Thoughts on Sam and rape; and a list about John and Sam

[hmpf]

In my (glacier-slow) quest of catching up with fic in lifein1973 (another thing I do when I'm at work *g*) I got to amy_wolf's "No" today. It's an interesting fic that makes the argument that Joni actually raped Sam. I'm not sure I agree, but this is tricky terrain, so I don't think I should be too sure of my own responses. I do have some arguments for my - tentative - view that it probably wasn't rape, though:

- Sam doesn't seem traumatised enough; his later interactions with Joni show anger and disappointment, but not of the level that I would expect after such an intimate violation. Sure, he's aware that she was under a lot of pressure herself, and Sam can be sympathetic to a fault - but if he felt raped, I'd expect something a bit more irrational to break through there, even if only for a moment.

- Sam seems *surprised* to find out he was drugged. This suggests to me that up to that point, it seemed not that unimaginable to him that he may have had a certain amount of conscious involvement in having sex with Joni. This is also supported by the fact that they had sex on the bed, whereas we saw him trying to go to sleep in the armchair. *Somehow* he had to get from there to the bed, and I doubt that Joni carried, or forcibly dragged him there. Yes, he was drugged and hence more suggestible - but even under the influence of LSD, I don't think you can make a person do something they feel very strongly against. I also felt that the dinner scene preceding the sex scene was not completely devoid of sexual tension, and that Sam's 'disinterest' was mainly founded on his ideas of propriety and not so much on not being attracted to Joni. I can well imagine him acting on some latent attraction once the drug had removed his rational inhibitions. This would explain how he got from the chair to the bed.

- This is also supported by an admittedly unreliable witness, the Test Card Girl. She says, during the LSD hallucinations, "There's nothing to be ashamed of, Sam. You can't be lonely all the time." This suggests to me that, as the voice of Sam's subconscious, Test Card Girl is trying to convince Sam that it's okay to give in to his 'improper' urges.

Ultimately, I don't think we can judge if Sam was raped or not unless we see how the actual sex started - how he got into that bed. But I think there is fairly strong evidence for the 'not rape' theory.

Opinions?

(I haven't given feedback on this story yet, but I will once I've thought about this some more.)

***

Now, with John Crichton from Farscape it's very obvious that he was raped. There's chemical influence involved right from the start, and afterwards John has the expected reaction - compulsive washing, curling up... and nearly an entire season later, when he talks to Grayza again, he explicitly compares her sudden loss of political/military power and control to being raped, and there's a very definite undercurrent of "see, this is what it feels like" in his words. (Of course, he's also been mindraped by Scorpius, the Scarrans, the Ancients, Maldis - did I forget anyone? He really does speak from experience.)

***

So... here's a short list of the main parallels between John and Sam, just because, well, there *are* so many!

- Both have (sort of) travelled in time.
- Both are displaced, desperately lost, looking for a way home.
- Both make pop culture references nobody in their surroundings gets.
- Both find themselves frequently clad in leather in their new lives.
- Both have creepy, semi-regular hallucinations.
- Both have pointed guns at their fathers.
- Both have a bit too much sexual tension with their mothers. ;-)
- Both have had involuntary or near-involuntary sex under the influence of drugs.
- Both have contemplated suicide.

Substantial differences between the two of them are a bit more difficult to find. Mainly there's the fact that Sam's a police officer whereas John is, more or less, a terrorist. Oh, and Sam's a cat person whereas John's a dog person. *g*

Comments

[loz]

I think Sam's reaction is precisely what Amy is questioning with her story. She addresses that rather well, I think, with continued negativity from Sam against his own reaction. "No, this is not what I am feeling", etc. etc.

The one thing that has always highly disturbed me about Ash's episode there is the fact Sam doesn't feel like he's been raped. He should! He was. That he doesn't is a crime. It doesn't matter how he got onto the bed, he was drugged. He was non compos mentis.

