EC Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) ^^^ Why did she incorrectly believe that she "hated him", was "frightened by him", etc, in the events leading up to this event? She believed men like Roark couldn't exist in reality prior to this, and she was confused and conflicted at this point. The "rape" scene was the beginning of the dismantling of her contradictions. It had to be "forced" on her because it was also a metaphorical device that equated with her eyes being forced to see reality (and a man) as it (and he) really is. (p.s. Even though like usual this post gets straight to the heart of the point without a million extra words and sentences it will be ignored just for that reason because I am beginning to believe that people on this site believe answers need to be ultra long and complicated so that they obscure the main point and they can then "discuss" the subjects indefinitely.) Edited December 13, 2011 by EC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 It had to be "forced" on her because it was also a metaphorical device that equated with her eyes being forced to see reality (and a man) as it (and he) really is. Yes, and I do not see how that is morally good. Not rape, I guess, but not good or admirable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 Yes, and I do not see how that is morally good. Not rape, I guess, but not good or admirable. In most case's you are absolutely correct (and actual rape is always evil, in any context) but in the context of this novel, Dominique needed and deep down wanted to be forced to see that an ideal men could and do actually exist in the world and this was the beginning of that process for her. It is left somewhat ambiguous at the time how he actually did this, unless one considers he somehow intuited it by completely understanding both his and her natures via a process that he has deeply internalized and automatized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAthos Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 See you in a week. Okay, so it was a short week. In another thread -- the Laverne & Shirley to this thread's Happy Days -- EC recently described the feeling of being "on tilt." That's what I was feeling here, and over the course of participating on this board I've realized that it's good for me to recognize that feeling and take some action to cool down. Throughout my life I've been thin-skinned, and it's easy for me to say things in a passion that I later regret. Anyways, I feel better now. And in this happy state, I'm going to try to set some thoughts down while it lasts... It is only "rape" if you drop the context of the entire novel and concentrate only on this one scene while purposely ignoring this context. You know, I've been getting that a lot. Of course, I disagree. Recently (though prior to your post) I said the following: I am not ignoring anything in the book -- not "the parts of the book that put the scene in context." I've examined everything that has been brought up, and for reasons that I've taken the pains to elaborate, I have judged that they do not change the character of the sex scene. I'm not "focusing narrowly on the scene in question." I'm taking it together with Dominique and Roark's relationship leading up to it, and their relationship thereafter, and anything else you want to consider. Of course you can disagree if you choose, but I think that with everything taken together, that sex scene remains a scene of rape. So, okay, it's "he said/he said" at the moment. So what specific context do you think I'm ignoring? And by-the-by, but "purposely"? You suppose that I have some predetermined conclusion that (for some vaguely defined but doubtless nefarious reason) I "want" to consider this scene rape, and that therefore I'm willing to just ignore the great arguments to the contrary? Have I done something specific that leads you to have such a low opinion of me? Or does the nature of my opinion in-and-of-itself lead you to conclude that I must be ignoring relevant evidence? I feel like I'm being accused here, and it kind of sucks. How many actual rape victims start a life-long love relationship with their rapists after the alleged "rape"? Let's get right to the answer you want to hear, but then we'll talk about this a little bit more -- sound good? Here's the answer: not many, at "best." Certainly I don't know of any cases of this, and if I heard about one I'd have to wonder about the mentality of the victim. (It would require someone very confused. Has there been any discussion around here lately about a very confused character?) That said, consider that there have been rapes in human society for a long time. Going back far enough, and looking into the mythological and cultural traditions of ancient societies, it seems like there was a fair amount of raping going on as the basis for life-long relationships. There's the abduction aspect of rape (which ultimately implied the sexual, which I suspect is how the usage evolved) turning into a marriage, like the rape of the Sabines, or Hades' abduction of Persephone. There are instances in the Bible of the ancient Israelites "taking wives" from their conquered foes. And I have to imagine that the further we go back into primitive "civilization," the more common it was; growing up, I remember cartoons of cavemen knocking down their intended with a club and then dragging her off by her hair. Was it really like that, exactly? Ehh, probably not, but I also suspect a touch of truth. I suspect that early courtship was not much touched by a respect for man's rights, or the principle of the non-initiation of force. What of love? I'm sure it was a case-by-case deal, but I'd be surprised if there was never any love that developed between these folks. It's not quite the same thing, but throughout human history there have been arranged marriages, with women treated as property. Insofar as your arranged partner may not be the partner you'd select for yourself, there's some degree of compulsion going on. And yet I'm sure that many arranged marriages "worked out" in the sense of the couples eventually loving one another. And in modern times, we seemingly have cases of "statutory rape" which then develops into a "love relationship." But that's not what we mean, right? We mean the violent, against-the-will, non-consensual sort of rape, where the woman tries to fight the man off, bites him, feels terrified, tries to run away, cries out in pain, wants to bathe immediately thereafter, that sort of deal -- you know, rape (anyone know where I could find a scene that reads like this, for demonstration purposes? ). I'd guess that doesn't typically turn into love... except in certain works of fiction. I've tried to point out before, and no one's responded on this (because they don't think it relevant?), but there's an entire body of erotic literature which is specifically and unabashedly rape, yet in which the woman comes around to either simply enjoy the sex, or become devoted to her rapist. It's not that this is a rare thing; it's a common trope. And so, here's what we're left with: whether Dominique ultimately decided that she enjoyed the experience or not, and whether or not she and Roark ultimately loved each other, that doesn't help us to determine whether the sex scene we're talking about was rape. Consensual sex isn't defined as "sex you enjoy," or "sex with someone you learn to love," or even, "sex you would consent to, if you were fully rational." The question is only one of actual consent: did Dominique consent or did she not? And I contend that she did not. Why did she incorrectly believe that she "hated him", was "frightened by him", etc, in the events leading up to this event? I'm somewhat tempted to ask how a person can "incorrectly believe" that they hate a person, or are frightened... but I know that you despise the "million extra words and sentences" that I seem to require to parse these ideas out, so I guess I'll let it go... She believed men like Roark couldn't exist in reality prior to this, and she was confused and conflicted at this point. The "rape" scene was the beginning of the dismantling of her contradictions. It had to be "forced" on her because it was also a metaphorical device that equated with her eyes being forced to see reality (and a man) as it (and he) really is. Let's suppose for the moment that you're right: that this had to be forced on her, because it was like "her eyes being forced to see reality as it is." That this scene served a metaphorical or a thematic purpose. That's a fine argument to make. And yet, the actual mechanism underlying the metaphorical/thematic meaning would remain unchanged, because sex that is forced on a person is rape. This is why I said earlier to FeatherFall (to which he seemed annoyed in his response for my stating the "obvious"): Can't we clearly say, then, that if Roark "forced" Dominique to have sex, then he raped her? His response was: Of course we could, Tyler, that's the definition of rape. So if you think this was forced on Dominique -- had to be forced -- I'm satisfied, because then we're both saying the same thing: that this was rape. From the get-go -- my first post in this thread -- my purpose has been "to call a spade a spade." That's all. The "justifications" can proceed from there, or not, as the OP intended. But we have to start with the basics, with the identification of what actually takes place in the scene. And if we're agreed that this was forced sex, then we're agreed, metaphorical interpretations notwithstanding. Saying that "A is A" doesn't specify the content of A, and it doesn't tell us how to feel about A. It's just that a thing is what it is. More like a lioness in heat taking a violent swipe at a lion that is after her, scratching him across the face, realizing he is after her, that he wants her. Instead of standing her ground, she takes off...knowing that he's still after her. I think that the metaphor of lions is an intriguing one, and meaningful. Non-rational animals, like lions, don't have the capacity for rape -- or, in another sense, it's all rape for them, because all of their sex ultimately comes down to an application of force. But really, it's not sensible to speak of, because they're simultaneously unable to give consent. Like other issues of human morality, law, and justice, "rape" doesn't apply to lions. While human beings are animals, we cannot simply treat one another as lions do, because we do have reason, and we do have rights. The isssue of "consent" is inextricably bound with man's nature as a rational animal, and man's rights, and it's the boundary line between "rough-yet-consensual sex" and "rape." If Roark took Dominique like a lion -- like an unreasoning beast -- it's because the action he took was without respect to her wishes (i.e. her consent). Or, like this: Roark was not responding to Dominique's wishes, serving her desires, helping her to express or discover her femininity, nor was he trying to fulfill his role as a masculine man. She aroused his desire, slashed him across his face, and he took what he wanted. And right. Roark didn't care what Dominique's wishes or desires were -- whether she wanted to have sex with him or not -- he simply "took what he wanted." But sex among human beings, consensual sex between partners, involves two people who must simultaneously want to have sex with one another. It isn't rape if a man takes a woman without caring whether she wants it -- but she does want it; yet it is rape if he takes her, and she doesn't. Dominique's actions and feelings during the scene in question demonstrate that she didn't want it. Roark didn't care, and he forced her to have sex anyways. Because these are not lions, but are human beings, that was rape. And that's why Dominique was right when she thought to herself afterwards that she had been raped. She knew full well whether she had consented or not. Now that I thought about it, that would seem to be the intention of the scene: to portray Rand's conception