Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentAuthorQuixotess
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2009
     (6172.121)
    "I was all with you until this point. And after it, for that matter. Was it really necessary? I mean, I get what you mean, but it also seems to imply that rape victims are automatically whores. Or at least, the ones that press charges are. At least, that's what it implies to me. I might be projecting on what you said."
    I was actually talking about actual prostitutes who have been raped and how juries would likely view them. Just like a woman who was raped in prison will probably be viewed as "some criminal," a woman who was raped in the course of her sex work will probably be viewed as "some whore." (And both of them will probably be viewed as "some liar.") I should have been clearer.

    "Quixotess - When the nature of man changes from it's fundamentals that may happen, I don't see it happing ever. It is a great thing to wish for and a goal to work towards but it not and IMHO a realistic to expect it."
    Avoiding the question of whether those thingss are possible, the belief that you will never be able to solve the problem entirely is no reason to undertake counterproductive or harmful partial solutions.
    •  
      CommentAuthordorkmuffin
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2009
     (6172.122)
    @Quixotess: Sometimes, I don't quite have the courage to take such a stand when discussing rape with men I know, because it has such a horribly complex set of motives and rationales behind it. Thank you for taking such a stand.
    • CommentAuthorRobAGD
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2009
     (6172.123)
    ok, weird a post was deleted ?

    -R
  1.  (6172.124)
    Yeah. You've been here three hours. Don't try to start an argument straight away.
    •  
      CommentAuthorV
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2009
     (6172.125)
    Quixotess Thank you for that. I was happy to read your articulate stance on this.
    • CommentAuthorQuixotess
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2009 edited
     (6172.126)
    Thank you for your kind words, all. Edit: Like dorkmuffin says, talking about this stuff can be scary as hell. Reactions like yours make it less scary.
    • CommentAuthorRobAGD
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2009
     (6172.127)
    Well I have been signed up for a few hours, been lurking for a lot longer than that.

    But that is fine, I didn't think anything I have posted so far had been all that inflammatory.

    Seems a tad one sided.

    -R
    •  
      CommentAuthorAdam
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2009
     (6172.128)
    Just getting back to Luke's methods and motivations for this attack, I've heard a lot of people voicing the opinion that it was some sort of "charm spell", that he induced feelings in her of love and acceptance for him and an artificial willingness to take part. To me, that doesn't really gel with his personality.

    Luke strikes me as an extreme portrayal of malignant narcissism. Her enjoyment of it is irrelevant. In fact, as the Marquis De Sade postulated, if he's putting any effort into allowing her enjoyment of the experience, then it's lessening the amount of effort he can devote to his own enjoyment. And for him it is entirely about his own enjoyment, fulfilling his own desires. A living meat blow-up doll is not at all unattractive to that kind of mind. It becomes purely about him, without the possibility of it being halted or the possibility of his fulfillment momentarily taking second place to hers.
    • CommentAuthorQuixotess
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2009
     (6172.129)
    Adam, I agree. That is my assessment as well. Healthy people here have questioned what sort of enjoyment Luke could get from a woman who wasn't reacting in any way; I think what you said is spot on.
  2.  (6172.130)
    To the people wondering why he was raping her and so on: Rape isn't about sex, it's about control. That's what they feed off. Whether it's against a child, a young, or an elderly adult, it's always about control.

    I'm also interested in how the FA deal with Luke. Just as our fellow animals know, dealing with sexual predators shouldn't be a moral judgment. Why should it? It has to be a biologically driven judgment. You fuck with one of our own, you're gone. Especially in a post-apocalyptic world, every human counts because for all they might or might not know, that's the entire human race. Prisons are built to tolerate criminals, not deal with them in any kind of efficient manner. You can jail him, you can chop a man's prick off, but you can't take it out of his head. A criminal has to want to change on his own, he has to become submissive, but there are very few number of people who actually do change.

    How do you reduce crime? You relieve people and cities of stress, not with more cops and prisons, but by creating an environment that is calm and willing to help. With that said, I'm not more surprised that more people are committing rapes -- well they probably are, but we might be unaware of it. In Freakangels Town, I mean.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAdam
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2009 edited
     (6172.131)
    I think all forms of criminal endeavour have increased because the human race has lost the higher level awareness of their tribe mentality. We still have the base tribe instincts (xenophobia and racism as tools for protecting our own), but our sense of belonging to a defined community has become extremely dulled, particularly in large urban settings. Without that sense of wider belonging, its so easy to slide into a mindset of "it's me against the rest", and that can lead to justification of theft and higher crimes to the perpetrator. There's no greater Tribe to place before their own interests.

