Good thoughtful post. Only a "little bit" wrong. Let's parse:
I agree with OP. It was a rape, and it was intended to be a rape, whether she got into it or not. She, like almost everyone of the other townsfolk, was representative of the town's corruption and amorality, and therefore she was going to be a target of vengeance just like everyone else. I don't dispute that she was manipulative and untrustworthy and wanton, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't rape. Rape is rape is rape. //// Rape is Rape but I'm not sure it is a further rape. There are "differences" in rape just as there are differences in consent, violence, and every other attribute. Here, they all get mixed up together too. The rape that is rape is a simple concept: unconsented to sexual intercourse. It does not necessarily include violence. Being raped in your sleep is not violent for instance. I think what makes rape particularly harmful is the violation of the person, their individuality, their expectations, their innocence? All those things are NOT violated here. Most of the negative associations of rape are absent. Only the lack of consent is present making it a rape. Would you rather be shot between the eyes for yelling at a stranger about to get a shave, or be forced to repair a pair of shoes when your job is a shoemaker, or forced to have sex when you are a sex worker? Yes.... degrees of violence/harm/outrage abound.
It was meant to be a violent crime and an act of revenge. /// Violent? Maybe...but oh so minimal. Overpowered is more descriptive. Not a mark or bruise on her. Act of Revenge--yes. As stated, she wasn't bull whipped or shot, or beat up. Only required to do something she did for a living that she didn't initially want to do. About as minor an infraction as can be dreamed up.
In the movie's world, yeah, she "deserved it" by being an *beep* /// no--because she was part of the town that did not support the killed sheriff. At the near end of the film, the bad guy reveals she had relations with... and I missed who exactly, but as the town pump I think she was in cahoots causing or allowing the death of the sheriff.
by watching the Marshal die, and by trying to sell out the Stranger. But that doesn't make it not problematic. It's still rape being used as a weapon - it's even more problematic that it's used as a weapon for morality. /// What exactly is problematic here? The Stranger made the shop keepers give away their goods for free, the service people give away their services for free, the sheriff and mayor give away their offices, the hotel give up its rooms etc==and he made the prostitute give up her choice of partners. Not problematic, rather all of a theme.
And yes, I do think this is a morality tale. The Stranger is a violent, cruel, cold person, but he's clearly meant to be the source of justice and not just mindless violence. Look how he treats the Native Americans and Mordecai - much better than anyone else in the town does. He's good, the town (and the outlaws) are bad. It's a deconstruction the typical western, sure, but there's a clearly defined right and clearly defined wrong. /// And more telling is how he treats the hotel owner's wife differently too. Problematic in respect for the institution of marriage?
He's not the traditional hero, but the Stranger is meant to be a hero nonetheless. The stuff he does, while brutal, is still meant to be just - even rape. So this is either a case of uneven characterization (is he a thoroughly bad person, the spirit of unthinking, violent revenge, the spirit of just retribution, or the one complex character in a movie full of starkly good and bad characters?) //// or is he a character of simple revenge/karma/pay back?
or, more troubling, justification of rape if the woman is a *beep* person /// "justification?" Yes, it was an unusual plot device but it was not the third degree rape that is so offensive that justification is called for. This was a first order rape that justification spent no time with because it wasn't needed.
(or, I guess if the man is badass enough). I could understand if everybody in this movie is meant to be horrible, unlikable, and evil (or at least complex), but I just don't see it: there are clear good guys and clear bad guys. /// good and bad.... ok.... I see it more as those who deserve (aka are going to get) revenged upon and those who don't deserve it. Once you deserve to be punished, it matters little whether it is death or initially unconsented to sexual intercourse which is initially unconsented to sexual intercourse which is initially unconsented to sexual intercourse.
Its a good film. Nice prequel to The Unforgiven which is as perfect a film as there is unless you think being shot is not an fair result for rapping and mutilating a prostitute. But thats a whole nother discussion.....
reply
share
Spacetree
12 years ago
I don't really know how to respond to this post, to be honest. I mean, if you think there are degrees to sexual assault that make it "less" sexual assault and that raping a woman because she did you wrong is right... then man, that is a twisted view of things. Orders of rape? Where are you getting this from?
