Tammin: 'Home & Away' is unrealistic

[The Cure]

What was wrong with my definition?? I know it is not 100% accurate, but it is a basic description, I don't see how it is wrong at all.

And how on Earth can a person rape another person if they don't know that the don't want sex???

If somebody attempts to force sex on you, you tell them NO repetedeley, you attempt to push them off if need be, you call out for help if neccessary...and if the person continues, then that is rape.

It is not rape if the person has sex but then regrets it afterwards.

People really need to take responsilbilty for themselves, be a bit streetwise, and stop attempting to shif to blame just because you have regrets about who you slept with and when.

If the "victim" does not make it known that they do not want to have sex (unless they have been drugged and do not realise), then how can they possibly claim rape???

[yannick]

Sorry to burst your bubble honey, but I just rewatched the small clip KK.com has. And at the end you clearly hear Dani saying:

"Kane, Kane, stop it! Stop it! Stop it! No, get off me!"

If that isn't clear enough..

[msf]

Sorry to burst your bubble honey, but I just rewatched the small clip KK.com has. And at the end you clearly hear Dani saying:

"Kane, Kane, stop it! Stop it! Stop it! No, get off me!"

If that isn't clear enough..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe he thought it was roleplay to spice things up you know.

[Jay Preston]

Again, I think it's fantastic when so many people continue to be wrong.

If the "victim" does not make it known that they do not want to have sex (unless they have been drugged and do not realise), then how can they possibly claim rape???

Seen it yet? Heard how she made her desire clear?

Well I'm sure you read what I wrote very clearly, but I'll clarify. I *didn't* say that I know what the correct and whole definition is, but yours is wrong. We need to expect that men like Kane may not know explicitly that what they are doing is wrong at the time when the victim says 'no', but from the victim's perspective (the perspective that matters) it was rape, and it is terrible for them. Can you see what I was saying?

And to rape someone, even the way Kane did, he had to take the victim by force. There was coercion involved. Taking by force, from my research, is the most important part of the definition of 'rape' apart from the obvious. Dani was taken by force by Kane for sex. He raped her. She felt it, experienced it and was traumatised by it. He didn't take it that way, but she did.

Perhaps, instead of looking at it from the perpetrator's point of view, look at the victim's. If the victim said no or stop, and the rapist continued anyway, perhaps not fully aware of what he was doing, then it is rape from the victim's point of view. The perpetrator's views are always going to be different from the victim's - either he's lying or he doesn't realise the full extent of his actions.

Are you saying that men can have sex with women, as long as the men *aren't sure* that the women don't want it? As long as the men *aren't sure* the woman doesn't want it, he can take her by force and have sex with her? I'm sure that's not what you mean, because that sounds despicable.

No matter how you behave, how you dress, whatever, there's no open invitation once you say 'no' or 'stop'. No matter how street wise you are.

It is not rape if the person has sex but then regrets it afterwards.

I agree. Dani was taken by force by Kane, and felt terrible about it after because of what he did to her. If she had been lying, and she only had 'regrets' then Kane would be the victim. But she told him to stop and he didn't. Rape.

And how on Earth can a person rape another person if they don't know that the don't want sex???

I don't know how to answer this. I just want to know that you understand that this didn't happen in Dani's case. She said no, but Kane didn't realise what that meant, so he continued. He didn't completely know that she didn't want it, but she didn't and she did tell him. Kane didn't realise that she didn't want it, but it was still rape in Dani's case. Do you understand that? Do you understand that even though he didn't know, it was still rape? That's the point I was trying to make and I think I didn't make it clear enough for you to understand.

[Ashirr-Leigh]

What I don't understand is how he could claim that he didn't know that she didn't want to have sex. It was pretty clear that she told him to stop and said no!

[The Cure]

I didn't actually recall Dani's protests being heard, the Kane/Dani thing was such a long time ago, and I don't have it on tape myself.

I suppose I just asssumed that the storyline was left a bit more open to interpreation than that, otherwise Kane becoming Mr Nice Guy just seems incredibily wrong. Fair enough, it is highly possible that I have just forgotten that part.....I wan't massively into H&A at the time. If she did in fact make her objections clear before and during the evnt, then yes, of course that would be rape.....so why on Earth did the writers expect us to forgive a fairly unforgivable thing and to believe wholeheratedly in Kirsty and Kane???

Jay Preston, I thought we had moved onto a more general discussion/debate of rape in the last couple of posts.

Unless a man has some kind of medical mental defect, than how can he not realise that a girl shouting No, pushing him off and doing all she can to stop the act from happening, means that she does not want sex??

Coercion is force, Jay. And, as I said in my initial definition, which you attempted to ridicule, using force to get sex, is, of course, rape.

What was I was saying was that unless a type of force is used, it is not rape.

There is nothing wrong about my defintion at all Jay. It wasn't directly about the Kane/Dani thing, it was just a general observation.

I couldn't recall the episode entirely, so was unaware that Kane was shown to have used force, That, of course, is beyond doubt rape. I just thought I recalled that no force was used, and that is what inspired s much debate over the storyline. If we as the audience were made fully aware that Kane used force on Dani, then why wasn't the case cut and dry, as it should have been? As I said, my memory may have played tricks on me because of the way the Kane/Kirsty thing was subsequently handled.