No, Gene, Ray and Chris wouldn't give a toss. This was still an era where females getting raped was seen as Their Fault (in fact, it's still that era now), but Sam's utter disregard for it is creepy and I'm glad someone addressed that issue.

(Okay, granted, most of the time I ignore it too, and treat it as the boys did - which is with humour, but I think it's dangerous not to interrogate the attitudes in fiction on occasion.)

In these catch ups with yours - is it everything, or only fic that meets your select reading criteria? It seems odd to me that you would subject yourself to stories you know you won't like (but I know from previous comment experience that you have read Sam/Gene.)

Oooh discussion! *g*

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

Okay, he was not in full control of his mental faculties. But was he really entirely without will? And if he *wasn't*, if his willpower was just reduced - or even just the parts of it that inhibit socially unacceptable behaviour (sleeping with a person in your care; sleeping with someone else while you technically still are in a relationship) - does that mean, then, that every time someone has sex while extremely drunk, or high on something, without intending to have sex before reaching that mentally altered state, that person is being raped? [Sorry - horribly structured sentence. Too tired to reword.]

I saw the situation in 1.04 more as seduction under influence... which is sleazy enough, but not *quite* the same as full-on rape, IMO. There are degrees of will, degrees of decision, degrees of attraction etc. Don't get me wrong, what Joni does *is* totally reprehensible. I'm just not certain if it's the kind of thing that would cause deeply felt personal trauma (i.e.: rape), or the kind of thing that would cause 'only' deep anger and feelings of betrayal (i.e. seducing someone who trusted you under the influence of strong drugs). There is, for me, a different *level* of psychological injury involved here.

As for my catching up: well, nobody's going to tag their fic with "this fic fits Hmpfs very specific criteria for enjoyable LoM fic", are they? ;-) So I need to trawl through everything. Doesn't mean that I have to read every last word of every fic. I basically scan them quickly to check if they 'fit', and then I either read... or don't.

Addendum

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

I find it significant (or potentially significant, anyway), that Sam answers to Joni's first attempt to get him to join her in bed with "You're in my care." That's a no, indeed, but it's a no that *could* translate as "it wouldn't be proper". It does *not* necessarily have to be translated as "I don't want to." It certainly doesn't rule out that translation, either - but my point isn't so much that it's impossible that Sam was raped as that we're simply missing essential information, and that what we do know could point either way.

Not just discussion, but near-vehement disagreement!

[loz]

But was he really entirely without will?

Yes.

I think the fact Sam was handcuffed to the cot is a telling tale here. This wasn't just a drunken fumble, too much scotch and woo, she landed on my dick. He was restrained. From what we see, Sam never got the chance to say no. Whether or not Sam was attracted to Joni is ultimately unimportant.

If what happened to Sam happened to me, I would feel deep personal trauma, regardless of how attracted to the enactor I was, or whether I'd wanted him to roger me silly not ten minutes before, or if I let him lead me to the bed. It's not like Sam chose to take the drug, his drink was spiked.

In the show, it's not depicted as rape. Clearly, it's not. Sam hardly cares. He has a poor head and it's mocked by all around him and he's mostly grumpy. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been treated as rape.

Remember, this is the show that advocates jumping off buildings to feel alive and has a certain level of malicious nostalgia towards police brutality!

"From what we see"

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

But that's just the point, isn't it? What *do* we see?

I think I may be seeing something slightly different than you here.

Yes, he was restrained. But he still must have gotten into the position to *be* restrained - and that, just as likely as not, involved some sort of active impulse on his part. Which, even if just caused but unrestrained primal urges from the deepest layers of the subconscious that have nothing at all to do with conscious personality etc., is still enough for me to move this into an emotionally slightly more complicated realm.

What do you make of the words of Test Card Girl? Why the emphasis on how Sam shouldn't feel ashamed because he "can't be lonely all the time"? To me, that speaks of subconscious, perhaps even partly conscious, desire. TCG isn't trying to get Sam to ignore that he's being raped, she's trying to get him to accept his need for - even just physical - company. Yes, she's tricky, but she also is the voice of his subconscious. And, in combination with Sam's behaviour later in the ep, this creates a somewhat coherent picture.