Regardless, my assertion is that that scene is a poor addition to the movie because, tonally and thematically, it does not fit with the rest of the movie UNLESS it is depicting sexual violence (and yes, lack of consent is violence) as a tool for justice. I believe (and most of the world would agree since using rape as a weapon of war is a war crime) that is problematic. Any assertion that the scene works in the bounds of deconstruction (i.e. everyone is bad) is faulty because the film itself cannot work in the context of deconstructualism. It takes too many strong plot-based opinions on right and wrong. The Drifter is meant to be an avatar of justice. Full stop. He's rapin' for good! Doesn't that seem a little... wrong?
Also, it's odd that you would assign degrees to sexual assault but assert that sexual assault and other forms of punishment (i.e. death) are the same. Well, in fictional depictions, that's just not true. There's a lot of context of power and male privilege wrapped up in sexual assault. A male hero shooting a female villain? That's street justice - violence that's acceptable in the movies even though it's less acceptable in real life. A male hero raping a female villain? Yeah, that's a problem. It might not have always been that way, but it is now.
It's funny that you mention Unforgiven, because that movie does an excellent job of depicting a deconstructed Western where there is no good or evil, just people out to get there's.
No signature. Nope nope.
reply
share
bobbo_says
12 years ago
Well thanks for responding Spacetree. Gives me a break arguing about gun control. Amusing the number of people who think knives are used to kill people and so are guns, therefore to outlaw guns you have to outlaw knives too. The fact that the kill rate with guns is well above that of knives doesn't enter into the equation........................like rape. You know?
I gave the rationale for my position fairly well. You have come back without further analysis/explication, just a repetition of your original position. You should do better. But as always, lets parse for the precision and accuracy it provides:
I don't really know how to respond to this post, to be honest. I mean, if you think there are degrees to sexual assault that make it "less" sexual assault and that raping a woman because she did you wrong is right... then man, that is a twisted view of things. Orders of rape? Where are you getting this from? /// Ha, ha. I almost quit this thread. But I'll take this one issue. If you wold prefer being raped in one way over a different way, would that not establish different degrees of rape? Would you rather be raped in your sleep, or drugged, and wake up not even knowing of the event, or dragged from your workplace just before the morning cappuccino, taken by car to a remote place, blindfolded, filmed, face bloodied, jaw broken, raped, and a flaming Molatov Cocktail left right where you wouldn't want it? Sorry to be so graphic, but do you see any difference between these two rapes? Between stranger rape and rape by a husband when the wife has passed out drunk on News Years?===rape is rape is rape you know. Once you drop the modern feminist propaganda that rape is rape, then maybe you could see that the rape of a prostitute is different than the rape of a non-prostitute. I'm not saying justified or not illegal or not wrong. I said DIFFERENT. And until you can see how these rapes are different, you will not see how the rape in this movie "fits" the theme.
Your basic error in the balance of your post is failing to respond to what I said. And you tend to conflate various issues as if they are one in the same. Rape does not mean violence as demonstrated above. Its not the legal defintion either which is why rape is rape but rape with assault and battery is rape with assault and battery. I do equate violence with assault and battery and not with mere lack of consent which can take place without the victim even knowing it.
Boring huh?..... being accurate and stuff?
reply
share
Spacetree
12 years ago
You have a skewed concept of accuracy (FYI, it's not "I'm right, just admit it"). I repeated my original position because:
A) You never addressed the usefulness of that scene as part of a larger theme of Western film deconstruction, which is what my post was about. Instead, you decided to pick apart my assertion that nonconsensual sex is violence because you believe it's "feminist propaganda" (ugh, by the way - good job dumbing down the discussion, as if feminism didn't have legitimate ideas and didn't objectively advance the way our society treats people in terms of human rights).
I understand that being raped while unconscious is different from being beat up by a stranger and raped, and I understand that being raped while unconscious is different from being raped while fully conscious after refusing sex. All of these scenarios are still equally rape and equally serious and equally wrong. There is no conflation here. This isn't feminist propaganda - it's basic morality. By assigning "orders" and hierarchy, you are, in fact, saying that there are versions of rape that less wrong than others - not that they're just different. That is in fact what you are arguing.
