From what I saw, it was just Gorman.

It seemed to me that the other cops are keeping the hospital safe (or as safe as can be), going on supply runs, and following the chain of command; Dawn and Gorman are the two superiors. The patients are supposed to cook and clean. I don't think the producers want to portray a group of cops surviving in the walker apocalypse as a bunch of rapists.

 

Everybody hates.... CHRIS

 

I've already agreed that the definition of "rape" or "sexual assault" varies depending on which source is consulted. However, I think we can all agree that it is unwanted sexual contact that happens in the absence of consent, or when consent is given under duress, or when the victim is incapable of consenting. Correct? There is no separate "feminist definition" of rape.

I don't know which study you're referring to, but even if there is one study about rape on American college campuses where the method of gathering and interpreting statistics is under question, that still does not translate to a worldwide feminist conspiracy where innocent men are being accused of rape by women who simply regret their choices.

Feminists are people who believe in equality. That's what feminism is. What if I told you there are male feminists? Or that feminists don't all speak in a single voice because they may have different opinions about how to achieve equality? Or that many women hesitate to identify as feminists because they are afraid of being labelled and then dismissed as hysterical man-hating harpies?

I didn't respond to any of that at first because I didn't disagree with you (or disagree with you strongly enough to bother responding). Yes, you might be able to find women who are your equals in agency to willingly agree to have a sexual relationship with you in exchange for living a life of luxury in your zombie-proof fortress (though I agree with others who have pointed out that you are overestimating the number of women who would jump on that opportunity "in a heartbeat"). That isn't rape. But what if the choice is to continue to agree to having sex with you in your fortress for the rest of her life or be cast out, alone, without food, water, or weapons?


I commented after you responded to [MENTION=4274]Alina[/MENTION] by saying that her point involving duress was the "feminist definition" of rape and then went on to mansplain to us what rape really is. You suggested that duress is the threat of immediate physical harm only, and went on to ignore or trivialize instances where the coersion is less blatant.

No.

 

Why doesn't pregnancy concern them? Although there should be an abundance of birth control.

 

*puts on asbestos suit*

Is it only the male cops that are availing themselves of the women prisoners (and I use this term cause I don't think anyone can opt out once they end up there)? Are the female officers given boy toys? How would a guy feel in that situation? Or if a straight male detainee was being farmed out to a gay cop? Just wondering...

Some of this talk about consenting to trade sex for safety, food, lodging etc. sounds more like the definition of prostitution. If someone feels that it's the only way she can survive, I can see this sort of business transaction taking place. My next thought goes to the "clauses" in the contract. I would want it all laid out but I'd be nervous as hell if it was open ended cause things could go way beyond where you might be willing to go....but then you could always break the contract with the sharp end of a pointy object, IMO.

I wanted to add that I don't condone the goings on at that hospital but if you really found yourself in this post ZA world, captured by any of the rogue groups we've met so far, I'd rather be wheeling and dealing with THIS group rather than get eaten by Gareth and co. or to be at the mercy of Joe's gang, or the group that took over Terminus briefly or the group that Hershel and Rick ran into at the bar.

 

The problem I have with the definition you just stated is the word 'unwanted'. Whether a person commits a crime should be based on WHAT that person did, not how someone feels about it. I have the same problem with the current idea of sexual harassment - Pinching someone on the butt (or even telling them their new hair style suits them) is sexual harassment if the person on the receiving end is repulsed by the initiator, but just flirting if he or she is interested. Take unwanted out of the sentence and I agree completely.

I didn't say feminism has caused an epidemic of false rape accusations, just that most of the professed feminists I've spoken to personally have a far broader idea of what constitutes rape than I and most people I've discussed the issue with who do not identify as feminists - hence, I feel that they have a different definition of the term than the rest of the world. Obviously, what I or they think has no effect on what's legal, just on whether we can establish a common ground when discussing the concept.

Are you sure? When talking about gender issues, the (I'm just going to say feminists from now on instead of specifying that I'm discussing someone who self-identifies as a feminist - it's just less to say) feminists I've met have no problem at all with the idea that car insurance companies charge young men more than young women because young men are statistically more likely to total a car, but feel that companies who, faced with an equally qualified man and woman, will hire or promote the man most times because the woman is statistically more likely to suddenly decide to take a couple of years off to have and start raising a baby is blatant discrimination.

