Unexpected Controversy

[Praxius]

Why are people interpreting rape into everything, or getting so upset about it when it happens in FICTION? It's like TrekBBS's version of IMDb's "This movie is racist" threads. We already went through that Spock mind-raped Valeris, that Saavik raped/used young Spock whose mind was totally empty when he went through pon farr so he wasn't able to give any more consent than an animal could give, that Young Spock mind-raped that Romulan in Trek 2009, Troi and other Betazoids were constantly mind-raping others, and now that Trip Tucker got raped by sticking his fingers in sand, etc... is it a phobia or what?

Beats me.... here in Canada the term Rape isn't legally recognized anymore as it is very vague in description and could mean anything.... hence why we use the term "Sexual Assault".... it seems too many people like to call "Rape" on just about everything these days..... none of your described examples match to the general term "Rape" or even the legal "Sexual Assault" term, since there has to be something "Sexual" in either case..... otherwise it's just a form of assault.

You can't go around saying T'Pol was "Mind Raped" because it makes no sense. Sure it makes the incident sound pretty bad and a violation nobody would enjoy..... but if one wants to get technical about it, it'd make more sense to classify such actions as "Telepathic Assault" or perhaps "Violation of the Mind" 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc.

Hell, the term Rape has been used and reused over the years for so many different things, I'm not surprised that some kid getting beaten up at school by a bully wouldn't have another kid come along and say to him "Dude, you just got raped."

For those who continually want to bicker and protest over this show or that movie expressing something they consider as rape or racist and want to continually make a big deal about it..... maybe they should just stop watching the show/movie in question.

 

[Aquarius]

Not to bicker, but with the intent of maybe shedding some light on where people are coming from, I found this at Merriam-Webster.com:

v
#editors-picks-promo { background: white; border: dotted 2px #D5DADE; cursor: pointer; float: right; margin: 0 0 0 5px; padding: 0; width: 174px; } #editors-picks-promo ol { list-style-type: none; margin: 0; padding: 0; } #editors-picks-promo li { clear: left; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-align: center; } * html #editors-picks-promo li { clear: left; } #editors-picks-promo li a { border: 0; color: #667DA9; font-family: arial, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; padding: 0; margin: 0; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; } #editors-picks-promo li a em { color: #0E2C5D; font-family: arial, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; } #editors-picks-promo li img { display: block; margin: 0; padding: 0; } #editors-picks-promo li.see-all-lists { background: white; margin: 0; padding: 0; } #editors-picks-promo li.see-all-lists a { display: block; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; }

1. 

Main Entry: 3rape
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault, statutory rape
3 : an outrageous violation

(LOL I didn't expect the Elvis thing to come along with it!! )

Okay, so the words "usually sexual intercourse" in the second part of the definition, and the third part of the definition makes things outside of sex fall under the scope of rape. This is a term meant to describe a violation, not to legally define it.

In Trip's case in "Unexpected," yeah, okay, the case could be made that it was a violation, but I don't think it was sexual, and while the results of the violation might be "outrageous," I don't think the violation in and of itself was--as I said before, no more a violation than giving someone else your cold. It wasn't intentional. Neither party knew what happened when it happened. I agree that the people who cry "rape" with this episode are totally overreacting. Some seem to want to make an "example" of Trip, that it can happen to men, too. Some want to use it to claim that there is a double-standard, that it's horrible when women are violated in such a manner but it's funny when it happens to men. They build their cases on selective details without considering the whole picture, ignoring the fact that nothing sexual happened, that this race does not reproduce the way we do, and that the episode was intended to show us just how badly a cultural exchange can go wrong because of the most innocuous of details.