If I were to write a similar situation, would I do it very differently? Hell, yes. Because this kind of situation is a horrible cliché from a different era, and a dangerous one at that - because while I do believe that some situations of that sort *don't* constitute rape, I also believe that most actually *do* (and even those that don't are ethically questionable enough), and representing them as unproblematic perpetuates the dangerous idea of "s/he really *wanted* it". (So, yes, I am aware of this issue. I just think there is a grey area somewhere.)

But, just looking at the actual scenes, I don't see enough unequivocal evidence for rape, and enough evidence that is at least ambiguous if not even directly indicative of the absence of outright rape. To see outright rape here, IMO, requires investing the script with a degree of subtlety that I don't think is in there, really. So I tend to go with what the script/scenes explicitly say, because in this case, I see no compelling reason to go against it.

God, I hate the impossibility of editing comments. Grrr.

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

>Which, even if just caused but unrestrained primal urges

caused *by* unrestrained...

[loz]

I think we essentially believe the same thing, only... I don't really know what your point is, because Amy is positing the situation as 'what if Sam felt of it as rape', not saying that he necessarily did. She's exploring an avenue of alternative interpretation. Which is what we all do, to varying degrees.

To see outright rape here, IMO, requires investing the script with a degree of subtlety that I don't think is in there, really. So I tend to go with what the script/scenes explicitly say, because in this case, I see no compelling reason to go against it.

Don't we do that with the entire series? (Any series, or novel, or film, or song?) If you only ever go with 'what we see', doesn't that limit the stories you can tell, the themes you can explore, just a little bit? Doesn't it strip the text of its multiplicity of interpretations. Also, obviously, what we see may be the same, but how we react to it will depend upon our own perceptions.

So, uh, for me, I can see that it could/should have been explored with less levity --- if not from the other boys, at least from Sam. He was handcuffed, he was drugged, the whole sequence is rather horrific - with shots of a giant cat (ho ho, symbolism), Sam's mother (ho ho, Freudian symbolism) and Gene (ho ho, actually, no comment, none at all) - so yes, to me, it's problematic and once again, I am glad it was questioned, because that's what transformative works are for.

Oh, I think there's a little misunderstanding here:

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

My bit of discussion here wasn't about the fic. The fic is great, and yes, that's what fic should do and all. I was just - perhaps not even from the fic itself, but from some of the comments - under the impression that this reading was essentially... *the* reading of the situation in the fandom. And that seemed a bit too definite to me, because I think it's a bit more ambiguous. (The fic's great, of course, for pointing out that ambiguity.)

Well, then, once again, I am at a loss...

[loz]

Um, well, no. The people who responded to the story are those who agreed with the premise and I'd guess that a proportion of those who didn't, uh, didn't.

No one had written that story before (there had been earlier stories that dealt with rape, but not within that context) and little had really been said about the whole situation, considering it is quite controversial. So I'd hazard to guess there wasn't much of a fandom-wide view on it. Just, those people who had thought about it were glad someone was writing from that angle, and responded accordingly.

I dunno, it just made so much sense for a moment there.

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

It was one of those moments where you feel like you (and perhaps only you) may have missed something essential all the time that was obvious to everybody else. For a moment there, I was all "wait a sec... maybe this really *is* what those scenes should be read as" - and if that was the case, wouldn't it be logical if most people *had* read them that way? Hence the sweeping assumptions.

I think that was essentially the mental process. *g* But I'm not at my most awake today...

Oh and:

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

>Don't we do that with the entire series? (Any series, or novel, or film, or song?)