of masculinity. And perhaps we don't have to read it as rape. Yes, and I do not see how that is morally good. Not rape, I guess, but not good or admirable. I don't care if it was rape or not. What would be more fruitful to discuss if Roark's actions were morally *good*. While I can respect that you don't think it important whether this was rape or not, I'm not certain why you're willing to grant that it isn't, or that at least "we don't have to read it" that way. I dunno. It feels like there's at least some willingness to agree on "force" and "consent" and stuff. Trebor likens the scene to the way that non-rational animals mate -- beyond consent, in a way -- and both he and EC apparently grant that it's a display of force. You're willing to question the morality of the action. So, is it... the word "rape"? Is it that we just don't want to name the action? Sometime ago, whYNOT said: "I don't know what underlies this topic." Speaking for myself, what underlies this topic is that I am simply interested in things being called what they are. I read through this thread one night -- apparently my first mistake -- and my blood ran cold as it seemed to me that A was being presented as not-A through a series of rationalizations, with respect to a passage of an Ayn Rand novel, and in an Objectivist forum, which all seemed a little too ironic to countenance (and yeah, I really do think). As to what underlies the topic for others, I'm not sure. My hope is that they're motivated by the same thing that I am: that they genuinely see this as not-rape, and just want that truth to be understood. But when we're at the point where we can agree that sex-by-force is rape... and that this is sex-by-force... but that it's somehow "not rape"... when we're discounting an "objective examination" of these events, and comparing it unfavorably to a courtroom... when we grant that in terms of real life we would never counsel men to act in this manner, or that to witness these events in real life we'd conclude differently as to their nature... when we account the nature of these events to people "intuiting" one another's "deep down" nature as a means to bypass their ordinary consent... that, somehow, it's not enough for a woman to refuse sex if she's "confused"... then I, too, scratch my head, and wonder what's really going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 It's a novel. Every action in a novel has or should have a purpose behind it that supports the plot and theme. You can take scenes in isolation and analyze them but when you do that you must realize it is being done out of context. If that scene was real and video recorded and presented as is to a jury with no other context there is no doubt Roark would be found guilty of rape. Now none of the rest of the novel may matter to you (not just DonAthos but anyone with this opinion) when isolating this scene out of context but it certainly matters for the plot, theme, and advancement of Dominique's character. Context always matters for everything. An extreme example everyone knows is if you randomly shoot and kill a man on a whim it is murder, but if instead you shoot and kill him while he is attempting to rob you at gunpoint it is perfectly justifiable and not murder even though in both instances you have killed the same man in the same way. The same exact thing applies here in the "rape" scene because it is the context of the novel as a whole that makes it not rape. I will probably respond more and to some of the more concrete points later, but this is the essential idea in principle that doesn't respond to some of the above concrete arguments, although I believe many of them become moot. I wanted to wait to respond to but if I wait on this I will forget to respond to what I think is essential here. I can say though if I saw this scene as an actual rape in the context of the entire novel I would not be afraid to label A as A or a rape as a rape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebor Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) Tyler, the lion-lioness metaphor was just that, a metaphor, and perhaps not very fitting, for the reason that you point out: lions are non-rational animals, humans are rational animals. I offered that metaphor in contrast to the metaphor offered by FeatherFall, I believe, or his question of me as to whether I viewed Dominique's striking Roark across his face with the branch as like a dandy slapping someone as an invitation to a duel. I had actual thought of the strike as comparable to an invitation to a duel, not by a dandy, but by a worthy challenger, but perhaps I misunderstand what a dandy is. So I offered the alternative metaphor. I did not (do not) see Dominique as weak or cowardly or taking advantage of some code that said that she could slash Roark across the face without Roark striking back, counting on her vulnerability as a license to strike with impunity. [Had the lioness really not wanted the lion, then she would have fought him until he gave up. I say that to perhaps show the sense in which I used the metaphor. She slashed him, wounded him, but did not make him go away. Dominique did not have Roark fired when she suggested that she could and when he offered to call the superintendent for her.] Let me ask: What if, after Dominique slashed Roark across his face with that branch, Roark had grabbed the reins of her horse (although Dominique wanted to flee) and then yanked her off, Dominique falling hard to the ground, getting scratched and bruised? Would that be an unprovoked assault by Roark? Would her injuries be his fault? Older movies often had scenes in which a woman would slap a man, even expressing her anger or hatred for him, and he would then grab her and forcefully kiss her. At first the woman would resist, but then she would "melt" and surrender to his kiss and embrace. Of course, being movies of that time period - when people never actually had sex, it seemed - that would be that. An assault by the man? You have pointed out that Dominique was frightened or terrified during the rape and that she resisted. Please then explain why she hated Roark (I do not accept that she did not really hate Roark or that she mistakenly hated him. She hated him.) and was frightened and terrified of him long before the "rape" and that she resisted him. Why was Dominique, who had had many men come on to her before, suddenly repulsed by another young man making a pass at her. She had always been indifferent (or amused) by those passes. Why the sudden repulsion? When two boxers get into a boxing ring, they have agreed to a physical battle and potential (likely and even perhaps serious physica) injuries. If one of them gets hurt, has he been assaulted? Could it be that Dominique, by slashing Roark the face, invited a physical struggle with Roark, a physical struggle which in that context meant that should he take the challenge then his victory would be her? Edited December 16, 2011 by Trebor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAthos Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) It's a novel. I want to try to go a point at a time as to not miss anything. So we'll start here. I agree that it's a novel. Every action in a novel has or should have a purpose behind it that supports the plot and theme. I agree. You can take scenes in isolation and analyze them but when you do that you must realize it is being done out of context. I agree. However, I have no interest in taking this scene out of context. If that scene was real and video recorded and presented as is to a jury with no other context there is no doubt Roark would be found guilty of rape. Agreed. Now none of the rest of the novel may matter to you (not just DonAthos but anyone with this opinion) when isolating this scene out of context but it certainly matters for the plot, theme, and advancement of Dominique's character. Context always matters for everything. I don't know what all "none of the rest of the novel may matter to you" is meant to entail, but it doesn't sound right. Of course the novel "matters" to me, in its entirety, and of course I try to relate parts to the whole in terms of assessing plot, theme, character and anything else. And of course we're agreed that "context always matters for everything," but that doesn't mean that every bit of "context" is always relevant to every conclusion (or, more strictly, that every surrounding incident is properly considered "context"). To wit: suppose we're talking about some other rape, and five minutes prior to the event the victim ate a sandwich. Now, suppose someone else says, "It wasn't rape -- she ate a sandwich after all!" And I say, "But that doesn't matter..." And then they say, "Of course it matters. Context always matters!" Now it winds up sounding a little Lewis Carroll to me, and I don't mean to mock you because I'm sure you're sincere... and hell, I can even envision your response, if you wanted to play along: "Ten minutes before that, the 'victim' and 'assailant' had a conversation where they agreed that, if she was eating a sandwich, it signaled that she wanted to have sex." But the point is, absent that conversation or something like it, it's unlikely that the sandwich-eating, "context" though it may be, will affect my judgment as to whether or not she had been raped. And here, it's not that I'm ignoring plot, or theme, or Dominique's character -- I swear to you that I'm not. Rather, I don't think that those considerations have the power to alter the nature of the actions on the page. Instead, our understanding of plot, theme, and character come from an initial recognition of these actions. Dominique's character, and her specific journey, cannot answer the question of whether she was raped (instead it is whether she consented which answers that question). It is by observing that she was raped, and how that affects her, that we come to know her character and her journey. An extreme example everyone knows is if you randomly shoot and kill a man on a whim it is murder, but if instead you shoot and kill him while he is attempting to rob you at gunpoint it is perfectly justifiable and not murder even though in both instances you have killed the same man in the same way. Again, agreed. And were that information in The Fountainhead -- or presented to a jury of rational men -- none of us would conclude "murder." The same exact thing applies here in the "rape" scene because it is the context of the novel as a whole that makes it not rape. As with the above example -- that "murder" is not actually murder at all in the context of self-defense -- what specific events from The Fountainhead would you relate to a jury, so that they would recognize that the "apparent rape scene" wasn't rape? Is it -- as Trebor suggests -- that she hit Roark? Would a jury of rational, objective men and women conclude on that basis that it wasn't rape? Or would we tell them that Dominique is a "confused woman," and that the sex is necessary to help her on her personal journey? If none of that would lead such a jury to find for anything other than rape, then on what basis should I conclude differently? Tyler, the lion-lioness metaphor was just that, a metaphor, and perhaps not very fitting, for the reason that you point out: lions are non-rational animals, humans are rational animals. All right. I did find what I consider important-yet-unintended meaning in your metaphor, but we'll let it go. What if, after Dominique slashed Roark across his face with that branch, Roark had grabbed the reins of her horse (although Dominique wanted to flee) and then yanked her off, Dominique falling hard to the ground, getting scratched and bruised? Would that be an unprovoked assault by Roark? Would her injuries be his fault? I understand your sentiment in asking me this. And of course it wouldn't be "an unprovoked assault." As to whether he would be justified in yanking her off of the horse, which might result in scratches or maybe in a broken neck, I'm not sure, because I think that there are aspects