not getting it. She was coerced into this decision. It is a common tactic, when putting someone off balance, to force them into a life or death decision and to raise the stakes. To put it another way, the boatman demanded sex so this poor woman could go see her fiance. He is clearly in the wrong. He is CLEARLY in the wrong. The fiance rejected his own bride to be because of his insecurity, and because to him a woman is no longer worth having if she's "spoiled" by another man. How do you not see this? It is rape. Clearly, it is rape.

 

[Zaku]

She was coerced because the only way she could get to her fiance was if she spent a night with the boatman. It was not of her free will. That is rape. This whole story is setup to exonerate at least one of the men, while condemning the woman for making a choice she didn't want to make while in a terrible situation. It is misogynist, and a prime example of what being brought up in a patriarchy will teach you about how little women are actually worth beyond base objectification.

The woman is obviously the only innocent person in the history and all the men took advantage of her in one way or another. But a would judge condemn the sailor for rape? I doubt it.

 

[Amaris]

The woman is obviously the only innocent person in the history and all the men took advantage of her in one way or another. But a would judge condemn the sailor for rape? I doubt it.

I would judge and condemn the boatman for rape, yes, because he demanded sex as payment for her to see her fiance, leading her to believe she had no other option. That is sexual coercion, better known as rape.