It's totally normal to have questions and want details. But the fact that we are asking how HE could have stopped HER and not "WTF is wrong with her?" "How is this horrible person not in Jail?" "Rout that bitch out and lock her up!" Is pretty spot on that we live in a rape culture. We expect rape unless we specifically ask for it to not happen.
Just so I am clear though, he had a bag over his head and was sitting alone in a room. So dark and alone to the extent that, as a PP noted, the rapist may have been so far into perpetuating the crime that he might not even have realized what was going to happen until it was too late (if he knew at all)? But he knew that the boyfriend was standing outside the door and that may have prevented him from leaving?
I don't understand where this detail is coming from, to be honest. Is it speculation?
Post by barcelonagirl on Dec 3, 2014 13:52:01 GMT -5
I think when the line between crime and passion is Yes or No, things get hairy. I also wonder if his impaired consent if that might be attributed to mental illness. Reminds me of the silver linings play book chick.
You know, I don't think you have the right to try to imply that I am a rape apologist just because I asked questions about this specific situation. You are being really offensive right now. I said MULTIPE times that I'm not questioning the basic fact that he was raped. I was just wondering how it happened since there were some details missing from the original story.
I'M being offensive? Sure.
You said "I just think it's really weird that a bunch of people stood around knowing this was going on and did nothing."
I responded.
People stand around while women get raped all the fucking time. There was just a huge article on a gang rape at a UVA frat house in Rolling Stone. Defensive much?
I think when the line between crime and passion is Yes or No, things get hairy. I also wonder if his impaired consent if that might be attributed to mental illness. Reminds me of the silver linings play book chick.
I am, in all seriousness, completely confused about what the hell this means.
Because the obvious read of it is that straight up, "No, stop that." or "yes, please" consent is somehow a confusing or fuzzy concept. But I'm assuming that's not what you mean, because that's ridiculous.
It's totally normal to have questions and want details. But the fact that we are asking how HE could have stopped HER and not "WTF is wrong with her?" "How is this horrible person not in Jail?" "Rout that bitch out and lock her up!" Is pretty spot on that we live in a rape culture. We expect rape unless we specifically ask for it to not happen.
I think its pretty irresponsible that there were no guidelines for this exposition. In other art shows there are plenty of rules and they are explicit to protect the art. You cant touch the Mona Lisa, or take it off the wall and take a selfie with it. You also cant draw on monets "water lillies."
At a zoo you cant climb into the exhibit and ride a giraffe and there are tons of signs telling you not to do that.
So...how is performance art so different in that its somehow wrong to expect guidelines that would protect the " art." Its also not blaming the victim. Its questioning the circumstances. Shia was effectively art..and in a vulnerable position. It actually makes me mad he wasnt treated as such.
To somehow extrapolate this situation out to the rest.of the world, in which we all should be wearing please dont touch me signs is.a stretch.
This is precisely the problem with rape culture in America. It's "too hard" to prove a victim didn't actually want it. It's "fuzzy." So we just make up all these other inane reasons why a victim, typically a woman, is a lying liar.
The collaborators said they never told people they could do whatever they wanted to him, so if that's true then a large chunk of this entire discussion is moot.
What guidelines were the participants given? I didn't see anything in the article.
I'm wondering this aside from the rape allegation. Like wawa I just don't get performance art.
I honestly have no idea what the spectators were told. I haven't been able to find that anywhere.
It's totally normal to have questions and want details. But the fact that we are asking how HE could have stopped HER and not "WTF is wrong with her?" "How is this horrible person not in Jail?" "Rout that bitch out and lock her up!" Is pretty spot on that we live in a rape culture. We expect rape unless we specifically ask for it to not happen.
I think its pretty irresponsible that there were no guidelines for this exposition. In other art shows there are plenty of rules and they are explicit to protect the art. You cant touch the Mona Lisa, or take it off the wall and take a selfie with it. You also cant draw on monets "water lillies."
At a zoo you cant climb into the exhibit and ride a giraffe and there are tons of signs telling you not to do that.
So...how is performance art so different in that its somehow wrong to expect guidelines that would protect the " art." Its also not blaming the victim. Its questioning the circumstances. Shia was effectively art..and in a vulnerable position. It actually makes me mad he wasnt treated as such.
To somehow extrapolate this situation out to the rest.of the world, in which we all should be wearing please dont touch me signs is.a stretch.
Presumably, though, touching him in a normal manner was permitted here. They mentioned some people holding his hands and crying with him. So, what should the sign have said? "You can touch my hands but not my genitals"?
I think when the line between crime and passion is Yes or No, things get hairy. I also wonder if his impaired consent if that might be attributed to mental illness. Reminds me of the silver linings play book chick.
I am, in all seriousness, completely confused about what the hell this means.
Because the obvious read of it is that straight up, "No, stop that." or "yes, please" consent is somehow a confusing or fuzzy concept. But I'm assuming that's not what you mean, because that's ridiculous.
I think it's just as easy to assume that people don't want sex than to assume that they do. I don't recall giving verbal consent to sex. I also don't give consent to hugs from strangers which doesn't stop some random ass people from trying. But I step away or say no thank you. Cause people are not mind readers. I'm honestly trying with this one. Cause I know someone's ready to take away my woman card for this. And I'll damn sure be raising my kids to verbally request consent before engaging in any sexual activity. I just have to be honest that I have not to date.
It's totally normal to have questions and want details. But the fact that we are asking how HE could have stopped HER and not "WTF is wrong with her?" "How is this horrible person not in Jail?" "Rout that bitch out and lock her up!" Is pretty spot on that we live in a rape culture. We expect rape unless we specifically ask for it to not happen.
I think its pretty irresponsible that there were no guidelines for this exposition. In other art shows there are plenty of rules and they are explicit to protect the art. You cant touch the Mona Lisa, or take it off the wall and take a selfie with it. You also cant draw on monets "water lillies."
At a zoo you cant climb into the exhibit and ride a giraffe and there are tons of signs telling you not to do that.
So...how is performance art so different in that its somehow wrong to expect guidelines that would protect the " art." Its also not blaming the victim. Its questioning the circumstances. Shia was effectively art..and in a vulnerable position. It actually makes me mad he wasnt treated as such.
To somehow extrapolate this situation out to the rest.of the world, in which we all should be wearing please dont touch me signs is.a stretch.
Haven't signs been put up like that over the years because of experience though? One would assume you shouldn't draw on a piece of art, but experience told them they needed to put up a sign for it. One should know not to ride the giraffe, but there are people out there trying to climb into the enclosures. I think people assumed you didn't have to specify not to rape him. I would think the laws of society would still apply.
It's totally normal to have questions and want details. But the fact that we are asking how HE could have stopped HER and not "WTF is wrong with her?" "How is this horrible person not in Jail?" "Rout that bitch out and lock her up!" Is pretty spot on that we live in a rape culture. We expect rape unless we specifically ask for it to not happen.
I think its pretty irresponsible that there were no guidelines for this exposition. In other art shows there are plenty of rules and they are explicit to protect the art. You cant touch the Mona Lisa, or take it off the wall and take a selfie with it. You also cant draw on monets "water lillies."
At a zoo you cant climb into the exhibit and ride a giraffe and there are tons of signs telling you not to do that.
So...how is performance art so different in that its somehow wrong to expect guidelines that would protect the " art." Its also not blaming the victim. Its questioning the circumstances. Shia was effectively art..and in a vulnerable position. It actually makes me mad he wasnt treated as such.
To somehow extrapolate this situation out to the rest.of the world, in which we all should be wearing please dont touch me signs is.a stretch.
Performance art is not like fine art and it shouldn't be compared for these purposes. Rules for one piece of art shouldn't be the rules of another. It doesn't work that way. You can have hands off art pieces and you can have hands on art installation, but like I said, that doesn't mean as a viewer you have license to burn it down. A viewer of Shia's art doesn't have the right to do any depraved thing he or she feels like doing to him just because this exhibit was something hands on and there was no explicit prohibition on raping (or murdering) him.
That said, this argument has already been debunked up thread as the viewers of Shia's performance actually explicitly didn't have license to whatever the fuck they wanted to do to him.