T'Pol's case in "Fusion," however, is quite different. No, she was not "raped" in terms of a "sexual assault," though I would wholeheartedly agree that what Tolaris did to her falls under the scope of the "outrageous violation" portion of the definition. And, like it or not, the metaphor for a sexual violation is there, it exists. It's not literally what happened, but what happened is intended to bring to mind a sexual assault; the invasion of her mind is "phallic" in the abstract, and T'Pol ultimately suffers the consequences of a "mental STD". Furthermore, Star Trek has a long history of presenting something in one way in order to make a commentary about something else, so if I were to read this story and subject it to some form of critical analysis in one of my literature or film classes, and the professor asked me what the story is about, I would say "rape" and I would be able to point to imagery and metaphor and events to back that up, even without a very deep reading/viewing. So to claim that the rape comparison is not valid for T'Pol...well, that's something that one should take up with Berman and Braga instead of other fans, because it was intentional on their part.

In Trip's case, however, I don't think the claim that he was raped would stand up to such scrutiny, and the deeper the analysis, the more it would fall apart.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Not to bicker, but...

Mostly, people have been offering their opinions, which is what a discussion board is for.

There have been a few instances of folks resisting opinions they don't agree with, rather than accepting that differing opinions exist. It's seldom that someone with a strong opinion is swayed by a thread such as this, but the purpose of discussion is to share and learn. Hopefully, we all get the chance to get a look at a variety of points of view, gain some insight, rejoice in our diversity, and widen our horizons a little.

(LOL I didn't expect the Elvis thing to come along with it!! )

The "Preview" button is your friend

 

[Aquarius]

Not to bicker, but...

Mostly, people have been offering their opinions, which is what a discussion board is for.

There have been a few instances of folks resisting opinions they don't agree with, rather than accepting that differing opinions exist. It's seldom that someone with a strong opinion is swayed by a thread such as this, but the purpose of discussion is to share and learn. Hopefully, we all get the chance to get a look at a variety of points of view, gain some insight, rejoice in our diversity, and widen our horizons a little.

(LOL I didn't expect the Elvis thing to come along with it!! )

The "Preview" button is your friend

HR--the reason I preemptively put that disclaimer on my post was because of this statement:

For those who continually want to bicker and protest over this show or that movie expressing something they consider as rape or racist and want to continually make a big deal about it..... maybe they should just stop watching the show/movie in question.

I was not trying to accuse anyone of bickering, or say that that's what was going on in this thread. Rather, I wanted to preemptively assure people that I wasn't running to the dictionary in order to troll or pick fights, as I've often seen happen when this very subject comes up. In terms of the above quoted statement, I fundamentally agree: if a show/episode/whatever bothers you so much, then don't watch it; it doesn't give you the right to hinder someone else's enjoyment of it.

However, because I was intending to further the argument of T'Pol's "rape" in "Fusion," I did not want to be perceived as "bickering," especially when I've been enjoying the discussion and the fact that it's been making me really think about things and why I think them.

I understand how hard your job can be. I'm an admin at another board. Like you, I also enjoy participating in the discussions at the board I admin for. I have been in discussions of this topic that, frankly, didn't go as smoothly as this specific thread...and lets just say that not one participant walked away uncharred. Once, I had to be the unpopular one to bring it to an end.

Point being: my disclaimer of "not to bicker" exists because I don't want to be perceived as "that person," and because I wanted to make it clear that I'm not here to pick a fight or hurt anyone's feelings or even somehow cause the perception that I'm trying to bicker...not to blow the thread off-topic with discussion about wording I used because the subject has been a forum grenade many times before. Everyone here seems pretty reasonable, but it is a hot-button issue with some people.

So...insightful discussion about the episodes, anyone?

 

[JiNX-01]

... he seemed more interested in proving himself right, to spread what he has learned to others of his kind and more interested in experiencing the emotions she experienced, then he had interest in getting sexually intimate with her..... in other words, he had more interest in emotions (her emotions) then he had of her as an individual.

Tolaris did strike me as someone who was obsessed with experiencing emotions, perhaps even addicted to it -- to the point of getting off on experience someone else's emotions. And when he picked up on T'Pol's sensitivity to emotion, he siezed upon her as someone he could "convert" to his "faith." His desire was to manipulate and control her, I think.

