Announcing someone is dead without first proving it. Passions was guilty of this alot but so was Days under JER. A typcial cliffhanger would end with a character being unconscious and another character screams "OMG, so and so is dead, you killed him!" The next episode the "dead" person gets up just fine. Most of the time, the person who announces the death doesnt even check for a pulse but just looks at them. Its such a weak cliffhanger bc the audience knows they arent dead and it got done so much that it lost any significance

It isn't any different. That's why people have been convicted of having sex with impaired partners, which means they are non-consenting.

How is David and Erica different from spiking someone's drink with roofies and having sex with him/her?

Because Erica wasn't passed out, not even close to it. She was fully conscious and actively tearing David's clothes off of him. Leo and Bianca came to the door, looking for Erica, and Erica told them in no uncertain terms that she wanted to be there with David. That she expressed some regret later doesn't change the fact that she consented at the time. When she realized later that she'd been under the influence of libidizone, she confronted David... and the bulk of her anger was NOT over them having sex but over him messing with her sobriety. Erica herself never considered it rape, and neither did Susan Lucci or Vincent Irizarry.

Because Erica wasn't passed out, not even close to it. She was fully conscious and actively tearing David's clothes off of him. Leo and Bianca came to the door, looking for Erica, and Erica told them in no uncertain terms that she wanted to be there with David. That she expressed some regret later doesn't change the fact that she consented at the time. When she realized later that she'd been under the influence of libidizone, she confronted David... and the bulk of her anger was NOT over them having sex but over him messing with her sobriety. Erica herself never considered it rape, and neither did Susan Lucci or Vincent Irizarry.

If people considered David sleeping with Erica that night as rape then what about Leslie sleeping with Tad? I guess another double standard but I dont recall rape being used for her screwing him and he clearly didnt want her

Because Erica wasn't passed out, not even close to it. She was fully conscious and actively tearing David's clothes off of him. Leo and Bianca came to the door, looking for Erica, and Erica told them in no uncertain terms that she wanted to be there with David. That she expressed some regret later doesn't change the fact that she consented at the time. When she realized later that she'd been under the influence of libidizone, she confronted David... and the bulk of her anger was NOT over them having sex but over him messing with her sobriety. Erica herself never considered it rape, and neither did Susan Lucci or Vincent Irizarry.

If you'll pardon me, I don't look to either Susan Lucci or Vincent Irizarry for the solutions to ethical issues.

A person can be conscious and still be impaired. One doesn't necessarily preclude the other.

I think it's hard to argue morality in soaps because eventually everyone is selfish, has an agenda or is in some ways flawed or evil and ends up committing felony level crimes. It all comes down at the end of the day to if you "like" the character enough to forgive them for it or excuse them for their actions. When you look at it objectively soaps are filled with character who commit moral wrongs every day like breathing, with little to no remorse for it. Especially shows like GH, Y&R and Days where douchery for a lack of a better term is upheld as a system of value.

And that's why I very rarely like those characters. I won't defend their actions and it's partly why I no longer watch soaps. Bo and Nora, even with their many many MANY faults, were the last two truly decent characters I was a fan of.

If you'll pardon me, I don't look to either Susan Lucci or Vincent Irizarry for the solutions to ethical issues.

A person can be conscious and still be impaired. One doesn't necessarily preclude the other.

If the alleged "victim" says she was conscious and not impaired, then what issue is there?

And that's why I very rarely like those characters. I won't defend their actions and it's partly why I no longer watch soaps. Bo and Nora, even with their many many MANY faults, were the last two truly decent characters I was a fan of.

I wouldnt call Nora decent.She was pretty darn selfish and hypocritical, especially in her final year

Edited May 7, 201213 yr by Cheap21

If the alleged "victim" says she was conscious and not impaired, then what issue is there?

Exactly. There shouldn't be one, but there are AMC fans who still think of David as a rapist because of the libidizone. I'm fine with saying that rapists generally shouldn't be redeemed and given a happily ever after on a soap, but I made the exception because I like David and don't see what he did as 'rape' even though others disagree.

Because she genuinely wasn't impaired or because she didn't realize she was impaired? Two different things.

I saw that happen and I believed she was impaired. She had imbibed a drug that enhanced her libido while removing her ability to make sound judgments that would have prevented her from having sex with him.

ETA: I liked David too. He was one of my favorites on AMC. Liking someone has nothing to do with whether he's right or wrong.

I would have felt differently about the situation had David not been the one who provided the drug and that he knew Erica was drugged and he was aware of its effects.