I think its pretty irresponsible that there were no guidelines for this exposition. In other art shows there are plenty of rules and they are explicit to protect the art. You cant touch the Mona Lisa, or take it off the wall and take a selfie with it. You also cant draw on monets "water lillies."
At a zoo you cant climb into the exhibit and ride a giraffe and there are tons of signs telling you not to do that.
So...how is performance art so different in that its somehow wrong to expect guidelines that would protect the " art." Its also not blaming the victim. Its questioning the circumstances. Shia was effectively art..and in a vulnerable position. It actually makes me mad he wasnt treated as such.
To somehow extrapolate this situation out to the rest.of the world, in which we all should be wearing please dont touch me signs is.a stretch.
Haven't signs been put up like that over the years because of experience though? One would assume you shouldn't draw on a piece of art, but experience told them they needed to put up a sign for it. One should know not to ride the giraffe, but there are people out there trying to climb into the enclosures. I think people assumed you didn't have to specify not to rape him. I would think the laws of society would still apply.
Because tigers don't seem dangerous. And people are stupid.
Haven't signs been put up like that over the years because of experience though? One would assume you shouldn't draw on a piece of art, but experience told them they needed to put up a sign for it. One should know not to ride the giraffe, but there are people out there trying to climb into the enclosures. I think people assumed you didn't have to specify not to rape him. I would think the laws of society would still apply.
Because tigers don't seem dangerous. And people are stupid.
It's just a big kitty cat and I wanted to cuddle with him.
Post by foundmylazybum on Dec 3, 2014 14:14:27 GMT -5
Performance art is Very old. I'm sure there are guidelines for security and safety. Just like for other expositions. I think what some people are asking in this post are..what are they? Were they followed? And...honestly no I dont think its too much to explicitly state "violence is not permitted"
A viewer of Shia's art doesn't have the right to do any depraved thing he or she feels like doing to him just because this exhibit was something hands on and there was no explicit prohibition on raping (or murdering) him.
Exactly, and I think it's kind of ironic that a sign stating "No rape, please" would stop a rapist, when rape is all about non-consent. What is a sign going to do, when someone does something that is already illegal?
To go here, to suggest that he should have forewarned everyone that he didn't want sexual contact, and since he didn',t he consented, is so far left field of how we think about rape and how the law even thinks about rape that it is mind boggling to me we are even talking about it this way.
I have to believe that if this was a woman in this art piece and all other facts were the same, and some man sexually assaulted her, no one would be saying "but she didn't say no rapping allowed, therefore she consented."
Performance art is Very old. I'm sure there are guidelines for security and safety. Just like for other expositions. I think what some people are asking in this post are..what are they? Were they followed? And...honestly no I dont think its too much to explicitly state "violence is not permitted"
The point is, you don't have to say "no violence allowed" to know that no violence is allowed. That's not how the world works.
Performance art is Very old. I'm sure there are guidelines for security and safety. Just like for other expositions. I think what some people are asking in this post are..what are they? Were they followed? And...honestly no I dont think its too much to explicitly state "violence is not permitted"
I don't know, this seems overboard to me. There are plenty of customs and societal norms that are very old and there are some explicit guidelines for security and safety and some which are not explicit but are damn well common sense and rely on human decency.
I think people are bringing up the lack of a "no raping allowed" sign as a way to prove his consent to sexual activity. Which is bizarre, disgusting, and ludicrous.
I think people are bringing up the lack of a "no raping allowed" sign as a way to prove his consent to sexual activity. Which is bizarre, disgusting, and ludicrous.
I think its bizarre that you think we live in a world in which it should be assumed we all have,know, and respect the same morals and values. And as such they don't need to be stated. Especially in what is clearly a special circumstance such as an exposition. But that doesn't equal consent. So please stop saying that. He clearly. Clearly did not.
I think people are bringing up the lack of a "no raping allowed" sign as a way to prove his consent to sexual activity. Which is bizarre, disgusting, and ludicrous.
I think its bizarre that you think we live in a world in which it should be assumed we all have,know, and respect the same morals and values. And as such they don't need to be stated. Especially in what is clearly a special circumstance such as an exposition. But that doesn't equal consent. So please stop saying that. He clearly. Clearly did not.
