Jump to content

Do you think soaps have used rape as a story too often?


Recommended Posts

It seems like all the soaps, including the ones now off the air, have had multiple characters who were rape victims. GH even has a male rape victim(Michael). There was also an arguably worst trend of redeeming rapists and making them leading men.

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

1978 and 1979 seemed to be big years for rape storylines on soaps. All the shows featured characters that were raped or attempted to be raped. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

DAYS seemed to rape almost all of their leading ladies

 

It's way too overdone. DAYS even had a hospital rapist who randomly raped women and framed Mike for them. Maggie was one of the victims, literally a few months after she had just returned to the canvas.

 

Marlena was raped by both Don and Kellam within a short time frame.

 

They seemed to enjoy tormenting a young Hope and having scary men (including a rough around the edges Patch) threaten her with rape.

 

DAYS had a lot of misogyny that seemed to have been overlooked

Edited by KMan101
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I have to give kudos to GH for was not having a rape on their show for many years after Luke raped Laura (1979).  The next rape was many years later when Elizabeth got raped (1998).  And then they finally addressed Luke raping Laura. 

 

But since Elizabeth's rape, the show has gone downhill and like everything else, rape is just another ho-hum vehicle to give drama to someone for a day or two.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KMan101 said:
  • DAYS seemed to rape almost all of their leading ladies

 

It's way too overdone. DAYS even had a hospital rapist who randomly raped women and framed Mike for them. Maggie was one of the victims, literally a few months after she had just returned to the canvas.

 

Marlena was raped by both Don and Kellam within a short time frame.

 

They seemed to enjoy tormenting a young Hope and having scary men (including a rough around the edges Patch) threaten her with rape.

 

DAYS had a lot of misogyny that seemed to have been overlooked

 

Days does seem to rape all of it's leading ladies.  Just off the top of my head

Maggie

Marlena

Liz

Kayla

Jennifer

Sami

Stephanie

Jan

Ciara

Kim, Adrienne, and Billie were sexually abused as children.

That's a good chunk of leading ladies throughout the years.  Much more than GH.

 

BTW, Marlena was only raped by Kellam.  Don never raped her unless I am completely forgetting something.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, carolineg said:

 

Days does seem to rape all of it's leading ladies.  Just off the top of my head

Maggie

Marlena

Liz

Kayla

Jennifer

Sami

Stephanie

Jan

Ciara

Kim, Adrienne, and Billie were sexually abused as children.

That's a good chunk of leading ladies throughout the years.  Much more than GH.

 

BTW, Marlena was only raped by Kellam.  Don never raped her unless I am completely forgetting something.

 

 

Don forced himself on her. It was marital rape. But it was still a rape. I don't know how exactly they played it off, to be fair. Recappers seem to insist it was rape. They had several leading men either force themselves onto their wives (and it was probably played as the men were "right") or threaten to. It's kind of disturbing, honestly. (I've been reading a lot of DAYS recaps lately and immersing myself into the 80s playlists on youtube lol so it's all fresh in my head)

 

Glad you made a list and also glad you pointed out the women who were sexually abused as children, too. 

 

Soaps used to be so progressive without it feeling forced. I mean, they'd never tackle a thing like Uncle Eric molesting Kimberly as a child and what it did to her and how she hated men and used hooking as a way to control them. Not saying it was actually *that* deep, but still ... 

Edited by KMan101
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, OldGHFan said:

One thing I have to give kudos to GH for was not having a rape on their show for many years after Luke raped Laura (1979).  The next rape was many years later when Elizabeth got raped (1998).  And then they finally addressed Luke raping Laura. 

 

But since Elizabeth's rape, the show has gone downhill and like everything else, rape is just another ho-hum vehicle to give drama to someone for a day or two.

 

I actually blame GH for setting off the second wave of rape storylines and upping the ante:  making it seem as if a character could actually become some type of romantic hero/leading man.  Before this, most rapists were either sent out of town or became the town pariah but Luke changed the dynamic and made showrunners believe that you could somehow have a viable rapist character who is a leading man. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

I actually blame GH for setting off the second wave of rape storylines and upping the ante:  making it seem as if a character could actually become some type of romantic hero/leading man.  Before this, most rapists were either sent out of town or became the town pariah but Luke changed the dynamic and made showrunners believe that you could somehow have a viable rapist character who is a leading man. 

 

THIS

 

You can't romanticize a rapist (or a serial killer). But they did. And they still do now. It's so dangerous. Yet stans just eat it up. I know it's not "real life" but most wouldn't be cheering on Ted Bundy "reforming" himself and falling in love with the hot brunette he rescues from a motorcycle accident ... "but he had a BRAIN TUMOR!!!!" ... no

Edited by KMan101
Link to post
Share on other sites

Y&R had both sisters Chris Brooks and Peggy Brooks raped in 1973 and 1976. Nikki was almost raped by her father in 1979 and she killed him. So that is 3 rape/attempted rapes in 6 year period. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the statistic from the National Sexual Violence Resource Center that 1 in 5 women will experience a sexual assault,  I  think the proportion of female characters per show that have been victimized seems realistic; unfortunately. 