    Which depresses me in a way, because I kind of find it hard to see how we can reverse the cultural changes such exponential population growth has wrought upon the species. I find it hard to see humanity surviving more than a few centuries into the future without MASSIVE reductions in our numbers and reverting to smaller tribes rather than big Nations.

    But that's an entirely different discussion altogether :P
  3.  (6172.132)
    @Adam Exactly. That's something I've been thinking about also. The Tribe -- the Family -- those concepts have almost vanished. It really has become about me and my own. And since the 80's yuppie culture where materialism reigned, that really became people's mantra. In that sense, we're devolving -- actually, in almost every area we're devolving. We can build weapons and let you watch porn and stream music from your Crappy Phone but we can't protect and preserve our own.

    If we lose, the human race is gone.

    But yes, an entire different discussion altogether.
  4.  (6172.133)
    Isn't "me and my own" also The Family and the Tribe? Three hundred centuries ago, a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, tribes were rarely larger than 30 people -- which corresponds to the size of most people's extended family and circle of friends.

    The problem comes when we regularly interact with people outside our families or tribes. One suggested solution is to enlarge the notion of "Tribe" to cover larger groupings, from one's city to one's country (which produces wars) to the whole human race (which may or may not be attainable). Others might suggest promoting an ethic which integrates The Golden Rule into one's own sense of individuality. I don't have a definitive answer; of course I do have my preferences.

    Death penalty for rape? Depends on the circumstances, I think. One rapist might simply be unable to deal with his victim's rejection; the other might be a relentless sociopath like Luke. In both cases, severe sanctions should be applied, but every case is unique, and a range of sanctions should be available. But the death penalty does have the problem of its perverse incentive to up the ante to murder.

    And the range of sanctions available can be very limited in the situation which the FreakAngels find themselves. Is it even possible to imprison Luke? If they banish him, might he team up with Mark and cause a lot more trouble? If they execute him, how will that effect the group's morale? Perhaps Arkady could scramble Luke's brain and render him harmless -- but that might backfire and leave him both empowered and completely unstable.

    Such difficult choices. And most likely, Warren will come up with something completely different.
  5.  (6172.134)
    Huh. I'm noting a lack of disgust about the commonness of rape in your reasoning Quixotess. Maybe it's just me. But that really makes me uncomfortable. Then again, yesterday I was reading about rape issues, and stuff like this which always makes my blood boil. (And believe me I can find more. That's just the beginning.) Perhaps rape doesn't warrant the death penalty. But it is not less bad than murder.

    And yes, I do believe they should kill Luke. They obviously won't be able to control him. With those powers, are they really going to "exile" him and let him wreck havoc like they let Mark? The only way to stop him at this point is to make sure he's not alive to be a sick bastard again.
  6.  (6172.135)
    Not to be snarky or anything, but from looking at my dictionary, a tribe doesn't have a number limit. But yeah, a tribe should cover larger groupings which is what should've happened with the advent of cities, but instead, it became about "me and my own." Where you don't see the ridiculous mentality is mostly in lower-class neighborhoods where people, no matter what color you are, must stick together because it's all they know, it's all they have.

    I believe in a Family of Choice. A circle of people who are my brothers and sisters, no matter if we're blood-related or not. I grew up in a neighborhood called "Little Africa" because of it's high African-American population, where heroin and cocaine was being imported and exported. I was the only white/Hispanic family in the whole place, but we were all friends, all family. Except the junkies. We fought hard to throw each one of them out because they were giving the kids drugs, infecting them, throwing the community into a circle of crime and death. And because we were a tribe, as we all knew each other, we didn't hesitate to throw the fucking drug dealers out. Why? Because the children of the community, which I was part of at the time, depended on it or else we'd be dead. If it was suburbia, you couldn't expect a mob of people speak up on behalf of each other. They just want to make sure they make it home for CSI and so on.

    The concept of biological families is dead, especially with the fact that child abuse is rising. It's amazing when you see a mouse and a cat bond; or an elephant and a lion just kinda hang out in the animal kingdom. We kinda saw that with Alice coming in with a shotgun ready to kill, but instead she was embraced as one of their own, even if she doesn't have their Freak-ability. The Freakangels are not related, as far as we know, but were born at the same time. And each one found each other, bonded by their special ability. And from some of their conversations, they've known each other since they were kids.