I'll get flamed, but I'll admit, assuming there is no mental illness on his part, I am uncomfortable putting the experiences of women, men and children who were raped under circumstances of coercian, manipulation, violence, drugs, mental impairment, subjugation, abuse, etc. in the same category with someone who didn't want to break from his performance art piece, again assuming that is the reason. I'm sorry that this happened to him and I know only "yes means yes", I really do. But this one is difficult for me to wrap my head around.
I'll get flamed, but I'll admit, assuming there is no mental illness on his part, I am uncomfortable putting the experiences of women, men and children who were raped under circumstances of coercian, manipulation, violence, drugs, mental impairment, subjugation, abuse, etc. in the same category with someone who didn't want to break from his performance art piece, again assuming that is the reason. I'm sorry that this happened to him and I know only "yes means yes", I really do. But this one is difficult for me to wrap my head around.
If putting assorted rapes on a scale of horrible to horriblest is an activity we need to engage in for some reason - well then, sure, this one goes somewhere well above a child being abused by a loved one for example.
But I'm not really sure what purpose that exercise serves.
I'll get flamed, but I'll admit, assuming there is no mental illness on his part, I am uncomfortable putting the experiences of women, men and children who were raped under circumstances of coercian, manipulation, violence, drugs, mental impairment, subjugation, abuse, etc. in the same category with someone who didn't want to break from his performance art piece, again assuming that is the reason. I'm sorry that this happened to him and I know only "yes means yes", I really do. But this one is difficult for me to wrap my head around.
If putting assorted rapes on a scale of horrible to horriblest is an activity we need to engage in for some reason - well then, sure, this one goes somewhere well above a child being abused by a loved one for example.
But I'm not really sure what purpose that exercise serves.
None, I guess. You're right. I don't like playing pity Olympics and yet I cock my head at this one. I don't know what that means. I would hope it doesn't mean I'm a slut shamer or something. But if I am, I should take a closer look at that.
I'll get flamed, but I'll admit, assuming there is no mental illness on his part, I am uncomfortable putting the experiences of women, men and children who were raped under circumstances of coercian, manipulation, violence, drugs, mental impairment, subjugation, abuse, etc. in the same category with someone who didn't want to break from his performance art piece, again assuming that is the reason. I'm sorry that this happened to him and I know only "yes means yes", I really do. But this one is difficult for me to wrap my head around.
I haven't read the whole thread, but this is where I am. Also, just from a legal standpoint, if you say, "I'm going to sit in a room and people can come in one at a time and do whatever they want to do to me," is it rape if someone then has sex with you? Honest question! If someone set up a Craigslist add with that description, it would be chalked up to two fucked up people having really weird sex. Does changing the setting to an art gallery legally change things? I'm honestly asking from a strictly legal standpoint.
And I'm kind of shocked that a celebrity would do that. He's lucky he's not famous enough to have crazy stalkers with dreams of killing themselves along with him. And can you imagine if someone like Channing Tatum did this? Said, "I'm going to sit in a room and you can come in one at a time and do whatever you want to me. I won't move or speak." He would be at the very least molested by hundreds of women.
I'll get flamed, but I'll admit, assuming there is no mental illness on his part, I am uncomfortable putting the experiences of women, men and children who were raped under circumstances of coercian, manipulation, violence, drugs, mental impairment, subjugation, abuse, etc. in the same category with someone who didn't want to break from his performance art piece, again assuming that is the reason. I'm sorry that this happened to him and I know only "yes means yes", I really do. But this one is difficult for me to wrap my head around.
I haven't read the whole thread, but this is where I am. Also, just from a legal standpoint, if you say, "I'm going to sit in a room and people can come in one at a time and do whatever they want to do to me," is it rape if someone then has sex with you? Honest question! If someone set up a Craigslist add with that description, it would be chalked up to two fucked up people having really weird sex. Does changing the setting to an art gallery legally change things? I'm honestly asking from a strictly legal standpoint.
And I'm kind of shocked that a celebrity would do that. He's lucky he's not famous enough to have crazy stalkers with dreams of killing themselves along with him. And can you imagine if someone like Channing Tatum did this? Said, "I'm going to sit in a room and you can come in one at a time and do whatever you want to me. I won't move or speak." He would be at the very least molested by hundreds of women.