 

However, I agree that the lengths that certain writers will go to explain or justify sexual violence in order to keep a male character have been extreme and distasteful.  Thus, the message that I don't approve of is that a female soap character is much more likely to marry her attacker than participate in his prosecution. 

Edited by j swift
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, carolineg said:

 

Days does seem to rape all of it's leading ladies.  Just off the top of my head

Maggie

Marlena

Liz

Kayla

Jennifer

Sami

Stephanie

Jan

Ciara

Kim, Adrienne, and Billie were sexually abused as children.

That's a good chunk of leading ladies throughout the years.  Much more than GH.

 

Don't forget Laura, who was controversially raped by ex-fiance Bill while married to his brother Mickey.

I think Julie has been raped too.

And you could argue that Hope was raped as well when she had sex with Stefano and John while brainwashed into thinking she was Princess Gina.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JellicleCat said:

 

Don't forget Laura, who was controversially raped by ex-fiance Bill while married to his brother Mickey.

I think Julie has been raped too.

And you could argue that Hope was raped as well when she had sex with Stefano and John while brainwashed into thinking she was Princess Gina.

 

Yup  Forgot Laura.

I couldn't find any evidence Julie was raped, but Susan Martin said she was until it was revealed she just had sex with a random stranger (her husbands brother lol) in the park.

I would agree Hope was raped by Stefano who knew she was not in her right mind.  By John?  Neither were in there right mind so both were kind of raped.

I feel like all days heroines seem to be constantly menaced by men especially Marlena and Hope in the 90's. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cricket Christine Blair aka Bug has been raped twice on Y&R, not to mention being stalked and harassed on numerous occasions. I guess Bill Bell wanted the audience to know his daughter Lauralee was all that and a bag of chips with all those assaults. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Soap Opera Network Community? Tell a friend!
  • Posts

    • I agree with y'all, and I guess that's why I'm easier on soaps and other shows if they don't necessarily get it right. I'm not easy on them enough to still watch or support something I don't like, but I do think that "trying" is worth something. After being excited for a short while, I ended up absolutely HATING Luke/Noah on ATWT and thought they were embarrassing. But other gay men, especially the older ones who'd been watching the show for years and years, loved them. So while they just made me roll my eyes, I understood that they meant more to others. Still wanted that relationship blown to smithereens for something more fun, but y'know. GLEE. I hated it. But what it did for many gay youth can't be denied. I know that someone will reply that there were other majorly problematic things with the show, but my point is that it served tons of gay kids who otherwise would not have gotten that confidence boost or feeling of community.
    • Entering April and...   ...GOOOD this show reeks of propping. I cannot with the loops the writers are writing in to keep Peter around, Why is Dr. O who has went toe to toe in hand combat with Anna...IN A MASK TO BOOT or Carly who has pulled every trick in the book or even Maxie who has fake a pregancy and used to be the crafty schemer herself so scared of this nothing burger of weaksauce son of a GH villain I like? Uh...NO!!!   Yeah, that scene of Cameron picking on Jake was a bad one. WL has done better. That said, I do like there is family conflict in Liz's family. Those boys have gotten along for too long.   So is the next event we are building up to is the opening of Curtis's club? There is enough story building going on at least to have things happen.   I am just sadden that a month ago, there was momentum going on and climaxes and it fell flat in two weeks.     
    • I am shocked at you.  LVP is cohosting that new dog show with Rebel Wilson, has VPD still in the works, and at least has one more project in the works I believe if memory serves. And VPR is still in the air...especially now that Kandi is about to start filming that OLG spinoff show. It's why I had to post that tweet. No matter how things go, LVP STAYS hustling. Kyle could NEVER.    And Andy Cokehead's ratings are not much better at times so Twitter can stay pressed. Please register in order to view this content 
    • I suppose the premise of “LGBTQ” as this hodgepodge community is what I’m questioning. That one letter of the acronym is interchangeable with the other. I understand it from a political coalition standpoint—strength in numbers—and there’s certainly been overlap in term of cultural spaces, but for the most part, the only thing these letters have in common is that they transgress commonly accepted ideas of gender roles and identities. EDIT: I know they aren’t discrete, mutually exclusive groups. Trans people can be gay, lesbian, bi, etc. as well.   But in general I agree. Soaps are broadcast TV vehicles and have to be as broadly appealing and narratively nimble as possible. It’s why streaming services (or smaller cable networks) that can nurture niche-oriented content are so groundbreaking. A gay-male soap on Netflix or Hulu wouldn’t have to cater to a mass audience and could take more risks.
    • Well on the other hand, if the logic is the community is very broad and diverse so you can't represent it in its diversity, the notion that all that is needed is that there would be *some* representation takes precedence hence the logic here. We also have, frustrated as we may be, to understand the tough spot they are in. If they have budget for thirty contract players and the number of pairings LGBTQ character can have is necessarily limited, LGBT character have a lower return-on-investment in terms of story for a producer. So expecting every strand of LGBT being represented is setting the bar unrealistically high.
  • Recent Status Updates

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy