cikichan -
To get to a a safe assesment of whether it was rape or not, one would have to know what Emma *thought* of it. That, we can olnly try to guess.
No, all things just aren't equal here. While it is true that Norman was coerced, pressured and told that if he didn't rape her, that wardaddy would... he was a trained, armed soldier and he understood it for the hazing that it was. Clearly, he would be rewarded with respect and inclusion and he chose to join the brotherhood of rapists, rather than maintain his manhood. By indoctrinating Norman, the other rapist soldiers are encouraged to act as if rape is normal because "we all do it."
This mother and daughter had sovereignty over that apartment. They rule. They control the doorways. It's their decision on who may enter and who may not. The minute their wish to not invite others in was not respected and obeyed, they became crime victims.
For any idiots out there... crime victims cannot give consent to have sex with their victimizers during the crime. This is true whether military or civilian circumstances. There is no judgment call required here... no need to catch nuance... it's a limit, it's a law and those suffering from pathological levels of entitlement can't grasp the concept.
There are ambiguous things in play - like of course when soldiers break down your door you'd be more submissive. But "no way you'd have consensual sex within five minutes"? Well, that's debatable too... as sex drive might also be a lot greater in times of war, when death is always around the corner - and it literally was in this case. Like in the "i don't want to die a virgin" teenage cliché - expressed here as "they're young, they're alive". Anyway, one can only try and guess how much of any was in play.
This reflects youth, ignorance of the facts and a lack of war zone experience. No, there is zero ambiguity in that story. They were violated and traumatized by armed rapists who happened to be wearing military uniforms which visually identified them as their enemy captors. In civilian life, the charges would begin with the armed breaking and entering, then rape and kidnapping (because the moment you prevent a person from physically leaving, you have taken custody of them).
Sadly, I met one of these convicted offenders. It was an armed robbery of a home and the family was asleep. The woman he raped he said he fell in love with and he thought she fell in love with him, too. He thought she consented because she smiled and pleased him. She romanced him, which saved her husband's life and her own and the lives of their children. THAT is why she pretended to be experiencing this strange, unique and beautiful love with him. Destiny. It took him years to believe that all of that wasn't true. To be honest, I think he just says that for the parole board to hear about and is likely to go find her the moment he would be released. And, over the decades I'm sure she sought advice on how best to survive should that moment come. She may have to feign being in love again.
You see, the other view is that of the rapist, "She wanted it." Pedophiles do that, too.
We don't know exactly what Wardaddy wanted to do when he went there in the first place.
Did he intend to rape someone himself? Try and seduce or buy off? Just have dinner? Or just getting some booty for Norman was the plan all along?
A few strong hints.
1) wardaddy's experience with raping civilian women and knowing where to find the ones who have a stove to cook his eggs. He's a planner.
2) wardaddy deliberately took Norman with him, eggs in hand. He did so with such ease and familiarity and confidence, it was clear this wasn't his first time navigating an enemy town.
3) wardaddy spoke about raping the women, his expectation that Norman rape her, his threat to rape her himself and then to offer them to their brother soldier rapists.
Yeah, some of us were extremely clear about what wardaddy wanted. Just like the captive women knew.
What we do know:
1. Norman playing piano overturned the settings - from fear to enthusiasm. Being able to play a score on first sight is impressive in itself, while that being a lied familiar and dear to Emma seemed downright overwhelming. The sudden change from fear to enthusiasm is *clearly* portrayed.
No, playing a piano mid-crime does not suddenly mean the crime is no longer being committed. Horrific crimes can happen amid a facade of merriment, as this scene depicts clearly. It shows a scary level of psychopathy to be able to pretend evil is nice. The capacity to view a victim who is scared for their lives, as being willing or romantic... that's a rapist view.
No, her fear was clearly depicted in her acquiescence to her armed, captor's rape. And, she explained that she could get killed or worse if they didn't go through with it. She sadly knew that because we know that women in war zones understand the need to prepare each other, and their children, on how to survive being raped by the soldiers.
If you (the general you) don't know that, then you are living a privileged life. So, you should get educated and then do something to make things right. Seriously, to post such rape-supportive views reflects a deep problem.
2. Wardaddy's "threat" looks like a clumsy plot device to hurry things up. Did Emma understand? Probably so, or at least she suspected. Did she count it as a threat? Well, you can never say that for sure, but notice one thing: her reaction was almost instantaneous and completely unhesitant. Not like a choice of the lesser evil.
Really? If it were your rape being discussed... Sorry, but one of the key problems rapists have is a complete lack of empathy for the victims.
Empathy for the girl and her mother would entail understanding that they have prepared for this invasion of their home and for the violation of their bodies. Women share tips on how to survive rape because they must, especially in war zones. Mothers try to attract the rapist to protect their daughters but they know it may not work, so they teach their daughters what to do and what to say... to survive. That is what this scene depicted clearly. Rape culture.
Do you know there are different types of rapists and that women are taught to identify which kind they are before choosing to speak, act or flee, because depending on the type, those things may mean life or death? Playing romantic is just as effective as throwing up or defecating... depends on which kind of rapist needs to be survived.