of force-in-reprisal that are a bit beyond me at present, and more to do with law-as-science. If someone hits me once in the shoulder -- hard, so it hurts -- am I justified in pistol whipping them to death in response? I don't know, but it doesn't seem likely. Was there something flirtatious -- specifically sexual, even -- in Dominique's action? Sure. Let's just say that it was, at least, and we can find parallels to that sort of thing in young girls and boys dipping each others' hair in the 'little red schoolhouse' style inkwell. In my own life, I went to school with a girl who pulled my hair and actually kneed me in the crotch once, and naturally we wound up dating and finally getting married (end well? no it didn't). Of course her behaviors to that point, even those violent behaviors, had been flirtatious. But when we eventually made love, she wasn't terrified, and I didn't force her, because our lovemaking was not in the context of a reprisal against her for attacking me. If it had been -- if immediately after her assault, I had carried her into some school closet and forced her legs apart while she was looking for a way to escape -- would that have been other than rape? Older movies often had scenes in which a woman would slap a man, even expressing her anger or hatred for him, and he would then grab her and forcefully kiss her. At first the woman would resist, but then she would "melt" and surrender to his kiss and embrace. Of course, being movies of that time period - when people never actually had sex, it seemed - that would be that. An assault by the man? Assault? Potentially so, I think. The implications at least appear to be troubling. Now when we're talking about the woman "melting" and "surrendering," if we were to look inside her head, her emotions would probably be dissimilar to the "terror" that's described in The Fountainhead's scene. Dominique didn't melt, so far as I can tell. As the scene comes to a climax, she cries out in pain then has the unbearable need for a bath. So it seems to me more akin to the woman resisting all the way through the kiss, and then thinking to herself that she needs to gargle to get the taste out of her mouth. Now, doesn't Dominique then have her epiphany, and want to keep the "taste" after all? She does, but the kiss is long done at that point, and it would certainly have the appearance to me of a relatively minor assault (especially compared to rape), which she later decided that she actually enjoyed. At what point would a woman have to "melt" during a rape, in order to change the character of the overall deed from "rape/assault" to "consensual"? I don't know how useful such a question would be, honestly, and I wonder to what extent someone could "melt" in that way. May have to give this some more thought, but yeah, I think the deed would still be "rape," just as in the rape erotica I've mentioned previously where that very thing happens all the time. Tell me, do you think that those rape stories aren't actually rape at all, if the woman "melts" during the intercourse? Why or why not? It also may be important to consider the relationship between force and mind and choice here; i.e. that force is mind-destroying, and choice and consent depend on mind; we don't trust that the word of someone under duress is reflective of their true will. And in the scene we're actually discussing, Dominique's feelings -- her terror and hatred -- give more insight than anything else as to what her response to Roark's actions actually were. And her actions in trying to fight him off followed suit. It was not a melting. You have pointed out that Dominique was frightened or terrified during the rape and that she resisted. Please then explain why she hated Roark (I do not accept that she did not really hate Roark or that she mistakenly hated him. She hated him.) and was frightened and terrified of him long before the "rape" and that she resisted him. Why was Dominique, who had had many men come on to her before, suddenly repulsed by another young man making a pass at her. She had always been indifferent (or amused) by those passes. Why the sudden repulsion? I don't doubt that it is all on account of finding him attractive. But a woman finding a man attractive, and acting in a manner expressing that, is not a license to any and all pursuant sexual activity. It's not a "get out of rape free card." I understand the argument that "Dominique didn't really know what she wanted." Hell, I even agree with that, and she was acting in a confusing and contradictory manner befitting her confused and contradictory mentality. But she still had the final say as to whether or not she was willing to have sex with Roark, not just "generally," but also specifically, in the time and place and manner that actually took place -- that alone is the issue of consent, upon which the question of rape turns. I can even entertain, as a separate question, the idea that was supposed to be the substance of this thread, per the OP: perhaps this rape was for the best. Perhaps this rape turned things around for Dominique, and helped to bring her out of her various philosophical malfunctions. Perhaps all of that is true. But the nature of the sex remains the same. When two boxers get into a boxing ring, they have agreed to a physical battle and potential (likely and even perhaps serious physica) injuries. If one of them gets hurt, has he been assaulted? It depends on the source of the injury. Boxing has a rigidly defined structure, with commonly understood rules. What a boxer agrees to is highly delimited. Though he's "agreed to a physical battle," should the other boxer knee him in the groin (ah, memories of my ex...) or bite his ear off, then yes, perhaps we would view that as assault, because it would be beyond the bounds of their actual agreement. Whatever else it was, I can't agree that Dominique's striking Roark was a license to just anything he wanted to do thereafter. Had Roark and Dominique entered into an actual agreement -- had Dominique understood what Roark would ultimately do (not every move, naturally, but in general terms), such that she could intelligently agree to it, then sure, that would be consent enough. And I don't mean to say a contract, like a boxer would sign. It wouldn't even have to be a verbal agreement; I could buy a wordless agreement. But there would have to be a demonstrable agreement in place that she understood. Could it be that Dominique, by slashing Roark the face, invited a physical struggle with Roark, a physical struggle which in that context meant that should he take the challenge then his victory would be her? "Could"? I'd rather ask, were Dominique's actions such an invitation? Meaning: could Dominique reasonably expect that Roark would force her to have sex with him on the basis of her having slashed him? Would a jury agree that this constituted any sort of agreement to that effect? Why or why not? Moreover, did Dominique expect Roark to act in that way? Is there any evidence to suggest that? If we're suggesting that the sex was what she wanted, then why didn't she act in the way people do when they're getting what they want? She didn't want what she, uh, wanted? Her terror and her actions in trying to fight him off say to me that she wasn't getting what she had bargained for. And I also find it pertinent that she ultimately considered it to be rape; meaning, if there had ever been any "agreement" in place, she plainly didn't understand the terms. Maybe she "didn't know" what she had bargained for, in the sense of unleashing the consequences of force and violence? After all, consider Roark's warning to her: that "[p]ressure is a powerful factor. It leads to consequences which, once started, cannot be controlled." This is like Mike Tyson warning Evander Hollyfield that if they start boxing, Mike won't be responsible for what he does in the ring, because you can't control that kind of passionate violence once engaged. Like a lion and a lioness, you know? But that reasoning is untrue of human beings and doesn't excuse Tyson from biting Hollyfield's ear off. So anyways, I have a question for you, Trebor, in response to all of the thought-provoking (no lie) ones you've asked me. Suppose Dominique hadn't hit Roark, but their "dance" had otherwise played out in the same manner -- Roark still shows up, forces her mouth open, prevents her from running away, etc. Would it now be rape? Edited December 16, 2011 by DonAthos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) I just found an essay that aligns nearly perfectly with what I and others saying that this is not rape have been describing. Except for maybe the guys last paragraph and few a changes, I could of wrote this myself, . http://www.braincrav...wblog.php?id=14 And the following paragraph from the end of the scene illuminates the point perfectly. They had been united in an understanding beyond the violence, beyond the deliberate obscenity of his action; had she meant less to him, he would not have taken her as he did; had he meant less to her, she would not have fought so desperately. The unrepeatable exultation was in knowing that they both understood this. Bold mine. Edited December 16, 2011 by EC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) And this analysis from the below link describes the initial context from the novel that I have been speaking of, not some random "context" involving Dominique eating a sandwich, etc. http://www.gradesave...guide/section4/ Analysis The Fountainhead is titled "Ellsworth M. Toohey." This name immediately suggests that Toohey will dominate this section and that Toohey's full character will be revealed. At first it is difficult to understand how either of these things will happen, for the first section focuses predominantly on Dominique Francon and Howard Roark. One way to explain this imbalance is to recognize Toohey as the omnipresent observer. When Dominique and Roark meet, they are out of Toohey's range of vision, but as soon as they come back to New York, the reader waits to see how he will discover their relationship and how he will make use of it. Part 2 of Dominique’s meeting with Roark is one of the most important scenes in the novel. Unlike August Heller or Mike or any of Roark's other allies, Dominique recognizes Roark from the first moment she sees him. She does not need to see his drawings or hear him talk about his work. Before she meets Roark, Dominique appears weak and erratic. Her philosophy, as she explains it to Alvah Scarret, is purposeless. She rejects everything in a simple attempt to be free, but her success does not matter. When Dominique meets Roark, shefeels less free because suddenly her philosophy has a purpose, a reason to exist, namely Howard Roark. Of course, Dominique's behavior surrounding this meeting demonstrates that she was never free to begin with--she had only deluded herself into believing that she was free. When Dominique took pleasure in the idea of feeling sexual desire for a quarry worker, that pleasure came both from her sexual desire and from her belief that she was acting against the mores of her society. Thus, Dominique was controlled by society just as she is now controlled by Roark. When Dominique does not go to see him at the quarry, she is still performing an action dictated by his existence. Dominique's and Roark's sexual relationship, and their first experience in particular, is one of the most complicated symbols of the book. Rand took a great risk in choosing to give rape a positive symbolic value. It is possible for the reader to accept it because it is only a rape in relation to the violence it employed. Rand makes clear that the ultimate consent of both parties was at the heart of the act. That the violence was consented to was understood by both Roark and Dominique. Dominique's warped simplicity in degrading herself in order to prove her freedom perhaps cannot be defended, but Roark's consent is worth further study. After meeting Howard Roark, Dominique's vision is clearer and her philosophy