[EatingPie]

Lots of interesting respones. I am sort of addressing them "in general."

I am fine accepting the notion of "personal responsibility," though as Elfwreck argues, there are times when we take that too far. How responsible are we for someone committing a crime against our person? I am in agreement that in the case of "nine out of ten times" and the other examples he cites, it's beyond any reasonable definition of "personal responsibilty."

Originally Posted by GlennD

I think what you're running into is a fairly sizable group of people who have read most of what Heinlein published as well as plenty of analysis of what he published. A single quote from a character in one of his books that contradicts many of the statements that other characters in his work say (and do) shouldn't be considered representative of his beliefs.

In terms of the Heinlein's rape quote, I still argue that it is something Heinlein is selling as the truth, and not just something we should justify by saying it's really all about "personal responsibility." And I do so specifically with context in mind! In that regard, I would like to cite an external source.

This comes from a comparison between Stranger in a Strange Land and Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale.

Warning: PDF Link
<http://www.uscupstate.edu/uploadedFiles/academics/arts_sciences/Language_and_Literature/Livesay%20English%20436%202009.pdf>

Originally Posted by Lori C. Livesay, New Sexual Ethics, Same Old Gender Constructs

In Handmaid, the character Janine is forced to tell her story of being gang raped by a group of boys when she was fourteen, and even worse, is forced to say it was her own fault, she led them on, she deserved it. In Stranger, there is a scene where Jill tells Mike that "Nine times out of ten, if a girl gets raped, it's partly her fault" (Heinlein 287). Despite having contradictory attitudes towards sexuality, both societies view rape as a failure on the part of the victim, the woman.

Very relevant. In two cases, society places the victim at fault. This transcends mere "personal responsibility" to actual fault. And, as I have stated previously, similar to Elfwreck, in this case, I cannot resolve the notion of a woman's personal responsiibilty when the crime is perpetrated against her. Especially when Heinlein uses the term "fault" not "responsibility."

And even if the woman were dressed sexy, being a tease, kissing a guy seductively, when she says no, that's a line that should not be crossed. She mave have helped create sexual arousal. But it is the man's own personal responsibility to control his arousal and use it appropriately. The man is responsible for his response, not the woman.

On the the next paragraph in the essay...

Both novels indicate that the future clearly still objectifies women, as is evidenced by the immediate follow-up to this exchange in which Jill poses in "naughty" positions for Mike just because he expresses a casual interest in it. There are several sections of the book that extol the pleasures of women's naked or barely dressed bodies, and even the women get a chance to see themselves as men do, and they enjoy giving men this pleasure. We are led to believe they enjoy being seen as nothing but a body, a source of sexual stimulation.

In SiaSL, I never get the impression that this "objectifying" women is wrong. Women are hot, sexy babes that are to be enjoyed for that reason. Now, is it that reason alone? Maybe, maybe not. However, in this context we see women at least partly blamed for their own rapes. So where does the personal responsibility play a role here? I just don't see how it works. Women are hot, sexy objects, and that's great! And when a man wants them for that reason, and that reason alone, when it's against the woman's wishes, we still ascribe at least some blame to her... because she is a hot, sexy object.

Charleski says something similar, but in fewer words...

Originally Posted by charleski

It's the sort of adolescent wish-fulfilment I'd expect from a 14year-old boy with learning disabilities.

(Or Michael Bay. Oh wait, you just said that! )

In Handmaid's Tale we have a very similar societal notion of women bearing blame for rape. Indeed, women are raped constantly throughout the book and even actively blamed via religious zealotry and fervor. But at no time does Atwood ever suggest that this is okay. It's always clear that this is a horrible, evil act. The woman is blamed by the characters, but Atwood's belief is quite obviously the opposite.

In comparison, Heinlein never conveys that rape is a horrible, evil act. Indeed, 90% of the time, it's partly the woman's fault! Okay, it's horrible and evil that one time... but not all those others. And there is no sense that all those others are even that bad. Pile on top that, then, we have the woman saying these things pose seductively for Mike. She is nothing more than a sex object at this point... and if Mike were to take her against her will, how could we conclude that Mike was in the wrong? And throughout the book could we ever conclude that Mike would have been wrong? Or that rape is as Atwood would say, a terrible act perpetrated against women?

So, based on context, I make two conclusions. The first is that Atwood herself does not believe rape is a woman's fault, not even in any of the cases outlined in her own book. The second is that Heinlein does believe rape is a woman's fault -- not just her "personal responsibilty" but actual fault -- and because he conveys such an attitude as though it's wise, I will never recommend a book of his. Indeed, I would post his name at the top of a thread just like this one!

Ironically, I actually despised Handmaid's Tale because it was so heavy handed. Though this the only book of Atwood's I've ever read, I would also not recommend her on the "NEVER read" list.

-Pie