Members Keith Posted January 24, 2007 Members Share Posted January 24, 2007 I know not everyone agrees, but Jay Kenneth Johnson is blowing this story out of the water with his portrayal of the hardhearted Philip Kiriakis. Maybe I'm biased. I definitely am. Seeing him play evil makes him come across far more delicious on screen than bemoaning Chloe and Brady's relationship ever could. It's wonderful to see him as a standalone character, who is independent of a triangle, or even just a woman. No Ki'iakis (yes, I pronounce it that way) is fit to be second fiddle to the first chairs that Shawn and Belle have been written as since they were mistakenly SORASed. He has a lot to learn yet. He's still an amateur. He's still green. I imagine a young Victor, with perhaps no one to guide him, being quite similar, probably after Caroline chose Shawn again and again. Philip is yet to have cronies of his own. He's yet to have power of his own. This conquest for his daughter is pivotal for the character's direction, IMO. If he's denied her, he'll hardene further and probably follow the same path as Victor. If he gets her back, there may remain a softness, a small remnant of the kind-heart that Belle allowed herself to love and be loved by, even as she pined for her lover. A softness in a sea of bitterness and harsh reality. It was wonderful today to see Philip the Marine - seeing Shawn beat him up when Shawn is nothing more than an everyday, middle class type, whereas Philip (despite casting) is a war veteran, though entertaining as hell with all the bets to see if or when Philip's new face would fall off, was laughable. It made sense that Steve would be able to get behind him and knock him out cold when he was just about take Calire from Belle, though, because as long as he pursues his goal personally, he's far too emotionally involved, and incapable of foreseeing such a blindsighting attack. These are the mistakes he'll learn from, IMO, and grow into a Ki'iakis in much the way that Victor has always been. I look forward to it. Man, oh man. I could not agree more with the majority on here who feel that Lucas and Sami work better as scheming buddies with benefits. I would not necessarily like to see them paired otherwise. But this lovesick bull is not for them. Sami's always been a romantic at heart, but does that mean she should get it at every turn? If anything, they should be so evenly matched that they test what they think they really, truly want. They shouldn't be fearing EJ, but plotting to bring him down with or without the cops' help, especially when Lucas learns what he did, just so Sami could save the man she loves. I want to see a return to the heart of these two characters. I'm afraid, alas, that we won't see it under Sheffer - if ever we do. That said, the reveal today was great. I think they voerdid the obvious 'morning sickness', though. They could have done the first scene, had that be a 'really long' spell (long enough for her to do what she obviously did besides heaving her stomach out), but I digress. Steve, Shawn, and Belle on the run was fine, but the money talk got real repetitive. Like, literally, the same line got repeated in two different sequences of that scene. So unnecessary. And twice Steve did the whole 'I'm sorry for butting in, dude' bit. Watch yourself, Sheffer. I won't even comment of John/Marlena. It wasn't as bad as the last time, and it was nice that Marlena 'confessed' to Kayla, and actually made a real connection. Interesting that it's ot about John & Marlena, but about helping the people around them from not getting hurt like they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DrewH Posted January 24, 2007 Author Members Share Posted January 24, 2007 The Fast Reply button not working is really starting to piss me off! Anyway, Keith, wisely said The way you drew out the parellels between Victor/Caroline/Grandpa Shawn and Philip/Belle/Shawn, it's uncanny. People compare Shawn and Belle to the next Bo and Hope, but in reality, they are the next Grandpa Shawn and Caroline, if we only got to see Grandpa Shawn and Caroline's middle-aged life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ponz Posted January 25, 2007 Members Share Posted January 25, 2007 Alot of you folks are missing the point. LUMI are sappy now because Hogan is building the tension for the big reveal. He wants the stakes to be high as possible for Sami. When Lucas finds out about the rape and the possibility that EJ is the baby's father (and that Sami lied to him about it), there will be plenty of heavy angst for them to deal with. The stuff we are seeing now is necessary for the plot...I don't think it's a sign of how HS plans to write LUMI in the long-term. When it comes to LUMI, HS is kind of damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he writes them as angsty and constantly bickering, then viewers complain that they are too mean to one another to be considered a true supercouple. If they are written as sweet, then you lose alot of what makes the couple and the characters who they are. A few months ago, Lucas was bashed for being judgemental. Now he gets bashed for being too sappy. It's a double-edged sword. HS should be aiming to strike a balance. I want the characters to be kinder to one another but I also don't want them written as a 'sweet' couple like Bope or S&K...there should always be angst and tension. Also, it's good that HS wants to play up the funny side of the couple but I don't want them becoming comic relief. LUMI's humour has always been of the darker variety. I definitely don't agree that they should go back to being 'friends with benefits'. There is way too much history and way too much passion between them for that to ever be a viable direction to take them. In any case, they don't have to be apart to scheme and make trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ilovemydays Posted January 25, 2007 Members Share Posted January 25, 2007 It might have been sleezy but EJ did not rape Sami! Perspectives on Acquaintance Rape David G. Curtis, Ph.D., B.C.E.T.S. Clinical Associate, Long Island Psychological Associates, P.C. http://www.aaets.org/article13.htm II. Legal Perspectives on Acquaintance Rape As these well publicized events indicate, an increased awareness of sexual coercion and acquaintance rape has been accompanied by important legal decisions and changes in legal definitions of rape. Until recently, clear physical resistance was a requirement for a rape conviction in California. A 1990 amendment now defines rape as sexual intercourse "where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury." The important additions are "menace" and "duress," as they include consideration of verbal threats and implied threat of force (Harris, in Francis, 1996). The definition of "consent" has been expanded to mean "positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will. A person must act freely and voluntarily and have knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved." In addition, a prior or current relationship between the victim and the accused is not sufficient to imply consent. Most states also have provisions which prohibit the use of drugs and/or alcohol to incapacitate a victim, rendering the victim unable to deny consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Posted January 25, 2007 Members Share Posted January 25, 2007 EJ raped Sami. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ilovemydays Posted January 25, 2007 Members Share Posted January 25, 2007 It was sleazy, wrong and disgusting but it fails to fall under the legal definition of rape. To continue to refer to it as such undermines the integrity to the term and does a disservice to women that really were raped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Chanel Posted January 25, 2007 Members Share Posted January 25, 2007 It was rape because sex under duress is rape. He had a gun, threaten her, and locked her in the car. Plus Sami was crying and said to EJ: “So you are going to rape me.” Physically he didn’t hurt her, but EJ did have the advantage over her, so. As a huge Lumi fan, I sorta agree with those who say that Lumi are pretty boring when the are happy. But I defenitly agree with ponz that this is just all contrived. I am ready for the angst and the drama. I hope Sami tells the truth soon, and Lucas will understand. Lucas and Sami need to take down EJ together. That will be great to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ilovemydays Posted January 25, 2007 Members Share Posted January 25, 2007 It was not duress because EJ did not threaten Sami with harm if she refused to sleep with him. It was CONSENTUAL because a TRANSACTION occured. You can call EJ a scumbag but he is not a rapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Keith Posted January 25, 2007 Members Share Posted January 25, 2007 EJ had a gun. How was Sami not under duress, and how was EJ not menacing? There may not have been physical force involved, but there was emotional and psychological, and those are far more integral to the idea of violation and rape -- it's those ramifications that last the longest. No, EJ did not take her by force in the tradition way, but he did rape her. That's really not debatable when you look at the bare facts, but too many like to color those facts to fit their opinion. So, I have to respectfully disagree that Sami was not raped. In fact, he would have been incapable of raping her had he not had the piece of emotional blackmail that he used, because Sami had been raped int he past and would under no circumstanmces just let it happen. If anyone (ok, any woman on the show really falls under this category, because 99.9% of the have been victims of rape, but that's only a slight digression), Sami would have the means, the know-how, the motivation to fight back. EJ cut her where she couldn't fight back -- when she wasn't the one being threatened. No, EJ was not threatening to hurt Lucas, but by threatening not to help her save Lucas, this was more than her pride and her own life. This is such a new page for Sami, to be so unselfish, at least in the initial act. So yes, while there's no covnention in how the rape occurred, that's what it was. It's what you call coerced consent. She made a choice, because the other choice was not a viable one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Keith Posted January 25, 2007 Members Share Posted January 25, 2007 I fail to see your logic. A threat doesn't have to be verbal to be a threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Chanel Posted January 25, 2007 Members Share Posted January 25, 2007 IIRC, When Sami was on the phone yesterday with EJ she said, " You forced me into have sex." Force = Duress = Rape. JMO Everyone is going to see this situation differently, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ponz Posted January 25, 2007 Members Share Posted January 25, 2007 Ilovemydays: how can you possibly deny that the sex was obtained under duress? EJ had her locked in a car. He had pulled a gun on her just minutes before the incident happened. No, he didn't DIRECTLY threaten Sami with harm if she didn't sleep with him but re-read the definition you just posted.... The important additions are "menace" and "duress," as they include consideration of verbal threats and IMPLIED threat of force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Keith Posted January 25, 2007 Members Share Posted January 25, 2007 Because of the dialogue alone, it being rape shouldn't be a question, because it's more psychological than anything else. And beyond that, while (like anything with EJ) it was done in an ambiguous manner, the presence of the gun, the locked doors, and the implied threat all make it rape. How anyone can challenge that is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ilovemydays Posted January 25, 2007 Members Share Posted January 25, 2007 DURESS - Restraint or danger, actually inflicted or impending, which is sufficient in severity or apprehension to deprive a person of free choice, destroy his volition, or obtain consent only in form. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d082.htm The definition of "consent" has been expanded to mean "positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will. A person must act freely and voluntarily and have knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved." In addition, a prior or current relationship between the victim and the accused is not sufficient to imply consent. Most states also have provisions which prohibit the use of drugs and/or alcohol to incapacitate a victim, rendering the victim unable to deny consent http://www.aaets.org/article13.htm EJ and Sami had a transaction. She CONSENTED to sleeep with EJ if he would lift the beam off of Lucas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ponz Posted January 25, 2007 Members Share Posted January 25, 2007 You don't think being locked in a confined space and having a gun pulled on you is 'sufficient in severity or apprehension to deprive a person of free choice'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.