more articulate. She may be less free, but her actions are purer, and she understands them better. Now Dominique can see Peter Keating and Ellsworth Toohey for what they are. Before she met Roark, she had believed that she could love Peter Keating because she would get pleasure out of embracing the epitome of the characteristics she rejects. Now Dominique understands the difference between the meager pleasure of rejecting that which she wants or embracing that which she detests, on the one hand, and the real pleasure of fighting to maintain her identity self in the presence of true greatness, on the other hand. Dominique underscores her worthiness to be Roark's match when she recognizes the brilliance of Enright House without knowing who designed it. Once again, Rand emphasizes that Roark the architect is a natural extension of Roark the man. Somehow he has built up Dominique through their encounters. Bold mine. Edited December 16, 2011 by EC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 Could it be that Dominique, by slashing Roark the face, invited a physical struggle with Roark, a physical struggle which in that context meant that should he take the challenge then his victory would be her? I still cannot understand how fierce resistance means anything BUT saying no. No means no. Resistance doesn't mean "I'm having a great time and enjoying this, my resistance is just implying I'm really into rape fantasies, so keep going, please." The sex was clearly non-consensual, unless there was some BDSM code going on that I don't know about. Maybe Roark picked up on something that indicated Dominique was into that sort of thing, actually. I totally get what the purpose of the scene was, and that was domination of Dominique and also the portrayal of a viewpoint on masculinity. I only perhaps suggest it wasn't rape, supposing there was some fantasy going on that Dominique really didn't mind, because the area is kind of gray for many reasons stated. I bring up moral consequences still, because I cannot tell you what was admirable about Roark in that scene. There should be some kind of equal valuing, not a power struggle, as implied by Rand's concept of masculinity and femininity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebor Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 I just found an essay that aligns nearly perfectly with what I and others saying that this is not rape have been describing. Except for maybe the guys last paragraph and few a changes, I could of wrote this myself, . http://www.braincrav...wblog.php?id=14 Thank you for posting the link. And the following paragraph from the end of the scene illuminates the point perfectly. Bold mine. And a few paragraphs before that one, just after the "rape": It was an act that could be performed in tenderness, as a seal of love, or in contempt, as a symbol of humiliation and conquest. It could be the act of a lover or the act of a soldier violating an enemy woman. He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement. And this made her lie still and submit. One gesture of tenderness from him--and she would have remained cold, untouched by the thing done to her body. But the act of a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the kind of rapture she had wanted. Then she felt him shaking with the agony of a pleasure unbearable even to him, she knew that she had given that to him, that it came from her, from her body, and she bit her lips and she knew what he had wanted her to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebor Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) Tyler, I have been working on a reply to your lengthy reply to my earlier post, but I'm going to put if off for now (it's late), and maybe reply to it tomorrow on in the next few days. Maybe. I first read The Fountainhead in 1976. Over the years, I have heard or read that people actually thought that Roark raped Dominique, but never until this discussion has it seemed that anyone could actually, seriously think so. I did not think so when I first read the book, nor have I ever since. So it baffles me to find that anyone actually does. It's like we've read two different books. I think that you are micro-focusing on details and losing sight of the context, of the whole, but I'm not sure that I can really convince you that Roark did not rape Dominique, not in the sense of wronging her. Yes, he took her by force. He did not ask her permission. Whose word does one have to have on that if not Dominique's? But if you think that Dominique's mind was destroyed by Roark's force and that she then suffered from prolonged Stockholm Syndrome, I'm at a lost as to how I could convince you otherwise. Still, if I have more to say, I'll do so. "She knew that she would not take a bath. She knew that she wanted to keep the feeling of his body, the traces of his body on hers, knowing also what such a desire implied. She fell on her knees, clasping the edge of the bathtub. She could not make herself crawl over that edge. Her hands slipped, she lay still on the floor. The tiles were hard and cold under her body. She lay there till morning." Edited December 16, 2011 by Trebor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAthos Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 The sex was clearly non-consensual, unless there was some BDSM code going on that I don't know about. Maybe Roark picked up on something that indicated Dominique was into that sort of thing, actually. If it was a BDSM code thing, which Dominique was into and Roark picked up on, then why did she later consider it rape? If she had knowingly communicated this code, why did she feel terrified during the act? If it was what she'd wanted all along, why was her first thought afterward to take a bath? And speaking of baths... "She knew that she would not take a bath. She knew that she wanted to keep the feeling of his body, the traces of his body on hers, knowing also what such a desire implied. She fell on her knees, clasping the edge of the bathtub. She could not make herself crawl over that edge. Her hands slipped, she lay still on the floor. The tiles were hard and cold under her body. She lay there till morning." Yes. I've read that passage quite a lot over the last several days. It's quite popular with those who don't consider this to be rape. Slightly less popular is the preceding passage, wherein Dominique felt an "unbearable" need to take a bath... like, you know... our popular conception of a rape victim. Since these two, opposite reactions -- wanting to take a bath and not wanting to take a bath -- are not simply placed side-by-side, but are in a particular temporal order, separated by a "sudden flash of knowledge," what does that suggest? To me it suggests that Dominique was raped, and initially reacted as any woman might. But then she realized that there was something in it that she deeply enjoyed, and that her own reactions had "implications" about her nature, Roark's nature, and her future with him. I think that you are micro-focusing on details and losing sight of the context, of the whole, but I'm not sure that I can really convince you that Roark did not rape Dominique, not in the sense of wronging her. Yes, he took her by force. He did not ask her permission. I consider "permission" in the sense of explicit written or spoken consent to be a separate issue from consent, as such. I don't think Roark ever needed to ask for permission -- kinky sex or any other kind certainly could have taken place wordlessly -- but I absolutely think he needed her consent. Or, at the very least, that absent her consent and in taking her by force, it was an act of rape. Did he "wrong" her? It depends on what we mean by that. I think that Rand presents this, as has been argued by others, as a step along a healing journey for Dominique. So in that sense, I don't know that I'd say that Roark "wronged" Dominique. Is it contradictory to suggest that a person could be raped, yet not wronged? Perhaps, and over the course of this conversation I've come to believe that the contradiction finds its roots in a flawed theory of masculinity/femininity. I don't believe that in real life you could treat a woman as Roark treated Dominique and expect a happy ending. Whose word does one have to have on that if not Dominique's? If that's true, then when Dominique thinks of the sex as rape, that should count for quite a lot. But if you think that Dominique's mind was destroyed by Roark's force and that she then suffered from prolonged Stockholm Syndrome, I'm at a lost as to how I could convince you otherwise. I don't think that's exactly what I've argued. Roark took Dominique by force -- that is, he raped her. She didn't consent to it; she tried to prevent it from happening, and was thwarted by his force. Afterwards, she decided that she had enjoyed it, and their relationship developed from there. That's what I think took place. All right, let's check this quote out then. Note that we're drawing two different columns of ways in which sex -- the "act" in question -- can be performed. Column A reads: "performed in tenderness, as a seal of love"; "the act of a lover"; "love"; "tenderness." Column B reads: "contempt, as a symbol of humiliation and conquest"; "a soldier violating an enemy woman"; "scorn"; "defilement"; "shameful, contemptuous." This quote also specifies in the course of drawing this dichotomy that the act in question is from Column B, not Column A. Forgetting for the second the question of whether the sex of Column B could ever be "moral," per what we understand of the nature of sex, intimacy and love, have we considered that this sex finds its parallel in "a soldier violating an enemy woman"? What does "violate" mean? In what way is Roark like a soldier violating an enemy woman? And when it is described as "the kind of rapture she had wanted," what does "rapture" mean? If this sex is not rape, then why is there so much language to suggest that it is precisely that? If she had knowingly sent out sexy signals, and Roark had done nothing more than picked up on them and given her what she wanted -- if this sex is consensual -- then why is it contemptuous? Humiliating? Scornful? Defiling? Shameful? Rape can be those things, I'm sure that we can agree. But what are the circumstances under which consensual sex would be those things? When Roark's "lovemaking" (though it is not lovemaking) is described as "the thing done to her body," what does that suggest? I can picture a rape victim thinking of it as "the thing done to her body," but less so someone in the throes of consensual, passionate, kinky sex (as we would have as our alternate). I mean, right? That's the supposition. That this is a really hawt thing to do. That it's all sorts of passionate, and perhaps even life-affirming. And oh my, aren't we transgressive and radical? It's kinky! We're proud that this is the sex that we have -- that this is the sex of our heroes and heroines. But is it really? This sex is like "a soldier violating an enemy woman," which, if you can picture it, isn't very pretty or a turn-on. It's brutish and brutal. It's low. Animalistic. Non-consensual. Rape. No one of these things in isolation makes my case -- as against all suggestions to the contrary, we are all about context here. It is taking all of these things together, along with real life experiences, along with what we know about actual sex, along with what objective standards and evidence we would consider if judging this case in the real world, along with Roark and Dominique's relationship before, during, and after this sex, along with her thinking of the deed thereafter as "rape," along with her describing the deed thereafter as "rape," along with her attempts to flee and fight Roark off, along with the terror and hatred she felt as she struggled, along with Rand's description of the inherently contradictory "rape by engraved invitation," along with consideration given to her views of masculinity and femininity, and etc., and etc. It is with