And that is the only way that scene could fit into the theme of moral vengeance in the movie - if it was "ok" to rape a woman with loose morals that wronged you. Because, as I argued before, this film cannot fit into the mold of true deconstructionalism.
B) I didn't respond to your grotesque argument because frankly it seems like you're just pulling it out of your ass. There's no legal, moral, or logical basis for this argument. If anything, the only way you could make this argument is if you assumed that rape victims were subhuman and that the violence that happened to them only matters in certain circumstances. The legal definition of rape does not prove that nonconsensual sex is not violence. Saying that rape can only be violence if there was assault and battery involved is equivalent to saying that murder is only violent if it was done by hacking someone into pieces. Additionally, lack of consent due to lack of knowledge (i.e. date rape) is still violence - if someone secretly poisons someone and they die without ever knowing who poisoned them, isn't that still violence?
This is the problem - you are arguing from a place of privilege. You think that nonconsensual sex isn't violence because you have never been raped. I'm sure that rape victims would wholeheartedly disagree with you. It's not a hard concept - try seeing things from someone else's perspective. Then you'll see how a hero raping anyone as part of some just campaign of vengeance against the unrighteous is extremely problematic.
No signature. Nope nope.
reply
share
bobbo_says
12 years ago
because my other visited sites are a bit slow.
You have a skewed concept of accuracy (FYI, it's not "I'm right, just admit it"). /// I don't know what that means. Quickly reviewed our postings and didn't find the connection. Probably irrelevant anyway?
I repeated my original position because: /// Doesn't matter why. You are being dull witted. I SAID==I was only going to respond to ONE ISSUE. The issue I still think you have objectively WRONG even ironically by your own words. Yet, you still argue. Let's see what you've got as I read and respond with first impression.
A) You never addressed the usefulness of that scene as part of a larger theme of Western film deconstruction, which is what my post was about. /// Correct. Thats what I EXPRESSLY SAID. Jebus--do you know how to narrow the focus from broad to narrow? From many to few. From few to One? You know--a parsimony of prolixity?
Instead, you decided to pick apart my assertion that nonconsensual sex is violence because you believe it's "feminist propaganda" (ugh, by the way - good job dumbing down the discussion, as if feminism didn't have legitimate ideas and didn't objectively advance the way our society treats people in terms of human rights). /// Thats not what calling something "feminist propaganda" means. Most of feminist ideology is right on the mark. But ALL OF IT is not. The meme that Rape is Rape is one such overstepping of advocacy. As you demonstrate, it fails analysis.
I understand that being raped while unconscious is different from being beat up by a stranger and raped, and I understand that being raped while unconscious is different from being raped while fully conscious after refusing sex. All of these scenarios are still equally rape and equally serious and equally wrong. //// Well, there you go Bucky--you admit there are differences but you want to treat them all the same. That is tragically failed lack of thinking. You are engaged only in propaganda when you address an issue that has differences as if there were no differences. That is true no matter the subject of discussion. THINK ABOUT IT.
There is no conflation here. /// Wrong. This is the textbook definition of conflation.
This isn't feminist propaganda /// Yes it is.
- it's basic morality. /// So its basica morality to treat violent rape ending in murder with statutory rape between two people wanting to get married, with married rape when the woman changed her mind and just wanted to get some sleep. All basic morality huh?
By assigning "orders" and hierarchy, you are, in fact, saying that there are versions of rape that less wrong than others - not that they're just different. That is in fact what you are arguing. /// Exactly so. I assume the LAW does this as well. there is at least Rape, Statutory Rape, Aggravated Rape. Probably more recognized degrees as well. I know some rapists get life in prison while others get immediate parole and community service. There has to be "some" difference between all these rapes?
And that is the only way that scene could fit into the theme of moral vengeance in the movie - if it was "ok" to rape a woman with loose morals that wronged you. Because, as I argued before, this film cannot fit into the mold of true deconstructionalism. /// Any subject modified by the word "true" is obviously false on its face.