Edited May 7, 201213 yr by SweetPea36

I wouldnt call Nora decent.She was pretty darn selfish and hypocritical, especially in her final year

Those are character flaws, they're not the complete monster territory of Victor Newman or Sonny Corinthos.

She had imbibed a drug that enhanced her libido while removing her ability to make sound judgments that would have prevented her from having sex with him.

You seem to be making the argument that the ONLY reason they had sex was because she was drugged. She was ALREADY having sex with him while stone cold sober: they were officially not a couple but still sleeping together leading up to the libidizone. There was clearly something still there between them at that point, so her having sex with him while on libidizone really was not out of character for her. I'm also willing to cut David some slack because he didn't intentionally drug her or do this in order to get her into bed. She literally took the drink out of his hand and drank it herself before he could stop her.

Again, regardless of how you feel about it, Erica didn't consider it rape.

You seem to be making the argument that the ONLY reason they had sex was because she was drugged. She was ALREADY having sex with him while stone cold sober: they were officially not a couple but still sleeping together leading up to the libidizone. There was clearly something still there between them at that point, so her having sex with him while on libidizone really was not out of character for her. I'm also willing to cut David some slack because he didn't intentionally drug her or do this in order to get her into bed. She literally took the drink out of his hand and drank it herself before he could stop her.

Again, regardless of how you feel about it, Erica didn't consider it rape.

Elizabeth was married to Ric when he drugged her and had sex with her while she was drugged. That's still rape.

Make all the excuses you want for David. You won't convince me and all that will happen is your fingers will get tired.

Oh, I thought of another cliche that bugs me: the villain being redeemed and getting away with evil deeds by virtue of having a brain tumor. AMC did this a lot over the years, and it bugged me.

Make all the excuses you want for David. You won't convince me and all that will happen is your fingers will get tired.

I don't need to convince you. I know what I saw, and I know that the "victim" didn't consider it rape, so I'm not willing to say that David should have been written off because of that. There were plenty of reasons to hate David, but that IMHO wasn't one of them.

Can you name a case like this? I hope you're not thinking of Ford and Jessica's retcon romance...

I too hate the redeemed rapist. Sometimes these show forget that their primary audience is female and that society has actually progressed. Being a rapist isn't hot, nor does it make you a woobie that just needs to be rescued by the right woman.

Well, personally I don't like to see any of those people you mentioned presented as anything but villains or seriously mentally ill. BTW blackmailing doesn't exactly fit on that list...lol.

All of this right here!

I want to state that this is just my opinion and I'm not trying make light of a serious issue.

I think there are certain rules as to what constitutes soap rape. Most of the time what is based on the romance novel concept of a woman being 'taken' and then swept up by passion, isn't soap rape. If the female character is ambivalent in any way, it is not soap rape. If the woman is a DID sufferer or believes she is someone else or has any type of amnesia, it isn't soap rape.

Soap rape occurs when the female character unequivocally says no and the audience understands that she doesn't want this. Any type of fighting and screaming, clawing and scratching means it is soap rape. If there is a hot shower afterwards with a Sarah McLachlan playing in the background and the character on the shower floor crying, it is soap rape.

I think it is a mistake to apply real world laws and definitions of rape to soaps. In the real world, Sami raped Austin and Ford raped Jessica. In the soap world, it's not that simple.

I want to state that this is just my opinion and I'm not trying make light of a serious issue.

I think there are certain rules as to what constitutes soap rape. Most of the time what is based on the romance novel concept of a woman being 'taken' and then swept up by passion, isn't soap rape. If the female character is ambivalent in any way, it is not soap rape. If the woman is a DID sufferer or believes she is someone else or has any type of amnesia, it isn't soap rape.

Soap rape occurs when the female character unequivocally says no and the audience understands that she doesn't want this. Any type of fighting and screaming, clawing and scratching means it is soap rape. If there is a hot shower afterwards with a Sarah McLachlan playing in the background and the character on the shower floor crying, it is soap rape.

I think it is a mistake to apply real world laws and definitions of rape to soaps. In the real world, Sami raped Austin and Ford raped Jessica. In the soap world, it's not that simple.

How about if a woman is passed out cold? Is it rape then, or is it still ambiguous?

In the soap world where the stories are being told from the point of view of men, it's not that simple.

ETA: I just realized the ramifications of some of the posts in response to this topic. Apparently there's no such thing as marital rape because the two parties have had sex before. There is also no such thing as date rape if there has been any prior sex between the parties.

That really shines a new light on things. I've been an off-again on-again volunteer for years at a local rape crisis center. We've often wondered where people come up with their odd ideas about rape. I think I know: AMC!

Edited May 8, 201213 yr by SweetPea36