all of this together, in the fullest context that I can muster, that I consider my case made. I have been working on a reply to your lengthy reply to my earlier post, but I'm going to put if off for now (it's late), and maybe reply to it tomorrow on in the next few days. Maybe. As EC has pointed out elsewhere, this thread has existed for seven years. Years from now, people other than ourselves will pick up both sides of this argument. I'm in no hurry. And as I value both your time and your contributions, I'd rather have you pursue these discussions in a way that benefits your life and hurts you not at all. So take all the time you need. I first read The Fountainhead in 1976. Over the years, I have heard or read that people actually thought that Roark raped Dominique, but never until this discussion has it seemed that anyone could actually, seriously think so. I did not think so when I first read the book, nor have I ever since. So it baffles me to find that anyone actually does. It's like we've read two different books. I don't mean to present bafflements, but I have a long history of it, I'm afraid. When I first read Rand, and tried to explain some of the (to me) new and exciting thoughts I was having, my parents couldn't make much sense of it. Nor could my friends. I've never yet convinced my father that anything other than the progressive/liberal politics he believes in are appropriate. And it's unlikely that I will. He knows the degree to which we disagree. And he also knows that I love him. Why do I bring all of this up? Honestly, I'm not quite sure. But over the course of this thread, I've really felt awakened to certain things that are far beyond the mere question of "did Roark rape Dominique?" Things that are potentially more important. So, whether or not you or I ever convince one another, I don't believe that my time here was time wasted. Hopefully you don't either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 Did he "wrong" her? It depends on what we mean by that. I think that Rand presents this, as has been argued by others, as a step along a healing journey for Dominique. Intervention via rape. We'd better hope that kind of therapy doesn't catch on, leastwise not outside of child psychology as practiced by the Catholic Church, where it is too late already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecherry Posted December 17, 2011 Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 Dang! This thing has gotten to 9 pages long while I was under a rock! I skimmed, so sorry if I say things that have been repeated already. I’ve mostly focused on the most recent things posted figuring those are issues not yet fully addressed. These are my thoughts on the question of the first time Dominique and Roark have sex. First off, this book is really dang long. The plot takes place over 8 years. When Dominique and Roark meet, they grow a very rapid and deep understanding of each other’s inner workings from very minimal interaction. It is nigh on mind reading. This really helps cut down on a potentially slow, dull and drug out period of them getting to know each other and forming a connection. It is also this nigh-on-mind-reading which is behind the operation of their first sexual encounter. In real life though, we cannot trust that we just have such a deep and accurate understanding of somebody that quickly, so what can function in fiction here is a HUGE no-no in real life, do not try this at home. As for exactly how their dynamic works here, it’s pretty screwy because Dominique’s psychology is pretty screwy and they are operating on the requirements of her psychology. She’s quite conflicted therefore the whole ordeal is quite conflicted. Dominique thinks of evil as potent and good as ultimately doomed in the face of it and so she sets out to remove good things from a world that doesn’t deserve it ASAP. She destroys statues she likes so others can’t see them, she writes of Roark’s buildings things like that they aren’t fit for having people’s dirty laundry hanging from them, she tries to prevent more of Roark’s buildings from being made, she even tries to delete herself practically in her marriage to Keating by removing all expression of herself and just submitting to what others wanted of her and told her to do. Roark on the other hand never has believed that the evil ultimately wins and so he is setting out to create while she fights to destroy everything he creates. It is in this sense that they are fighting on opposite sides. (The back of the book even states that Dominique is trying to destroy him I believe on the red and white paperback version I have.) Thus, the comparison to soldiers and war and that they are fighting and he has to win and such. He has to make her see that the good can succeed. Meanwhile, she doesn’t want to have to admit to herself about actually wanting and liking things any more than she has to because (if I recall correctly, last read it a couple years ago) she is resisting forming attachments to things she thinks are doomed and getting too attached and then losing them would be very unpleasant. She doesn’t want to want Roark. She thinks he is good and doomed yet that he won’t stop putting out more good stuff that she has to get rid of and thus they are enemies. Roark, almost reading her mind, gets all this. He gets how she does want him, but doesn’t want to admit it to herself and so that means he has to do it in a way that she can sort of tell herself she wasn’t complicit in it. He knows that she is really a good girl, but that she has become confused and scared by how it seems like it is hopeless against the massive onslaught of the bad out there, so he’s got to work with her rules to a certain extent to get in and get a chance to get involved or else he’ll just end up pushing her away further before anything can be done to counter her mistaken beliefs. You sometimes to a certain extent have to play along and play by the distorted views of people who have sort of been traumatized in order to start building a connection that you can eventually use to start working on correcting the distortions. At least, so it has seemed in some of my observations anyway. As for something in the text of that scene to clarify that this was not a true, serious business rape, it states at one point that there WAS something she could have done that would have made him stop. If she had seemed disgusted is what I think it said it was. Scared definitely, and angry maybe, these emotions and the physical resistance would make sense with Roark’s idea of what was going on with Dominique which would mean being forceful was the right way to go about things, however disgust would not fit the bill at all of what he had been thinking, but it would make sense for somebody who seriously just did not want him. Dominique never seemed disgusted though, just freaked out. Not wanting to admit to herself she wanted him also explains a first desire to go shower, but then just not going through with it. Doing it in a way so that she can try to deny being complicit it in explains her thinking to herself in terms of “rape” later, even though she has started to get more honest and aware with herself about her desire for him. Thinking of him as having raped her would certainly take him down some notches in scary good guy status, even though eventually the whole charade will be dropped about what went on. That’s really what the whole ordeal was, a charade of rape put on due to mutual understanding of each other’s complex psychology which was made possible by the nature of the whole thing as a long work of fiction. EC 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebor Posted December 17, 2011 Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) ...That’s really what the whole ordeal was, a charade of rape put on due to mutual understanding of each other’s complex psychology which was made possible by the nature of the whole thing as a long work of fiction. Well done, bluecherry. If one can understand what bluecherry has explained, then one will understand why the micro-focus on details, losing sight of the whole, will never help to understand the "rape." Dominique vs Roark, a clash of metaphysical value-judgements, one side held in error and not truly, fully or consistently embraced. Edited December 17, 2011 by Trebor EC 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted December 17, 2011 Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 You sometimes to a certain extent have to play along and play by the distorted views of people who have sort of been traumatized in order to start building a connection that you can eventually use to start working on correcting the distortions. I agree with what you wrote, up to this point. Why *this* kind of playing along? Would that really be a commendable sort of thing to do? I would say that more than likely negative reaction isn't so much towards the so-called rape (I'm still a bit unsure what to call it), but rather towards the whole style in which Roark behaved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebor Posted December 17, 2011 Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) Because, deep down, in spite of her malevolent universe sense of life, Dominique wanted the good to win and she wanted Roark; she lusted after him. And of course Roark wanted her. [No intention to speak for bluecherry.] [Dominique did not hate the good for being the good; she hated evil and believed that the good had no chance. She wanted to deprive the evil of the good which it fed on and destroyed.] Edited December 17, 2011 by Trebor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAthos Posted December 18, 2011 Report Share Posted December 18, 2011 These are my thoughts on the question of the first time Dominique and Roark have sex. First off, this book is really dang long. The plot takes place over 8 years. When Dominique and Roark meet, they grow a very rapid and deep understanding of each other’s inner workings from very minimal interaction. It is nigh on mind reading. This really helps cut down on a potentially slow, dull and drug out period of them getting to know each other and forming a connection. It is also this nigh-on-mind-reading which is behind the operation of their first sexual encounter. In real life though, we cannot trust that we just have such a deep and accurate understanding of somebody that quickly, so what can function in fiction here is a HUGE no-no in real life, do not try this at home. Over the course of this thread, I've come to recognize (at least) two things which I consider to be major red flags. Red flags which suggest that we're engaged in a sort of special pleading. And here are those two things: 1) The suggestion of "nigh-on-mind-reading." When we need to ascribe powers that are "almost" indistinguishable with a mystical process to our hero, in order to justify his actions (and what's more, to settle a question like "did he rape the heroine?"), I think we're already in deep waters. How did Roark "know"? "Somehow" seems to be the heart of our reply -- "you know, like a mind reader might... nearly." There's a further question as to whether Roark knew the results of his mind-reading consciously, or whether he simply "understood" it in an emotional sense -- whether it was "intuited," (as I believe has been suggested). In other words, Sherlock Holmes (or at least my cliched knowledge of Holmes) displayed similar "mind reading" where he would deduce specific truths based on observed phenomena. Did Roark reach a specific logical conclusion, "Based on factors X, Y, and Z, Dominique needs to be forced to have sex"? Or was he going with his "gut"? (Or some other part of his body, as Trebor suggested earlier: "She aroused his desire, slashed him across his face, and he took what he wanted"?) 