B) I didn't respond to your grotesque argument because frankly it seems like you're just pulling it out of your ass. There's no legal, moral, or logical basis for this argument. /// And yet all three have been given to you.
If anything, the only way you could make this argument is if you assumed that rape victims were subhuman /// ha, ha. You are starting to "rotate."
and that the violence that happened to them only matters in certain circumstances. /// I don't know what that means.
The legal definition of rape does not prove that nonconsensual sex is not violence. /// Correct. No definition proves anything. Thats definitional.
Saying that rape can only be violence if there was assault and battery involved is equivalent to saying that murder is only violent if it was done by hacking someone into pieces. /// I'll bet a free ticket to a matinee showing of Natural Born Killers if you can even half identify what you are trying to say. Put a few more volts into that dim bulb.
Additionally, lack of consent due to lack of knowledge (i.e. date rape) is still violence - if someone secretly poisons someone and they die without ever knowing who poisoned them, isn't that still violence? /// Its definitional...the entire point of my responses to you. Learn what words mean and what they mean changes according to how you define them. Know what definitions you are using. Choose carefully.
This is the problem - you are arguing from a place of privilege. You think that nonconsensual sex isn't violence because you have never been raped. /// Again, definitional. I can say I was or wasn't raped because its all how you define it. Just as a goof--if you decide to respond==please define "violence." then apply that to how you use it in this exchange. You will immediately recognize how "unworkable" your mishmash is.
I'm sure that rape victims would wholeheartedly disagree with you. /// As stated, I don't disagree with me.
It's not a hard concept - try seeing things from someone else's perspective. /// Thats what this is all about. YOU aren't doing that. You are choosing the feminist propaganda position as if no other position existed even as you recite the "differences." If violence is violence, then is there any difference in having your pinky cut off verses your whole hand, verses your arm, verses both arms? I know I prefer having only my pinky cut off. But your position is there is no degree of separation, all examples are just the same? Silly boy.
Then you'll see how a hero raping anyone as part of some just campaign of vengeance against the unrighteous is extremely problematic. /// No body said the Strangers campaign was "just." Its like Munny said in "Unforgiven": "Fair aint got nothing to do with it."
You do flail around a bunch.
reply
share
Spacetree
12 years ago
WHOA. That is impressive. You managed to say absolutely nothing in 1066 words. I don't think you have a cohesive point anymore except to make yourself feel like you're poking holes in my argument (you're not) through condescending insults and supposedly witty turns of analysis (they're not - they're just contradictory and substance-less). You seem to be reading what you want to read, ignoring everything else - even in your own criticisms (why would I respond with a definition of violence when definitions don't prove anything? Why would I care about your definition of conflation?) - and unable to understand concepts unless it suits you (complex concepts are different and share nothing in common until you need them to).
It's like debating at a wall that responds by painting itself in crude swears. It's an impressive rhetorical device in that it's not a rhetorical device at all, but no one can tell you otherwise.
I'm done. You'll probably mark this as a win, so congratulations.
No signature. Nope nope.
reply
share
bobbo_says
12 years ago
So, I will finish by emphasizing your position: you see differences between physically violent rape and sex that is desired by both parties but is against the law. Thats a good starting point...but...while noting and agreeing there are differences, you want to treat them all the same. How can that possibly make any sense.... even to you?
But I post to point out its this type of lazy non-thinking that underlies all the "Zero Tolerance" policies that remove discretion to apply the differences we see in our justice and administrative systems. Your stupidity results in children being suspended for drawing the picture of a gun on a piece of paper or making a gun with their fingers and going band. Your stupidity results in that girl being expelled from school and facing for a few weeks a felony charge of being a terrorist for bring a bottle of fizzy water to her chemistry class.
Your stupidity results in the meme that rape is rape is rape. And thats what you do to the language and common sense.
Someday as you bounce up against this kind of idiocy, you will finally see it in yourself. Reading is supposed to help people avoid life's pitfalls. Not everyone takes to it.
reply
share