[DWJ] Re: Twilight and New Moon (Was: Discussing now: What?)

Rachel Ganz rachel at compromise.fsnet.co.uk
Mon Aug 20 06:13:03 EDT 2007

 If one of the basic premises of a book is that a father has raised his 
 daughter so that she will accept him as her mate and bear his children, 
 in order to further a breeding-programme of his, does the fact that she 
 has been trained not to perceive this as rape make it better or worse?
 I've argued this one at one time and another (and I'm not going to say 
 who the book is by, because I want to look at the question without any 
 'oh but that's a wonderful/awful author' considerations) and I would be 
 interested on the take on the matter that I might get from an 
 articulate and educated bunch such as we have here.
 Is rape better or worse when it is mental as well as physical, so that 
 the victim doesn't see it as rape?  Does her perception of incest as 
 normal render the situation better?
No-one has replied yet, so I'll throw a shoe in the ring.

Any cultural practice, in which someone consents to something that we perceive as damaging, due to their social norms, falls into this range:
For example:
breast implants
female circumcision
joint damage in sports

Incest seems to be a loaded and specific example of this. If someone has given full, conscious consent to intercourse, it is not rape, whatever the social reasons that caused her to give consent.

But using people as tools to allow you to achieve your ends - that is unpleasant in any context - but is very common. For example, police or soldiers who are sent in to enforce an individuals plan. Are they tools? Did they consent to what happens? What a bout a father who keeps the children on the farm, and one loses a hand in an accident?

Rachel (perfectly prepared to duck because this is inflammatory stuff)

Brevity, clarity and cups of tea

More information about the Dwj mailing list