Actually, I think he just wanted to use her for his own gratification (just like a rapist) and could not have cared less whether she embraced his "faith."

 

[Praxius]

For those who continually want to bicker and protest over this show or that movie expressing something they consider as rape or racist and want to continually make a big deal about it..... maybe they should just stop watching the show/movie in question.

I was not trying to accuse anyone of bickering, or say that that's what was going on in this thread. Rather, I wanted to preemptively assure people that I wasn't running to the dictionary in order to troll or pick fights, as I've often seen happen when this very subject comes up. In terms of the above quoted statement, I fundamentally agree: if a show/episode/whatever bothers you so much, then don't watch it; it doesn't give you the right to hinder someone else's enjoyment of it.

And for the record, my statement you quoted was a general comment not directed at any one person in particular, but I suppose I should have clarified a bit more, that my comment stems from past experiences in other debate forums about other topics where someone came out of nowhere to bring up an argument over something pretty trivial and making something out to be more then what it really is/was.....

As an example, I found the Trip Pregnancy thing funny and didn't think beyond what was originally intended with the story..... but then someone may come along as try to make me out as a bad guy who thinks rape/sexual assault is a laughing matter, when Rape/Assault has no relation to what happened in the story in the first place, they're basically out to ruin people's enjoyment in something that is really irrelevant.... and for those people, if they really don't like something, all the power to them, but perhaps they should stop watching what offends them and focus their attention on more important matters, rather then making mountains out of molehills and ruining everybody else's fun because of their personal hangups.

However, because I was intending to further the argument of T'Pol's "rape" in "Fusion," I did not want to be perceived as "bickering," especially when I've been enjoying the discussion and the fact that it's been making me really think about things and why I think them.

Well if you consider it as Rape, so be it.... I personally don't but am more particular in using the term Assault.

Those I'd consider as Bicker'ers are those who stand up on their high horses and proclaim without a shadow of a doubt that it was Rape and that it was completely wrong and they're going to boycott the show or protest what happened and/or otherwise trash all over people who don't see it as a big deal, story-wise...... to those people, then I suggest to them that perhaps they should move on and simple stop watching something that obviously upsets them.

My main focus in my comment was more towards the Trip situation where someone calls it rape and tries to make others feel bad by saying something rhetorical like "What if it was a woman who became pregnant and it was a male alien that did it without their consent?"

^ I won't go further into detail over this, because I already explained my position on this part in a previous post or two.

My comment, as worded, was directed that those who try to make a big deal out of it as if the whole world will end unless everybody accepts their point of view and follow suit.... as far as I'm aware, you haven't been doing this, thus my comment does not apply to you.

It was geared towards any show or movie, about rape/sexual assault, racism, sexism, etc..... it could apply to anything or anyone, but imo, it does not apply to you or anybody in this thread yet as far as I'm personally aware of.

I understand how hard your job can be. I'm an admin at another board. Like you, I also enjoy participating in the discussions at the board I admin for. I have been in discussions of this topic that, frankly, didn't go as smoothly as this specific thread...and lets just say that not one participant walked away uncharred. Once, I had to be the unpopular one to bring it to an end.

I know what that's like as well.... as I admin my own forums elsewhere (a Music/Band Forum) And because of my position and because I know what mods usually go through (I venture on an average of seven forums per day depending on the topics and my mood) I try to make sure I choose my words and phrases carefully, while still attempting to express my honest opinion..... yet sometimes, like the above, I may come off a little worse then I really am.

I think it has to do with my Canadian accent

Point being: my disclaimer of "not to bicker" exists because I don't want to be perceived as "that person," and because I wanted to make it clear that I'm not here to pick a fight or hurt anyone's feelings or even somehow cause the perception that I'm trying to bicker...not to blow the thread off-topic with discussion about wording I used because the subject has been a forum grenade many times before. Everyone here seems pretty reasonable, but it is a hot-button issue with some people.