They feel that it is totally fine that a woman can choose whether to have a baby or not, then if they have it and don't want it, can drop it off at the nearest hospital, never to be seen again, with no legal consequences. On the other hand, they feel that allowing a man to get a paper abortion where he has no parental rights and no financial obligation would be a massive travesty of justice.

I don't know, maybe your bunch is just different from mine?

I might respond that there are people who claim to be believers in Christianity, but haven't any idea what the bible says (and therefore what they claim to believe). Or that (as I mentioned before) the church has branched and spawned so many factions with such different belief systems that they all claim to be striving to end up in the same place but don't agree on how to go about it. Or that many refuse to discuss the issue at all with someone they aren't sure shares their opinions because from the outside it's pretty indefensible, but singing to the choir makes some people feel good.

Christianity has only one unifying concept - Jesus existed and he was God. Believing that is what makes you Christian. Feminism has only one unifying concept - That anyone with a Y chromosome is a member of a club that has the subjugation of women as its primary goal so women must make every effort to undermine any power men have (in self defense). Believing that is what makes you a Feminist.

It would make no sense for a Christian to declare that he or she thinks Jesus was a myth and it would make no sense for a feminist to declare that he or she wants equality between genders when one gender is out to get the other so it should be weakened before it can.

I know I'm again taking the harshest view of the movement, but having spoken/debated issues with pretty much any feminist willing to talk about it (pro tip - don't win the argument, they'll just declare that you have a little dick) and made it a point to read the things they write to each other, I'm just not fond of the movement. Again, maybe your bunch is different...

It's hard to say I'm overestimating the number when I never stated how many I thought would be willing (Because I don't know - I just know in a non-apocalyptic world there are a significant enough number that we're all aware that sugar daddies/mommies exist. A non-apocalyptic world where, since the dawn of man, people have encouraged their daughters to marry (and have sex with) someone who can offer them whatever is considered a good life at that point in history.

I don't think a world where you have a really good chance of getting attacked and killed by something/someone every time you set foot outside would lower that percentage. Though, I could see the argument that the people still alive would tend to be strong enough to refuse a subservient role. It's all theorycraft, though, so I think it's safest to do what I did and say that there have been no shortage of such people throughout history, so among thousands (let's actually be conservative and say a hundred - which would be about 2 months worth given how many we've seen since Beth woke up) of survivors, they'd have surely run into a couple of people willing to make that deal if it had been offered.).

I don't know, did this person have food, water and weapons when he or she was found?

If so, they should definitely leave with as much as they showed up with. If not, well... if you quit a job, do you expect to be paid enough to support yourself until you find another? I know that's a cold way to look at things, but every day of supplies you voluntarily give to someone outside the group, which the departing concubine would now be, is theoretically one day less you or one of your allies will stay alive.

I didn't disagree with her statement that consent given under duress isn't really consent, just that making an offer someone is free to accept or decline is putting someone under such duress.

I never ignored the idea that there's a range of coercion from "I'll put a bullet in your head if you don't have sex with me" to the most benign thing that could be interpreted coercion like "It's probably in your best interest to have sex with me."

I just didn't feel that it was worth exploring in the discussion given my stance that offering someone a place in your haven in exchange for sex (or grave digging) is not coercion at all. If you want to talk about it as an aside, I'd be happy to do so. I'd be pretty interested in where people draw the line between what's seen as a relatively harmless attempt to sell someone on the arrangement and what's dirty pool.

You and I've danced all around the core argument with explorations of various definitions and hypotheticals of hypotheticals. Not that I'm not thoroughly enjoying it, human psychology being a passion of mine, but you never stated your personal opinion on the core argument.

I believe offering someone a situation where you'll take care of them in exchange for sex that they are free to accept or refuse is simply negotiating a consensual arrangement. The other side of the argument is that it is attempted rape. Which end of the opinion teeter-totter are you sitting on?

At this point, we can only guess at the dynamics of how the hospital operates. I'll confess to not watching this episode as closely as I have good episodes, but the impression I got was that the males consider rape a fringe benefit of their jobs and the leader chick is too afraid if she makes waves over it, the others will look at each other and say, "Wait a minute. She can be raped too, right?" We don't know if we've seen every survivor in the building or there are a couple of hundred handcuffed to beds upstairs.