2) Distancing ourselves from "real life." If we take Roark, or The Fountainhead more generally, not as simply some character in some story, but as partly the presentation of a reason-and-reality-based-philosophy, then I think it's extra-important to keep a context of reason and reality fully in mind when describing and evaluating the events of the novel. (Although, even if this were just "some story," this is still how I'd proceed.) If Roark didn't rape Dominique, and if he even acted rightly in cutting through Dominique's confusions... then why shouldn't someone who aspires to be heroic act in a similar manner? When we say that "we cannot trust that we just have such a deep and accurate understanding," why not? Was Roark operating on anything other than confidence in his own ability to discern Dominique's "true nature"? Why should someone who wants to be a hero like Roark lack similar confidence? The basis for understanding events in a work of fiction is our real life understanding. If we transport the events of The Fountainhead to real life, and recognize them as rape there, then they are similarly rape within the novel. Or, if they're not rape in The Fountainhead, then they wouldn't be rape in real life. And if that's the case -- if "mind reading" rightly leads to consensual sex -- then there's no reason not to act that way in real life. We just need to hone our skills of "mind reading," is all. And when the woman "apparently" resists, we should press on, because that's what a real man like Roark would do in such a situation. After all, we know better than she what she "really wants." How do we know? Intuition. In fact, we can apparently construe her very resistance as more evidence of the "screwy psychology" that is in want of our sexual healing. When we interpret her "no" as "yes," we're bound to get the answer we want to hear. When she describes the action thereafter as "rape," we can perhaps conclude that our job isn't quite done -- her eyes must be forced open, wider still. As for exactly how their dynamic works here, it’s pretty screwy because Dominique’s psychology is pretty screwy and they are operating on the requirements of her psychology. She’s quite conflicted therefore the whole ordeal is quite conflicted. Dominique thinks of evil as potent and good as ultimately doomed in the face of it and so she sets out to remove good things from a world that doesn’t deserve it ASAP. She destroys statues she likes so others can’t see them, she writes of Roark’s buildings things like that they aren’t fit for having people’s dirty laundry hanging from them, she tries to prevent more of Roark’s buildings from being made, she even tries to delete herself practically in her marriage to Keating by removing all expression of herself and just submitting to what others wanted of her and told her to do. Roark on the other hand never has believed that the evil ultimately wins and so he is setting out to create while she fights to destroy everything he creates. It is in this sense that they are fighting on opposite sides. (The back of the book even states that Dominique is trying to destroy him I believe on the red and white paperback version I have.) Thus, the comparison to soldiers and war and that they are fighting and he has to win and such. He has to make her see that the good can succeed. I think that the comparison to a soldier violating a specifically female enemy is more meaningful than simply placing them on opposite sides in a conflict. I think the suggestion of "violation," within a scene which on its actions alone appears to be rape, and which is thereafter described as "rape" by the apparent victim, isn't incidental. But all right, if you think that the word choice isn't that material, we can let it pass. (Though if we're not resolved to give importance to the actual words on the pages, then I admit that I'll feel pressed to construct this case or any other; I am relying on the words.) Meanwhile, she doesn’t want to have to admit to herself about actually wanting and liking things any more than she has to because (if I recall correctly, last read it a couple years ago) she is resisting forming attachments to things she thinks are doomed and getting too attached and then losing them would be very unpleasant. She doesn’t want to want Roark. She thinks he is good and doomed yet that he won’t stop putting out more good stuff that she has to get rid of and thus they are enemies. Agreed on all of this. She doesn't want to want Roark. I'll even say that, on some level, she recognizes her own attraction to him and is working overtime to deny it and push it down. Roark, almost reading her mind, gets all this. He gets how she does want him, but doesn’t want to admit it to herself... And here I "almost" agree. But we have to be careful with the word "want." There is a level of conscious desire -- that level of recognized want, which we can ultimately articulate and take action to achieve; this is what it means to "will" something, isn't it? And then, we can perhaps agree that there is a subconscious level as well. This subconscious level of desire is not unimportant, and I'll agree that we can speak in terms of "wanting" something "deep down" (as has been done a number of times in this thread), accordingly. When we talk about Roark "reading Dominique's mind," we're not alone talking about her conscious mind -- her conscious mind is filled with terror and hatred at Roark's touch, and her will is made manifest in the actions she takes to terminate their sexual encounter. We're instead talking about a "deep down" mind reading -- reading her subconscious mind, those "desires" which have been repressed, of which Dominique is perhaps only partially aware (and is struggling against), and which are perhaps accounting to her feminine nature, or her underlying "goodness" (as you later suggest "she is really a good girl"). Her conscious mind is made aware of this gulf between what she believes she wants, and her "true desires," perhaps, at the moment of epiphany we've described when Dominique examines herself in the mirror. And perhaps it's hinted at before then. And certainly within the narrative, Dominique is ultimately grateful that Roark has given her "what she needed," though she herself was "unaware" that it was what she needed. But as to the question that I've been pursuing, and to which you're ostensibly replying -- whether or not this is rape -- the issue of "consent" upon which the question of rape turns operates on the level of conscious, not subconscious, desire. Which means that "giving a woman what she really wants (deep down)" when she is not sufficiently aware of her own "desire" or comfortable enough with it to be able to consent to it in a fully conscious manner, is rape. In approaching people's "true desires" as opposed to those desires of which they are aware, and take action to achieve, we are removing "choice" from them. That's the nature of force, after all, and it all follows suit in this scene, which depicts forced sex. ...and so that means he has to do it in a way that she can sort of tell herself she wasn’t complicit in it. He knows that she is really a good girl, but that she has become confused and scared by how it seems like it is hopeless against the massive onslaught of the bad out there, so he’s got to work with her rules to a certain extent to get in and get a chance to get involved or else he’ll just end up pushing her away further before anything can be done to counter her mistaken beliefs. You sometimes to a certain extent have to play along and play by the distorted views of people who have sort of been traumatized in order to start building a connection that you can eventually use to start working on correcting the distortions. At least, so it has seemed in some of my observations anyway. This is, as Steve D'Ippolito described it, "ntervention via rape." And that's a fine case to make pursuant to the original post -- it is an argument that this rape was justified. But it's not an argument that it wasn't rape. Come to the (separate) question of justification, I think that in real life, no Objectivist would "want" themselves to be forced to do those things that others have judged they "really want, deep down," apart from their individual ability to evaluate, to judge, to decide, to will, to consent. They would not look at that as a kindness, or a moral action. And again, in interpreting these events in The Fountainhead differently, I believe that we are engaged in special pleading. As for something in the text of that scene to clarify that this was not a true, serious business rape, it states at one point that there WAS something she could have done that would have made him stop. If she had seemed disgusted is what I think it said it was. Scared definitely, and angry maybe, these emotions and the physical resistance would make sense with Roark’s idea of what was going on with Dominique which would mean being forceful was the right way to go about things... "eing forceful was the right way to go about things"? Perhaps. But it's also a rape. So we have to entertain the possibility, at some point, that Rand is presenting a rape as "the right way to go about things." Or I will entertain that possibility, if no one else will, because I'm running out of other reasonable possibilities. (Or is our final way out of all of this to just give up the idea that any of this is "realistic" -- to conclude that there is no non-contradictory answer here, but that's okay, because people like Roark and Dominique don't and can't exist? I guess that's one last "possibility" if all else fails.) And as to "rape" versus "true, serious business rape," I don't know. Dominique also "made no sound" (...until she screamed in pain, and then sobbed -- as you do, when having good consensual sex, naturally). In "real life," sometimes it happens that women do not cry out, or generally do not do the things that we might expect them to do to successfully fight off their attackers. Sometimes women are said to have "invited" the rape, through their dress and flirtatious behaviors -- "clues" which "mind readers" pick up on as a statement of those ladies' "deep down desires." And sometimes people make the case that this all adds up to "no fault" on the part of the male. After all, if a woman "acts like she wants it," then what does she expect? Right? Remember, it's just like Roark said about the marble: the pressure builds up, and then the results can't be controlled. It's just masculine nature, is all, which takes what it wants like a lion. however disgust would not fit the bill at all of what he had been thinking, but it would make sense for somebody who seriously just did not want him. Dominique never seemed disgusted though, just freaked out. No disgust, huh? We've had "terror," "hatred," "contempt," "humiliation," "shame," "scorn," and "defilement"... but "disgust," you think, is some other order of experience? All that other stuff is just her being "freaked out"? You don't find that... a touch dismissive? And if we do not want something done to us -- done to our bodies, according to our belief that we have some sort of "right" to decide what is done to our bodies, or that we somehow "own" them -- it is not sufficient for us to be "freaked out," but we must be specifically "disgusted" to be taken seriously? It's beginning to sound like a magical formula... which, I'll admit, may be appropriate as an antidote to a mind-reading rapist. Not wanting to admit to herself she wanted him also explains a first desire to go shower, but then just not going through with it. Doing it in a way so that she can try to deny being complicit it in explains her thinking to herself in terms of “rape” later, even though she has started to get more honest and aware with herself about her desire for him. Well, I basically agree, except that I think that the way in which she can "try to deny being complicit" is this: that she wasn't complicit. So I think she succeeds on that score. Now, was she "complicit" in the sense of leading Roark on? Flirting? Absolutely. If you walk through a dark alley late at night having advertised the fact that you're carrying lots of cash, and you get mugged, we can certainly suggest that in