Agreed.... and I also hope that you see now that my previous comment wasn't applying to you, nor did it apply to most in this thread.... I restricted my comment to apply only to a specific criteria of extreme.

Expressing your honest opinion and accepting other's differing opinions is one thing..... when someone out-right attacks your own opinion and tries to unjustly villainize someone because they don't agree with your position is something completely different.

I'm not saying anybody in particular has done that in this debate... it was more of a tangent comment related to what someone else said and figured I'd toss it out there.

 

[Aquarius]

... he seemed more interested in proving himself right, to spread what he has learned to others of his kind and more interested in experiencing the emotions she experienced, then he had interest in getting sexually intimate with her..... in other words, he had more interest in emotions (her emotions) then he had of her as an individual.

Tolaris did strike me as someone who was obsessed with experiencing emotions, perhaps even addicted to it -- to the point of getting off on experience someone else's emotions. And when he picked up on T'Pol's sensitivity to emotion, he siezed upon her as someone he could "convert" to his "faith." His desire was to manipulate and control her, I think.

Actually, I think he just wanted to use her for his own gratification (just like a rapist) and could not have cared less whether she embraced his "faith."

I agree, whole-heartedly.

Praxius--I sent you a PM. I totally wasn't trying to argue with what you said at all; the reason I responded to HR's post was because I felt that the "bickering" part of my post got blown out of proportion, especially when one reads the whole sentence. I was mostly trying to avoid ticking you off when I wrote that in the first place, because I didn't want you to think I was a bicker-er!

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

HR--the reason I preemptively put that disclaimer on my post was because of this statement:

For those who continually want to bicker and protest over this show or that movie expressing something they consider as rape or racist and want to continually make a big deal about it..... maybe they should just stop watching the show/movie in question.

I got on the wrong bus with your phrasing. Typically, I'll see something like, "Not to bicker, but..." followed immediately by bickering.

I wrote my post because, even if the intent is to discuss and share, I still see phrasing now and again that casts this or that group of folks in a negative light, as opposed to simply acknowledging them in a neutral manner. "Bickerers" aren't automatically evil; they are typically people with strong opinions (most of the fandom) who resist other points of view (a significant number of the fandom).

People who object to something will often voice their displeasure. Often quite stridently and repetitively. But as long as they stay within the board rules, that's cool. The idea is to keep this forum a welcome place for anyone to post, no matter their opinion. To my last breath, I will champion tolerance for those with different opinions, and civility in expressing them.

...I've been enjoying the discussion and the fact that it's been making me really think about things and why I think them.

That is wonderful. That's what the board is for.

I have been in discussions of this topic that, frankly, didn't go as smoothly as this specific thread...

I was here several years ago, when this forum was a friggin' war zone. It was like the Trek XI forum when the movie opened, plus shipper wars. It was bloody awful. Things are much better nowadays.

...but perhaps they should stop watching what offends them and focus their attention on more important matters, rather then making mountains out of molehills and ruining everybody else's fun because of their personal hangups.

I must confess, I don't think I've ever seen the "if you don't like it, don't watch it" suggestion work. Folks typically resist being told what to do, or what not to do. I discovered in one instance that a poster was stridently objecting to something he was indeed not watching: he had seen it once, years ago, and still had strong feelings about it. One person's "personal hangup" is another person's deeply heartfelt issue.

I have on occasion watched things I don't care for, on purpose, because it's a way of analyzing effective story structure. Or because there is some element I do enjoy. Discussions with polarizing opinions can also be invaluable to me, because they allow me to view an issue from perspectives that I might never have considered. The holder of a starkly different opinion may have no conscious intent to "make others feel bad" or "make a big deal out of it"; they may simply feel very, very strongly about the subject, and perhaps they fall victim to giving an opposing viewpoint a negative slant, because it is so alien to their own view.

Those I'd consider as Bicker'ers are those who stand up on their high horses and proclaim without a shadow of a doubt that it was Rape and that it was completely wrong and they're going to boycott the show or protest what happened...