But I am amazed that you think that Kane "wasn't aware". If Dani was forceful in her objections, before an during, how can he claim that he didn't realise??? Was he on drugs??? Is he mentally unwell???

I suppose I assumed that the storyline was left more ambigous than that because it seems ludicrous that Kirsty would fall so in love with her sister's known rapist, and irresponsible of H&A to show this to be ok.

[Jay Preston]

Unless a man has some kind of medical mental defect, than how can he not realise that a girl shouting No, pushing him off and doing all she can to stop the act from happening, means that she does not want sex??

It's quite common in date rape *supposedly* (Kane wasn't exactly dating Dani, but it's the closest mainstream definition for the situation). Men rape a woman that they know, that they believe want sex, but they really don't. A man can't walk up to a random woman in the street, force sex on her and claim ignorance. However Kane *supposedly* (I'm no Kane fan, I'm not defending, but this is what a lot of people believe) didn't know that what he was doing was rape, because he thought Dani wanted it (again *supposedly* - also open to interpretation). So when I say a man could rape a woman without knowing I mean it in that context, which is the closest situation to Dani/Kane. Nowhere near acceptable or an excuse, because you should make it your business to be sure. And obviously there would have to be something wrong with a man to think that she wanted it when she didn't. I don't know that kind of psychology. I'm in no way defending men in any case, as I said, I consider date rape worse because of what I've read about it.

Coercion is force

No. Coercion as I understand it is the *threat* of force, whereas force is the action. Different.

Rape is when the person knows that the other one doesn't want sex, but forces it upon them anyway, using physical force, weapons, or threats.

This is the definition I considered wrong. Not necessarily *wrong*, but incomplete. This doesn't allow for date rape, in which the lines are blurred enough to cause (unacceptable) confusion. No weapons or threats, but physical force would always have to be used. That's what I found wrong with this definition. Plus I felt you were using it in a way that made Kane less accountable, and sorry, but I can't stand that.

which you attempted to ridicule

I don't ridicule. I point out faults in a fair way. Sorry if you took something I said the wrong way. I don't mean to ridicule in any way.

Sorry to quote myself, but here's what I actually wrote, which is not ridicule, but declaring what I consider to be the faults:

I'm not sure that's completely accurate. I'm not sure what *is* accurate, but it's not that. I think that someone can rape someone without knowing exactly what they're doing, or at least realising too late. We were expected to believe this in the Kane story anyway since it was an important part of his redemption.

To which you replied:

What was wrong with my definition?? I know it is not 100% accurate

Doesn't that mean... we kind of agree?

But I am amazed that you think that Kane "wasn't aware". If Dani was forceful in her objections, before an during, how can he claim that he didn't realise???

This is what we were expected to believe. It was pushed down our throats this way. And date rapists may very well not be aware of what they're doing. A lot of men are shocked at the implication that they raped a woman after the fact - they don't believe what they did was rape. I'm not sure how that happens, but it does.

then why wasn't the case cut and dry, as it should have been?

These things *never* are cut and dry. Especially date rape. Notoriously hard to make it clear, especially in court. A sad reality for victims. This was probably something that they did realistically in this storyline.

it seems ludicrous that Kirsty would fall so in love with her sister's known rapist, and irresponsible of H&A to show this to be ok.

Something we agree on? Well it's always nice to end a post on a less doom and gloom note, isn't it?

[Krazy Karl]

Kane's redemption and Kirsty's subsequent falling in love with him was sparked by the fact that Kirsty was forced with Kane, who she despised the first few hours they were together, but he was being helpful, and they started to converse, and slowly she got to know Kane the person, not Kane the guy who raped her sister. It worked because Kane was always painted as a human being, he was just as confused as he made Dani, and the scene with Fisher sent this home. He was a bit arrogant, but he had lost all the negative influence in his life, and tried to make something of himself.

So Kirsty fell in love with the human being Kane, that she met after the boat disaster. Kirsty then, very immaturely, expected her family to be ok with it.

I thought the Kane storyline sent out good (albeit controversal) messages until Dani and Rhys started to look bad for not forgiving Kane. Kirsty was quite selfish through it all, in that she forced Kane onto her family, but apart from that I thought it was a solid storyline.

[Jay Preston]

I thought the Kane storyline sent out good (albeit controversal) messages until Dani and Rhys started to look bad for not forgiving Kane. Kirsty was quite selfish through it all, in that she forced Kane onto her family, but apart from that I thought it was a solid storyline.

Well, yes there was a good message in that it's good to give people second chances. And that people deserve second chances. When Kane kept blowing those chances and kept getting more and more chances and was very seldom grateful, that good message was kind of ruined.

Totally agree about the fact that Dani and Rhys were demonised for having the gall to be annoyed with him and Kirsty for their selfishness. Kirsty did force Kane on her family - it was immature and unfair. Dani shouldn't have been forced to do that until she was ready, and Kirsty and Kane never grasped that concept.

I would say Tammin would be annoyed by that. I know I would be if that was my character. Dani should never have been made out to be the selfish one. It was wrong for that to happen and the writers should have put a stop to it when they realised it was happening. But they didn't, and what we got left with left a bad taste.

[msf]

Well, yes there was a good message in that it's good to give people second chances. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They shouldn't get a second chance, not for a serious crime, they should have their head cut off.