To a degree. (I think this is essentially the same discussion I've had with a lot of people about 2.08 *g*). I think that everyone has, of course, the right to see in a show (book, movie) whatever they want to see in it. However, I also believe that the number of interpretations that can actually be reasonably *supported with evidence* from a text, is limited by that text. Yes, limited, not infinite. (Well, there may be infinite minor variations, but there will be a limited number of 'main lines' of possible interpretations.)

Doesn't mean I can't *see* other things in it, and have highly idiosyncratic reactions, and spin it all every which way. And I can, and should, do just about *anything* you can imagine in fic, because fic is art and transformative and so on. So, I can write fic in which Life On Mars is actually all about TCG who's the one who's *really* in a coma, with Sam as her hallucination - but if I want to advance the theory that that is what LoM actually *is* about, it will be hard to find enough evidence to make that claim plausible, so it will never be a valid interpretation in that sense.

And that's really all that my ramblings here were about. Not "is the fic plausible?" - because the fic was eminently plausible; it wouldn't have caused me to go off on this rambly posting/thinking spree if it hadn't been - but rather: "now that I've read that fic, I need to question my view of 1.04, to see if perhaps what the fic says actually *is* canon. *Because* the fic was so damn plausible." I wanted to clarify, for myself, whether the fic essentially required me to reevaluate canon in this respect, or whether it 'only' presented an alternative interpretation. I think I've decided for myself that it does the latter.

Basically, I believe rather firmly in a fixed canon -

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

but I also believe, just as firmly, in our right (and, in some cases, our moral duty! *g*) to twist canon, read it against the grain, even completely disregard it as the case may be, in our play.

I think I see what you mean... (or maybe I don't, hah...)

[loz]

Ah.

I don't think I've ever read a story that makes me re-evaluate canon. I see all fan fic as alternative interpretation. So that's where that initial confusion comes from. I will occasionally say, "I believe this is canon", but I always mean "personal canon".

(Well, there may be infinite minor variations, but there will be a limited number of 'main lines' of possible interpretations.)

That's what I believe too. I generally try to stick as close to canon as possible (no Gene Hunt wingfic from me, despite the fact this icon's got the keywords 'Gene's an angel'.) Sometimes I deviate, but I generally acknowledge that that is what I'm doing.

And it's fun to play, isn't it? I love telling stories that I think could 'slot in', but I also rather like asking questions like, 'hey, what if Sam was actually a raving psychokiller?', 'hey, what if Sam's "life" started resetting?', 'hey, what if Gene refused to die a graceful death and annoyed Sam during rigor mortis?' They're all extrapolations of things we do know, but they were never, actually, going to happen in any way.

Re: I think I see what you mean... (or maybe I don't, hah...)

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

>I see all fan fic as alternative interpretation.

Yes, but sometimes interpretation points out something really essential, and then you (or I, anyway *g*) need to question what you've been believing. I had a real "did I see this all wrong, all the time?" moment there. It passed, but I needed to hash it out here to trust my own reaction again.

>Gene Hunt wingfic

Oh damn you, you broke my brain! And it was fairly broken to begin with, today. (Didn't sleep well, etc.)

>And it's fun to play, isn't it?

See my AU manifesto of a few days ago. ;-)

I'm here for the playing. But I need to be sure of my canon before I play. I need to have a fairly firm picture of "what is" before I can begin to play with "what could be" - need to know what there is before I can *react*. And yeah, parts of that picture are individual, personal - but a lot is based on a common understanding, too, and I wasn't quite sure, for a while today, if I diverged from that common understanding in yet another important aspect (apart from the 2.08 heresy, that is. *g*)

And then there's of course also *this* sticky issue:

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

1973 is Sam's fantasy. Joni is Sam's fantasy. Can you *actually* be *traumatically* raped in your own fantasy? Or isn't a rape that happens in your own fantasy rather to be seen as... a case of rather rough sex with your own subconscious? (Oh Sam, you perv.)

I really wonder about the subconscious of David Kemper now, btw.

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

(David Kemper = executive producer and showrunner of Farscape, aka The Non-Stop Mindrape Show.)