3. Still, she didnt't have to actually do it, as Norman was the kind that would have backed off by his own in front of the slightest opposition. Not the threatening type either, so you coul say that she only played willing. So what actually happened in the bedroom was only between them.
No, there was nothing personal going on between those people... we were shown a war crime.
When armed gunmen, uniformed or not, enter your home against your will and without your permission, freely granted, they are criminals. That would be the definition of "threatening type."
Well, soldiers are captors but to equate their behavior as that of soldier's, is to share wardaddy's view, and wardaddy has clearly described himself as a very self-accepting and experienced rapist. He thinks gang-rape is a party he can offer his brothers. Those women weren't people to him... just things to be used to harm the enemy.
So, apparently, as ambiguous and far-fetched the plot, the film makers din go to extra-lenghts to portray a romance rather than a rape.
Please clarify. Is that did or didn't? I don't understand that sentence.
But admitting it was rape, why limit it to the girl? You could easily say that both Emma and Norman were raped, under threat - Emma to save herself and Norman to protect her from a more brutal outcome. Maybe he would have refused in other circumstances, why assume that the one gave consent by default and the other didn't?
I thought about Norman, but differently than what you write. Emma, pure rape victim. There was no possibility of consent to an armed invader, who perpetrated war crimes against them.
But, while I'm clear that Norman chose to become a rapist, I also take into consideration that if he didn't acquiesce, then his brother soldier rapists, might let him die once they got back into the field. That doesn't make it mutual romanticism, though... he did choose the "rape her" option.
He's the invader, she's the captive.
He's trained and armed and has backup and she's just vulnerable.
And, let's go for the obvious difference, Emma was raped... by Norman. Norman, was not raped by Emma. Norman is the war criminal.
If the same scenario happened in civilian life, then I'd be okay with Norman being charged with kidnapping and rape and being convicted of both. However, I'd rather see him sentenced to sex offender counseling to unwarp his brain. Keep him supervised until he is essentially, reprogrammed as a human.
However, soldiers are trained and they are entrusted with the public faith of the citizenry they represent. Rapists, do NOT represent the citizenry. The soldiers are prepared to act within their duty and words like honor matter. Soldiers are afforded certain powers... such as taking control of a place or of taking the enemy prisoner. These powers we bestow upon soldiers must also come with the expectation that they be held to a higher moral standard of behavior.
For that reason, Norman should get the counselling, but also spend decades in prison. She was his prisoner and he was duty bound to refuse the order to rape her, whatever the cost to him.
This was about war criminals, with an intimate look at how they maintain a rape culture by initiating the new soldiers to become rapists, too. That scene wasn't really about the women, at all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Debate. Not hate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
reply
share
wlee08
9 years ago
To make the argument that the sex happened during a crime (the crime of Break and Enter) you would need to show that going into someone's house in a time of war is a criminal act. During war, people expect enemy soldiers to come into their house - for the purposes of establishing security. I'm not saying it's right, but it's expected, and probably not comparable to Break & Enter, where a victim would be truly terrified and submissive to an intruder. If the soldiers come in, and there is no evidence that they want to do harm or have sex (like in this scene), and in fact they only seem to want you to prepare them a meal, would she feel any pressure to give him sex?
reply
share
kuntext
9 years ago
wlee-
To make the argument that the sex happened during a crime (the crime of Break and Enter) you would need to show that going into someone's house in a time of war is a criminal act./quote]
Governments and military types may want to play semantics. So, here goes...
Did the soldiers enter that home for security reasons? No, Brad wanted to make someone cook for him, against their will, and with glee, to be making the friends/family of enemy soldiers, serve them.
Had the soldiers scared them sufficiently into compliance? Obviously, otherwise, either the soldiers or the women, would have left. If for some security reason, the soldiers had to stay, and keep the women there, they are required to keep the women in place and watch them. NOT, touch them.
There are military codes. In none of them is sex with an enemy captive legal. Consent is NOT a possibility, it's not up for individual interpretation... it's rape.
[quote] During war, people expect enemy soldiers to come into their house - for the purposes of establishing security. I'm not saying it's right, but it's expected, and probably not comparable to Break & Enter, where a victim would be truly terrified and submissive to an intruder[
You speak of "Probably." You are guessing incorrectly. NO ONE cares under what circumstances others forcibly enter their home. It's a primal, human response. I've lived in a war zone where people had to burn books so when enemy soldiers broke in, they would not be taken for owning them. You are lucky to not comprehend this kind of terror.
Since you have no idea what you are talking about, I have to ask... why is it so important to you that the rape shown in the film be denied or minimized?
If the soldiers come in, and there is no evidence that they want to do harm or have sex (like in this scene), and in fact they only seem to want you to prepare them a meal, would she feel any pressure to give him sex?
Can you re-phrase this for clarity? As written,
it's confusing. War Daddy was specifically hunting for women who could cook, and then be raped. Remember, he knew what to look for, found it easily and knew exactly how to use his body and eyes to convey the threat? Look at the scene outside, when he makes the younger soldier accompany him. Then, listen to his words and how he says them. Sociopath, experienced rapist, indoctrinating the new guy.
http://faculty.csbsju.edu/uspp/crimpsych/CPSG-5.htmYour really need to know at least this much ^^^ about rapists to discuss this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Debate. Not hate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
reply
share