some ways you've "brought it upon yourself." We can even speculate on your psychology -- and perhaps with some justice -- that you may have "wanted" to get mugged. But the mugger still mugs. And does a would-be rape victim who dresses in a provocative fashion, and hangs out with the "wrong crowd," or permits herself too much to drink, or etc., etc., -- is there any sense in which we might describe her as "complicit" in what ultimately takes place? Absolutely. But what we cannot do is describe it as other than rape. Because that is what it is. She did not surrender her rights or obviate her ability to consent -- or to withhold the same -- because she wore a short skirt, or looked funny at a guy. Consider: it can still be rape if a woman has stripped down with a man she's attracted to, and has been willingly kissing (or etc.) up to the point where she decides against sex, and rejects her partner -- but he forces her to have sex anyways. Those are signals rather more mixed than the ones that Dominique sent, and it wouldn't take any "mind reading" really, to infer her inner-conflict. And yet, the issue of rape is the issue of consent; and that is precisely what Dominique never gave, and Roark never had. We say that he used force, because he did. Thinking of him as having raped her would certainly take him down some notches in scary good guy status, even though eventually the whole charade will be dropped about what went on. That’s really what the whole ordeal was, a charade of rape put on due to mutual understanding of each other’s complex psychology which was made possible by the nature of the whole thing as a long work of fiction. Not a "charade of rape," but a rape. Human beings all have complex psychology, made possible by histories several orders longer than The Fountainhead. We send mixed messages. We are confused. And yet consent is what it is, and sex absent that is rape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecherry Posted December 18, 2011 Report Share Posted December 18, 2011 Trebor, thanks. I agree with what you wrote, up to this point. Why *this* kind of playing along? Would that really be a commendable sort of thing to do? I would say that more than likely negative reaction isn't so much towards the so-called rape (I'm still a bit unsure what to call it), but rather towards the whole style in which Roark behaved. Do you have any suggestions for an alternative to "this kind of playing along"? Particularly ones that wouldn't get brushed off and/or take a really long amount of time and text? As for the whole style Roark behaved in, I know I would be irritated with the stuff up until the sex scene, but I'm also not Dominique and don't have to go creating poor excuses for being around somebody and denying to myself what I'm doing to begin with. I can just talk to somebody plainly, I don't need to break something in my room, come get this specific person to fix it, and then still deny to myself that I like them and act like I don't care and that they are just some nobody I haven't taken any particular notice of. Roark isn't really doing much of anything special even up until the sex scene. He's just going about his business and complying with whatever Dominique is up to and taking in some amusement at what she's doing. Dominique just gets frustrated and ticked off with Roark because his simple lack of absorption and obsession in these mental games like she has strikes her as if he is winning. She's trying to seem like she doesn't really care much about him and he's a nobody to her, but instead of giving any kind of acknowledgment of this big multi-level ordeal she has built up in her mind, he just acts according to things on face value and so seems like he cares less than she does about this whole thing. He just doesn't care to get caught up in doing things her way until he has decided on his own that he's ready to do something and even then, he's just not about to try to make it all subtle and subtext like she has been trying to do. Even later he just refuses to bother with any mind and power games with her and she still sees this as him winning by refusing to give her a chance to exercise any kind of power and control over him. DonAthos: "Over the course of this thread, I've come to recognize (at least) two things which I consider to be major red flags. Red flags which suggest that we're engaged in a sort of special pleading. And here are those two things: 1) The suggestion of "nigh-on-mind-reading." . . . 2) Distancing ourselves from "real life." . . ." ----------------------- I'm trimming the quote here to save space, but I did read it all. If you think I have failed to address something which required specific response, just let me know. Those things, 1 and 2, are not coincidentally coming up at the same time. Number two needs establishing before number one can come into play. This is a work of fiction and a long one at that. That's plain facts. Being a work of fiction is why we can have things which work in the story which do not work in real life. We can have something like, for example, the Sword of Truth books where there is a very much Objectivist morality involved and communicated, but they may do things like count on magic to fix some problem which we can take as perfectly fine in the story, but which would be ridiculous and highly unwise in real life. This does not mean that there is something wrong with the actions of the character in the book just because it would not be good in real life to try. Also though, in The Fountainhead, it does still mention that Roark is checking for signs that may indicate he was mistaken (the disgust thing). He would stop if he found out he had made a mistake. The kind of rapid understanding of Dominique he gets is not supposed to be like an out and out "sixth sense" or magic to the point it simply could not possibly be mistaken or missing some crucial information. It is, due to being fictional though, reliable enough he can see it as justified to start trying things with her even if he is still checking to make sure as things go along that there hasn't been a serious mistake. ------------------------- ". . . her conscious mind is filled with terror and hatred at Roark's touch . . ." ------------------------- Wait, does it ever actually say she has some kind of hatred for his touch? I don't recall this, but as I've said, I have last read it a couple years ago, so maybe I just forgot. --------------------------- "But as to the question that I've been pursuing, and to which you're ostensibly replying -- whether or not this is rape -- the issue of "consent" upon which the question of rape turns operates on the level of conscious, not subconscious, desire. . . ." --------------------------- I've been figuring that he was responding to things which she did have conscious control over. She didn't show any signs of disgust and as far as I can recall, she didn't even say "no" either. (Again though, if I'm mistaken on that last point, just direct me to where she does say so exactly.) If those happened, it would call an immediate halt to things. Now, again, if this was real life and not fiction, I would say the physical resistance is close enough to assume and treat as a "no" unless there is some prior established protocol about these things. Since it is fiction though, there's much more leeway afforded due to an understanding of a sort that is just not so reliable in real life. ----------------------------- ". . . I think that in real life, no Objectivist would "want" themselves to be forced to do those things that others have judged they "really want, deep down," apart from their individual ability to evaluate, to judge, to decide, to will, to consent. They would not look at that as a kindness, or a moral action." ------------------------ I agree with this. ------------------------ "And again, in interpreting these events in The Fountainhead differently, I believe that we are engaged in special pleading." ------------------------ My position is that it is not special pleading because special pleading exists only when there are no relevant differences in situations/objects in question and I contend that this being a work of fiction is highly relevant here because that enabled a kind of greater and more reliable understanding than one can get in real life with somebody who isn't willing to just talk to you outright about what they do and do not want and feel. If Dominique had been the type to discuss these things directly to enable somebody to understand how she works that well then she wouldn't have needed to be approached forcefully anyway. Basically, in real life if Roark and Dominique had existed, where there is not such great reliable understanding they can get like how they did in the book, those two would probably be SOL unless maybe they could talk Dominique into seeing a shrink. It's not that Roark and Dominique are some people we want to treat as exceptions because we just like them, it is a combination of their particular beliefs AND that they exist in fiction where they can do things we are unable to in real life. ------------------------ ". . . So we have to entertain the possibility, at some point, that Rand is presenting a rape as 'the right way to go about things.' . . ." ------------------------ Not in real life certainly and in the story I still find it hazy about if it is rape given that there were ways to get him to stop that she could have done easily a the time, but just did not do. ------------------------ ". . . Dominique also 'made no sound' (...until she screamed in pain, and then sobbed -- as you do, when having good consensual sex, naturally)." ------------------------ Actually, I've always thought it was obvious the pained scream and sob thing was because she was a virgin at the time and generally, it hurts for a female to have sex for the first time and break the hymen. Especially if she wasn't relaxed at the time and they were being kind of rough it makes sense it would involve a good deal of physical discomfort. Actually, often it can be a bit painful for the first few times even if one is being gentle. -------------------------- ". . . It's just masculine nature, is all, which takes what it wants like a lion." -------------------------- I've never really thought the whole thing about the force involved here had anything to do with Rand's ideas on masculinity and femininity actually. Other things explain it far better to me. ---------------------- "No disgust, huh? We've had "terror," "hatred," "contempt," "humiliation," "shame," "scorn," and "defilement"... but "disgust," you think, is some other order of experience? All that other stuff is just her being "freaked out"? You don't find that... a touch dismissive?" ----------------------- She's scared, panicked, maybe angry all at that time, yeah. This I get. As for shame and defilement and that sort of thing, she sure doesn't seem like she's feeling that way even in the very next scene I think it is when she's visiting some old ladies and thinking to herself. She seems pretty pleased. I have never heard of somebody getting raped and being suddenly pleased about it quickly. There's generally a really long time where things are really making them feel awful. Also, Stockholm Syndrome which I saw brought up before, that occurs over a much longer period of time in isolation with captors who they are depending on for sustenance and have to please them to not die. I'll try to go relocate the source I heard this from if you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted December 18, 2011 Report Share Posted December 18, 2011 Do you have any suggestions for an alternative to "this kind of playing along"? Particularly ones that wouldn't get brushed off and/or take a really long amount of time and text? I can't say that I do have any suggestions. If anything, I'd only change the reaction of Dominique. The content of Roark toying with Dominique eventually resulting in some kind of general resistance of sex with Roark when he shows up at her room