[loz]

Me too. I think illicit substances are involved.

Actually, we called the crazier eps...

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

"LSD eps" in German fandom at least. And we used to joke that there was probably something more interesting than sugar in the sugar jar in the FS writers' staff room. *g*

Oh, and re: Sam/Gene -

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

I'm not a total slash-o-phobe. ;-) I've been known to 'commit' slash myself (one Harry Potter story - Sirius/Remus -, and one WiP in that same fandom, with the same pairing). It just doesn't really do much for me per se, and Sam/Gene, in particular, I can only 'buy' in very specific circumstances.

[neuralclone.livejournal.com]

So... here's a short list of the main parallels between John and Sam, just because, well, there *are* so many!

And lets not forget the ways they were greeted in their respective new worlds - John was spat on and tongued unconscious, while Sam was slammed into a filing cabinet and given a punch to the gut. Welcome, stranger! :-)

Mainly there's the fact that Sam's a police officer whereas John is, more or less, a terrorist.

Mind you, I think Sam has also gone places he wouldn't have gone before his sojourn in 1973 - in particular the way he dealt with Tony Crane in 2:01. The corrupting influence of a more violent world?

Because in hmpf's journal, it's apparently all Loz, all the time...

[loz]

"My name is Sam Tyler..."

"My name is John Crichton..."

Yep. Matt's a total Farscape fan, isn't he?

Re: Because in hmpf's journal, it's apparently all Loz, all the time...

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

Also:

Aeryn/Gene: "You annoy me, strange little man who wants to talk about 'feelings' all the time." *sock*

:D

[loz]

Except, once again, gotta stress, if anyone's Gene, it's D'Argo.

Naaah.

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

He doesn't hit John often enough. ;-)

[loz]

To be fair, Gene doesn't really hit Sam all that much, really. Does he hit him at all in the second series? I'm trying to think of an instance, but I can't.

I think he does hit him in the second series, too.

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

I seem to remember a scene from the recent rewatch, but I can't remember anything precise.

But Aeryn stops with the constant John hitting after season one, too, mostly. ;-)

Re: Because in hmpf's journal, it's apparently all Loz, all the time...

[neuralclone.livejournal.com]

Gene is Aeryn? And here I was thinking you *weren't* a slasher. *EG*

Re: Because in hmpf's journal, it's apparently all Loz, all the time...

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

Well, I think Gene is actually Aerny and D'Argo both. (Annie is Zhaan. Chris is Chi. Ray is Rygel. Phyllis is Noranti.)

[beccadg.livejournal.com]

...here's a short list of the main parallels between John and Sam...

Looking at that list I think the main reason I'm a Farscape fan, but can't muster any interest in Life on Mars is the difference in where they're lost. Well, that and I'm not fond of John's "creepy, semi-regular hallucinations."

Yeah, the place where they're lost...

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

makes a big difference for me, too. I just love space shows, and I'll never love the 70s like I love the Uncharted Territories.

Also, I found Farscape's secondary characters more interesting. I'm really a LoM fan mostly for the Sam angst; with Farscape, I had more reasons to love the show.

Re: Yeah, the place where they're lost...

[jazzymegster.livejournal.com]

I found Farscape's secondary characters more interesting.

Definitely agree with that. Although, when you think about it, there are 88 (90, if you include the mini-series) of FS to just 16 of LoM (although, in saying that, there's not really a lot that could be done with 70's Manchester - outer space is as big as your imagination).

While I'm here, I might as well go ahead and say that, odd you mentioned John's rape. I sometimes completely forget about that (perhaps because I'm missing the second part of the two-parter it's in), but I'd been thinking about it in general terms, and just generally thinking "Oh, god..." recently what with digging out eps to watch. It also doesn't help that it's not mentioned in the episode guides (as far as I know, and at least probably not in the official one*). Also my memory is defective. Heh.


*Gonna check that later tonight.