As for how a guy would feel, probably slightly worse than a woman in the same situation. That's just because a woman always has the possibility of being raped somewhere in the back of her mind, but it never occurs to a man until he hears, "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty..."

It's exactly like prostitution, but until recently, prostitution wasn't considered the absolute shameless profession it's treated as in the modern US. Of course, it has never been a profession people dreamed their kids would take up, but the idea that being a prostitute makes you a weak, bad person is pretty new.

As far as their sticking to the arrangement, if you trust these total strangers enough to hop in the back seat and let them take you to their home for any reason, you've already decided that you think they'll treat you fairly. I don't see taking the job changing that. (Not that you couldn't be wrong about them - then it'd be pointy object time.)

Don't you understand the sanctity with which women view their bodies? The very idea that a woman would serve sexually in as safe, clean and comfortable an environment as is available instead of happily risking being raped, zombified, killed (or all 3) is so unrealistic. Well, unless you're a hussy! A hussy, I say!!

*** Since I've had problems recently with people thinking I meant something altogether different when I made a statement, I want to clarify - this last part was a joke. ***

 

When Beth first walks the halls with Dr. Stevens, during Kiev's Be Gone Dull Cage, she looks down the hall to see a police officer leaving a room, when she peers in that room a woman stares Beth down and closes the door, the officer does not resemble Gorman. I think rape is the norm at Genital Hospital.

 

Gather round kids, I’ll tell you a story. Sorry for the essay.

So I went on a 3 week holiday with my partner to Bali. As anyone who’s been to Bali knows, it is a small island and if you spend any amount of time there you are bound to run into the same people all over the island.

While there I noticed this incredibly good looking young Balinese man. He was taller than most Balinese men, well built and had an amazing mane of jet black hair that went all the way down to his hard buttocks.I noticed him because he was so spectacular looking.He was with a middle-aged Western woman.I smirked and thought “OK, she’s getting a great holiday romance and he’s getting a wealth transfer from the first world to the third world.”

Then I see him again with another middle-aged Western woman. Then I see him again with another middle-aged Western woman.Then I see him again with another middle-aged Western woman.So then I figure “huh, this is his life, he’s a rent boy, he lives off middle-aged Western female tourists.”

He and I had exchanged eye contact every time we’d seen each other. No doubt he’s used to scoping out potential female clients and he looked at me to see if I was a potential client.I initially looked into his eyes because he was breathtaking to look at.Then I started looking at him with a more troubled expression every time I saw him.The final time I saw him we exchanged eye contact and, while his current middle-aged Western client was turned around paying the bill he looked at me and smiled and shrugged his shoulders at me and I laughed.

Now, I figure this guy has a lot of autonomy in his situation. No doubt he chose which of the middle-aged Western females he approached.He probably wasn’t forced to have sex with someone he really didn’t want to have sex with.Probably he had interactions where he secured first world dollar just for hanging around and flirting and making these middle-aged Western women feel good without having to have sex.

But the reality is that he was servicing these women because there was a power differential and he was a poor, good-looking young man in a third world country with limited prospects of improving his situation and they were (relatively) rich Westerners who could afford to give him money.

So what was this guy’s story?

On the one hand his story could have been “I feel completely humiliated that I have to abase myself by flattering these vacuous Western women who have no respect for me simply so that I can make much better money than I otherwise could in the Bali economy. I’d rather be home eating my wife’s cooking and playing with my kids and retaining my dignity.”

On the other hand his story could have been “Are you kidding? I have the best life possible.Rich women pay for me to eat and sleep in luxury hotels and all I have to do is tell them lies and throw them the odd bone.What?You think I should be labouring in rice paddies for 14 hours a day.Where’s the dignity in that?”

The fundamental question for me is whether I’d feel comfortable having sex with this example of male beauty, all things considered. And my answer is NO.I would not feel comfortable having sex with this person because I would not feel that he was in a position to give true consentand I would not want to have sex with someone who did not have sex based purely on a desire for me.

I only ever want to have sex with people who are motivated to do that because they have a sincere lust for me.
Anything else is debasing them and me and the experience.

 

Excellent point Alina, although I'm not sure your story translates well to a post apocalyptic world... :zombies_confused:

In the world we see depicted in the Walking Dead series, you would not have the time and or energy necessary to form a 'normal' sexual relationship with one person. (that had not begun before the world descended into chaos)

The constant stress and anxiety associated with the foraging of food and water, and the relentless pursuit of what could be considered safe shelter, while CONSTANTLY being hounded by flesh-eating monsters 24/7, ...would definitely put a damper on any attempts to form a 'genuine' romantic bond with another human being.

In other words, I think the BARTER SYSTEM (sex for...whatever you needed at the moment) would be the prevailing method of human sexual interaction under those unique circumstances.

Just my .02

 

See, this is why the conversation is going in circles. You refuse to accept what people have been telling you, over and over again. Now, you don't necessarily have to agree, but I feel as if you aren't reading our responses or taking them in when it comes to the concepts of consent and duress, or perhaps you're being intentionally obtuse, for reasons I don't even want to begin to imagine.

You asked me to use a generic, "colloquial" definition of rape for the sake of discussion, but now we see why that is an exercise in futility. Sexual assault is a crime, it's a broader concept than penetrative sex, and it's about infringing upon another's rights. It would be like trying to have a discussion about theft or murder divorced from their legal definitions.

I used the word "unwanted" because the key point is consent. You must secure consent before any sexual contact takes place. In your examples about pinching bums, you are assuming that it's okay to pinch a bum when you, the pincher, feel like it, and that it's impossible to tell whether the contact is unwanted until after it occurs and you're in trouble for it. I'm saying the opposite is true: You must assume the contact is unwanted unless you have gained the person's consent and are confident that it is wanted. When in doubt, do not pinch the bum.

In your first example, you seem to be referring to sexual harassment in the workplace, which is a whole other discussion. I won't be baited into typing out all the reasons that pinching bums at work is wrong (see others' comments about power dynamics), and your hairstyle comment is hyperbolic. Is it one comment in an ongoing campaign of commenting about the woman's appearance? If so, then yes, it could be considered workplace harassment. In your second example, yes, you had better make sure the pinchee wants to receive a flirtatious pinch from you first. It's about context.

You seem to have a lot of personal issues that you're bringing to the discussion. Maybe just drop your defences for a few minutes and watch this. Please.

http://youtu.be/UwJRFClybmk

You keep bringing up these points about women throughout history "agreeing" to trade sex for comfort and safety, but those were times when they didn't have legal rights such as the right to vote, own property, or defend themselves in court, and so it wasn't really "agreeing." In some places today, they still don't have those rights. But in the first world at least, most of us have choices and don't have to barter ourselves. I'm not sure why you think this mindset would change if the ZA happened tomorrow.

I have stated my opinion on duress repeatedly. I will try one last time.

Non-rapey situations:

• A person decides to have sex with you because s/he is attracted to you and likes you. S/he does not feel threatened by you in any way, physically or otherwise.
• A person who has choices in life decides of their own free will to support themselves as a sex worker. S/he has consensual sex with you in exchange for something of value. S/he does not feel threatened by you in any way, physically or otherwise.
• A person agrees to be your companion and have an ongoing sexual relationship with you in exchange for something of value. S/he is free to leave the relationship at any time and does not feel threatened by you in any way, physically or otherwise.

Rapey situations:

• A person does not consent to having sex with you, but you force yourself upon them anyway.
• A person does not want to have sex with you, but they submit because they feel threatened by you, physically or otherwise.
• You have sex with someone who cannot legally consent to having sex with you.
• A person agrees have either a one-time or an ongoing sexual relationship with you in exchange for something of value. S/he is not free to leave the encounter or relationship at any time and does feel threatened by you, physically or otherwise. The person believes that the alternative to staying in the encounter/relationship is worse than staying.

 

Can we skip the feminism discussion? Or any other political, agenda driven or religious conversation not tied ot the Walking Dead but peoples personal opinion of things happening in the Walking Dead out of a real life perspective.