was really good I find. Now, when it comes to particular details and going into Dominique's psychology, of course there is bound to be some kind of contradictions flowing through her mind. Although, as I recall, the scene in the movie was a lot less forceful, and consequently, pretty boring. So, my thinking is that an alternative could involve some pretty intense dialogue in a non-arbitrary way, or something to a similar effect. I haven't read the book in a while. In your response to DonAmos you mention that other things explain far better the scene than Rand's idea on masculinity and femininity, Rand's ideas do seem to be the reason why she made the particulars of the scene in such a way. It's a sex scene, so Rand certainly was at least implicitly providing those viewpoints on sex, making it relevant to the discussion of the whole meaning of the scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAthos Posted December 18, 2011 Report Share Posted December 18, 2011 I'm trimming the quote here to save space, but I did read it all. Hey bluecherry, My thanks for your replies. Whether we ever agree with one another or not, I appreciate them (and especially your civility in our discussion). Once again, I feel as though I've expressed my argument just about as well as I can, though I'll continue to monitor the thread. If I ever feel swayed, or otherwise change my mind, I'll make sure to come back to say so. Otherwise, I may quiet down if I feel (like I do right now) that I can really only repeat things I've already said. As regards your position, I think it comes down to a general observation that, "as fiction, things in The Fountainhead don't have to work like they do in real life." That doesn't satisfy me, for a few reasons. First of all, there are fictions called "fantasy," which allow for things like actual mind reading. And if I believed that it was Rand's intention to create unreal people with fantastic abilities, leading to unreal situations, I'd accept that. But I believe that Rand meant for Roark and Dominique to be "real" in the sense of being possible, and even worth emulation. So if Roark's actions were moral and possible, I don't see why we shouldn't act in similar fashion, and heal the broken (but basically good) women in our lives with a judicious use of force. Further, I've been trying to imagine a "mind reading" fantasy operating in this same way, and that still looks like rape to me, for the reasons elaborated in my last post -- that there's a profound difference between subconscious "wants" and those conscious wants which translate into will, consent, and action. Even a mind reader who ignores what a woman consciously selects in favor of forcing upon her her "heart's desire," for her own good, would be a rapist in my book. Choice and consent are not subconscious products -- they are conscious. And if we're agreed that no real life Objectivist would want his conscious choice "overridden" by a do-gooder supposedly responding to our subconscious desires, I think this is the reason. Also, the "it's only a book" approach makes other readings of The Fountainhead problematic in other ways. Consider, for instance, this argument: "I have never heard of somebody getting raped and being suddenly pleased about it quickly." Well, it happens all the time in fiction. Finally, I'd probably give a lot of the "leeway" you suggest to fantasy literature in terms of "powers" -- Superman can shoot heat rays from his eyes, and it doesn't bother me. But if Superman laid claim to "squaring a circle," I'd call foul. And I can entertain the argument that Roark possessed Sherlock Holmes-like powers to divine Dominique's subconscious desires -- or even that he had outright magic to do so -- but "rape by engraved invitation" remains self-contradictory for reasons already discussed. It's either the sex was consensual or it was rape, and for the reasons given at length (and longer still! ), it continues to look like rape to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 DonAthos-- I think the essay I am going to provide a link to would help you in sorting through this. It deals first with sex in all of Miss Rand's fiction first, then the "rape" scene in The Fountainhead in detail. It is pretty long but very well written and mostly speaks in terms of essentials with actual examples from the storys. A few statements here and there, especially near the end, seem to indicate the writer of the essay is not an Objectivist, but understands it and Romantic Realism very well. http://www.troynovant.com/McElroy/Rand/Paradigm-Darkly.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecherry Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 I haven't checked out the link in the post above me, but I am curious if it will have any impact on your current view. Supposing it does then my following reply may be moot, but if your position remains the same after seeing it, then this will still be relevant. First, I appreciate the civility likewise. It's a pain in the neck when trying to discuss disagreements with people often devolves into accusations and thinly veiled insults after just a few exchanges. For various reasons in recent times, I tend to get feeling overwhelmed and leaving rather than continuing once that happens. When you start to get headaches, actual physical discomfort, from trying to talk to somebody about something, it just ceases to be worth the trouble and I wonder why I even try. Now, first of all this is not the blatant fantasy kind of story like Sword of Truth is, this is true. I've also said though that there isn't supposed to be out and out magic or psychic powers in this story. This story is by far quite realistic. I just think that in some spots here and there it more or less stretches the limits of real things to just about a breaking point for convenience of the flow of narrative and theme. Aside from the extreme of how quickly, well and simply Roark and Dominique get each other on so little information, the story also contains some things like physical attributes in many characters that are more consistently reflective of their internal character than is typical in real life. Toohey has a scene at one party I believe where he talks about this. It's similar to how in Romantic style paintings there may be nothing obviously breaking the laws of physics going on, but note that the nice subjects in the painting never happen to have horrible scars from a fire when they were a baby or something. Art being art, particularly in a Romantic style, it may be heavily based on reality and meant to be very reflective of important truths and ideal and such of it, but it does go through a stylization process where things that are unimportant and irrelevant inconveniences can get left on the cutting room floor so to speak. As for emulating the characters, the good guys are meant to be inspirational, but repeating their exact actions or choices is not advocated anyway. Aside from having a different physical context we exist in, we are also different people as part of the difference in our context. Everybody is unique and while principles within some general rules of context do remain the same, the differences in context are always crucial to examine. The fact is that nobody else is Roark and nobody else is Dominique on top of the stylization involved in their fictional world. Trying to imitate Roark is actually a well known common mistake people new to Rand's works make when they are all inspired and gung ho, but low on knowledge of the entirety of Objectivism. Objectivism is meant to provide the guidelines to be applied to each unique person in their own exact unique circumstances as fits their individual case. It isn't a one course fits all thing. Small note, but due to some of Dominique's mistaken beliefs, I wouldn't say that she was an Objectivist though, at least not for the vast majority of the book. What we would be happy about and want and such is not the same as what she would go for necessarily since she has different beliefs than we do to begin with. Yeah, we certainly would not want somebody to try something like that on us, but then again we also don't hold those screwy beliefs she held that made just speaking plainly about what you want and going after it pretty much a non-option. We don't need to create elaborate rationalizations and double think and so on to explain away getting what we want. I think the idea of "double think" from 1984 if you are familiar with that, which I mentioned recently, is really the best explanation for Dominique's thought processes on this issue. It isn't actually that her conscious and subconscious desires are different so much as she keeps trying to tell herself what she wants and believes is one thing while trying to silence and push to the back of her mind and ignore things she is feeling. She's trying to deny to herself her attraction to Roark as if telling herself enough times she doesn't like him and that she doesn't care and such will make it so. As long as she doesn't outright recognize the truth to herself and give it attention, then it isn't so. So she keeps doing things, making choices, because of her real thoughts and feelings about him, but she tries to make other excuses for why she's doing things even as the influence of her real beliefs about him keep poking through. Lying to yourself is hard to pull off consistently, especially if it isn't something you are used to and Dominique is not in the habit of trying to avoid the truth. I agree that a really blatant contradiction like, "it was rape, but it wasn't rape" would be too ridiculous even in fiction. I just don't think it was trying to say it was and it wasn't at the same time. As I mentioned before, I think it was a non-rape simply done with a facade that imitates what a rape typically involves in the actions of the involved parties. I will say though, I sure wish there was some obvious sufficient alternative for this course the story took because it would save a hell of a lot of trouble and confusion if this scene just could have been avoided altogether. Eiuol mentioned some kind of tense dialogue, but Dominique just was not open to having much of any kind of revealing discussion with him at that time unfortunately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAthos Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Just as a brief note, I have read the essay to which EC had linked. I'm interested in providing a full response to it, but that's not a project I can undertake at the moment, nor do I know when I'll begin -- it may be quite a while. Really, what I have in mind is more than simply a response to this one essay, but a kind of postmortem on how this scene has been interpreted within the "Objectivist community," and an analysis of the specific arguments used; much more than a simple answer to a question of rape, this discussion has led me to reflect on questions of methodology, and how we engage one another in debate. Actually... accounting to how grand all that sounds, I may even have to let myself mature more as a writer and a thinker before undertaking it... I don't know yet, and maybe I will just break down and get out some concrete thoughts on this specific essay sooner. Anyways, in the mean time, and to engage in a little bit of dialogue on one of the matters raised, I present this quote that bluecherry has referenced and which forms the core of the essay's response to The Fountainhead scene: "She had not given him the one answer that would have saved her: an answer of simple revulsion — she had found joy in her revulsion, in her terror and in his strength. That was the degradation she had wanted" (220). A question: the essay's author, Wendy McElroy, decides that the sex in question was consensual "rough sex," not rape, that it is "an ecstatic surrender to the ultimate value in life," and also "the culmination of the ideal male/female relationship." Given all of this, how does it simultaneously "degrade"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.