A tendency to characterize personal opinion as fact can be annoying. But it's not against the rules. ("The Mannerly Art of Disagreement" is a fine guide for civil debate that I heartily recommend to one and all.) If someone is convinced that X or Y was completely wrong (or right), they have every right to express themselves. (In a civil manner, hopefully.)

...I try to make sure I choose my words and phrases carefully, while still attempting to express my honest opinion.....

This is excellent advice, especially on a discussion board, where nuances such as eye contact, vocal inflection, and facial expressions are not available to help to clarify a comment.

Now, what were we talking about? Pregnant guys? How 'bout that "Alien Nation," eh?

 

[Aquarius]

I wrote my post because, even if the intent is to discuss and share, I still see phrasing now and again that casts this or that group of folks in a negative light, as opposed to simply acknowledging them in a neutral manner. "Bickerers" aren't automatically evil; they are typically people with strong opinions (most of the fandom) who resist other points of view (a significant number of the fandom).

An excellent case for reading the entire sentence one is responding to, as well as reviewing a little upthread before responding, I think.

Any way, stubbornness happens in all fandoms, not just this one. You think this is the first time fans have argued what something is/means regardless of the fact that the creator/writer has said "I made this to be (fill in the blank)"? Or that someone was presented with textbook fact/dictionary definition that supports a theory or thesis statement and they still refuse to admit "Okay, yeah, it fits"? Mind changing is a rare occurrence. The best we can ever hope for is people actually thinking about why they think what they think, and to concede another person's right to think something else without shaming them or hammering away at them. I've been active in online Star Wars fandom for years, and this kind of thing is rampant there as well.
.
Personally, I like to back up what I'm saying from things within the show, and I will also often go outside the show for real-world examples that support it--like dictionary definitions, something I learned in one of my classes, similar situations that happened in our history, etc.--much like when developing and supporting a thesis statement for a research paper or something. Why? Because to me, there is nothing more annoying or frustrating than trying to have a discussion with someone who makes pronouncements about what something is or isn't, but they offer little to nothing in the way of how they came to that conclusion and why the rest of us should, too. (NOTE: I am not saying that this is what transpired in the last couple of pages; I'm just sayin'.)

In the case of the current subject, I offered tangible evidence that Tolaris's telepathic assault of T'Pol could be defined as a rape, as well as support for how from a storytelling/artistic perspective it's a metaphor for a sexual rape, using critical analysis to support that. For my own part, I'm extremely unlikely to change my mind because I feel my position is solid and well-considered; after a little organizing and refining, if I had to present this in a literature or criticism of film/TV class, I'm confident that an A would be a slam-dunk--last semester I successfully argued that Macbeth was anti-Pagan propaganda and that Jane Eyre was about dominant/submissive power exchange, so "proving" that Trip wasn't raped and T'Pol was is a piece of cake by comparison.

I think that a big thing is, people don't see "I don't agree, but I see your reasoning" as an option. Do I think my lit professor really believes that Macbeth is anti-Pagan propaganda because of my paper now? No...but I demonstrated my reasoning and offered compelling and sometimes irrefutable evidence to support it. So for the purposes of a discussion such as this one, I can respectfully disagree with people who support their reasoning, but generally speaking I don't have much patience for people who don't. To have someone hammer on that "Trip was raped!" and their entire argument consists of "OMG, how can you not see it, you're such a sexist and a hypocrite! You wouldn't think it was funny if it happened to a woman!!"--sorry, it doesn't fly, because you still haven't shown me why you think it is rape. You've just made baseless knee-jerk reactionary pronouncements and insulted me, nothing more. (True story, BTW. Happened elsewhere, not here.)

Well if you consider it as Rape, so be it.... I personally don't but am more particular in using the term Assault.

What you are talking about here is semantics, not the validity of an opinion. I don't "consider" it rape; what happened on the screen is consistent with the dictionary definition of what a rape is. That you prefer one term over another is completely valid, but it does not make what happened "not rape." There's a distinction.