 

Yeah, that's the thing though. You can't really evaluate what's going on in relation to RL. In this post ZA time, conventional mores have been flushed right down the toilet. Life is primitive and raw and getting more so as time goes on. Isn't that why we're attracted to Rick's group? Everyone is treated fairly with no regard to gender, race or age. Economic status no longer exists. They protect each other and don't aggress against those who do them no harm, even if they have their reservations...they tend to give one the benefit of the doubt.

Every man and woman would react differently if they found themselves in a world with no checks and balances. Unless you have a very strong internal sense of right and wrong, well then...anything goes. So what do you do if you found yourself in such a world? You survive. Anyway you can, hopefully that wouldn't involve some of the heinous things we've witnessed but I'm sure many would make compromises if it meant some measure of safety. Not everyone is going to be as fortunate to find them selves in the company of people like Rick and his group so if it means they have to "barter" to get along they'll do it. In Beth's case she's strong enough she doesn't have to settle and she won't. She'll do anything to get back to her "family" and with Carol there now, the only question is whether they're just going to extricate themselves or blow up the whole hospital community on their way out.

 

You're right. I apologize since the worms that crawled over everything came from the can I opened. Like I said, it's such a fascinating arena of discussion I find it difficult not to keep the conversation going.


On topic:

I think it was a mistake killing Gorman off. Sure, we all wanted him dead, but that wanting was what gets people invested in the character (when it's a bad guy character). Unless they've got another Gorman-esque dude waiting to step into his role, I think they missed an opportunity to milk our hate for all it was worth.

You're right, purriwinkle. Given a brutal environment, lots of what we consider right or wrong would probably go out the window because in that world you wouldn't have the luxury of them that we do in our world. That said, this isn't a forum for in-depth discussion of exactly what those moral stances profess.

If I'd been thoughtful enough to respond to a couple of the earliest posts with a tone comparable to those posts', I'd have said something about rubber and glue and things bouncing and sticking and the whole thing would have been over. I fell into the trap of actually trying to explain the position that I felt was being misrepresented and derailed the thread into serious land.

 

I don't know, Gorman's death may help put some depth and force into Dawn's character.

 

I don't see how. They've established her as someone who basically let the others do whatever they want as long as she gets the plaque that says 'boss' on her door.

She's too weak (as in, the character is weak, not that the writing or acting was weak) to step up and seize the dozen remaining guards that we're aware of in an iron fist to become a real threat to the main group.

She's too slappy abusive of their prisoners to join the main group.

I think with Gorman gone, the only story left for Dawn is exactly when and how she gets killed. On the other hand, if SHE had died and left Gorman solely in charge, there are a lot of directions they could have taken to change the impression from "the hospital group WTF?" to "the hospital group - Holy shit!!"

 

You realize they don't let people leave, right? When someone escapes, they catch them and bring them back.

Also, I imagine if someone said "I won't shoot you in the head with this gun right now and all you have to do in return is not say no when I ask you to have sex right now" most people would take that deal in a heartbeat. Just because someone makes a choice in a situation doesn't mean it was a deal.

 

There are other ways to add depth to her character than to have her seize the remaining guards in an iron fist. That might actually make her character more shallow. Gorman's death may make her eventually reconsider what is going on here. We'll have to see how it plays out.

 

Yes, I realize that. You realize that I was proposing that they could act differently, right?

So if you suggest to someone that the 2 of you get together to have sex, they should assume that refusal means you're going to freaking kill them?!?

Look back at the posts over the last couple of pages and you'll find that I said at least twice that consent under threat isn't really consent. I said that I think what they're doing (the whole knock people out and drag them home to rape) is unnecessary - that I believe offering safe haven in exchange for sex is an arrangement some people would be more than willing to accept. How it is that people keep adding, "And if you threaten them convincingly enough, they'll be sure to accept.", I simply can't explain.

There are other ways to add depth, I just feel like they've closed the door on most of them with how they've already built the character.

At this point, I think the only way Dawn can save herself is to save Rick - then she'll be welcomed into the group with open arms. As a bonus, she could become Tyreese's girlfriend and get killed so he'll be willing to fight zombies.

 

I can only explain this sentence by assuming you totally misread or misunderstood the point of my post.

 

Well, your post seemed to make the assumption that offering someone a sex for shelter arrangement automatically included the threat of immediate execution on refusal...