    From Scott:

    If they execute him, how will that effect the group's morale?

    Once again, who gives a shit. It shouldn't be a question of "what's going to happen to team spirit?" It's about channeling that pack behavior from our animal ancestors and making sure our species survives. Group morale is already all over the place for the Freakangels.

    And when I said "exile," I was only referring to what animals do -- which is they either banish, avoid, or kill predators harming the tribe. And with Luke's powers, I thinking killing is the only way to go.

    Really long, but, I thought it's better than nothing.
    • CommentAuthorinizitu
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2009
     (6172.136)
    Dear Quixotess:
    I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. =D

    And @Chris Ferguson, Yeah, given the power Luke has, and the amount of FreakPower it would take to keep him contained? The only way to stop the harm he does is to kill him or reprogram him. And a reprogram might be something only Luke could pull off since he's the only one who practices mindrape. That we know of so far, anyway.

    Part of the beauty of fiction is that simple answers are possible. If the writer is good, you are led to the right conclusion. IE if it walks like a rapist fuckwad, and whines like a rapist fuckwad, it probably is a rapist fuckwad (vs some of the weird and fucked-up, gray permutations you get in real life where what you think you see isn't always what you see.)
    So, in fiction, we get to have the satisfaction of getting vengeance upon rapist fuckwads that tends to be denied us in real life. While I pretty much agree Quixotess' wise and lovely comment above, I can't help but wish, sometimes, that we could just do a cull. Rapists, televangelists and Bill O'Reilly, out of the gene pool! Don't make any more. Y'know.
    • CommentAuthorQuixotess
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2009
     (6172.137)
    <blockquote>Huh. I'm noting a lack of disgust about the commonness of rape in your reasoning Quixotess. Maybe it's just me. But that really makes me uncomfortable. Then again, yesterday I was reading about rape issues, and stuff like this which always makes my blood boil. (And believe me I can find more. That's just the beginning.) Perhaps rape doesn't warrant the death penalty. But it is not less bad than murder.</blockquote>
    No, I didn't imbue that comment with disgust. I'm new here and I didn't want to get too personal or emotional right off the bat. While there is a lot of pain in what I wrote (many of the examples I gave happened to close friends) I chose not to focus on my pain or my stories. Rape is a very dangerous topic. I didn't know what kind of response I would get, and the more I focused on my own emotions the more hurtful any negative responses would have been. So yeah, I made a conscious effort to be calm and impersonal.

    Oh wait, my reasoning? I don't think disgust for rape necessarily means you think punishments should be fatal or otherwise violent. I don't want either of my abusers to be killed or hurt. My most spiteful imaginings involve tattoos on their foreheads, but that would be a violation of their rights.

    I do, however, think it would make sense to kill Luke. Freakangels, having nonhuman powers, have nonhuman morality, and have to deal with situations differently. I do not think there is a prison that could hold him; I think letting him go free makes freakangels complicit in his future rapes and other violences; I think Arkady destroying his mind through recreation of the overdose experience is sadistic and cruel. I think he should be killed.
    •  
      CommentAuthortrini_naenae
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2009 edited
     (6172.138)
    @Quixotess: It's not the punishment part that makes me uncomfortable. It's the well-it's-so-common reasoning. That's the worst part! That it's so common. I have enough issues and fears and nightmares because of how common it is, and I'm protected little whitey. I'm pretty sure I'm past one hand in counting women I know who have been raped/molested/sexually assaulted. And they were just white girls, most if not all from WASP backgrounds. I just spent at least an hour yesterday reading and listening to about how much worse it is for Women of Color, never mind how bad it is for all the other groups listed. And I still have yet to see anyone talk about men dealing with their own responsibilities (yes there are bad women but they are incredibly rare) and talking to other men about responsibilities, when it comes to respecting women... all women, and the other groups as well. Perhaps what I am most peeved about is the entire rape is not as bad as murder thinking.

    edit: And yes I know I am being cranky and a bit ranty. This topic makes me so.
    • CommentAuthorQuixotess
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2009
     (6172.139)
    I was not making any point with "rape is common" that involves excusing rape or rapists, nor do I believe I wrote anything like that in my post. Would you like to e-mail me? I'm at quixotess@gmail.com.
  7.  (6172.140)
    Eh, don't mind me. Cranky and ranty and probably not thinking all that straight I'm afraid. Perhaps it's the focusing on the punishment instead of the causes that really pisses me off.