25thID

I was hoping he'd grow on me, but I find him more annoying as time goes on. At first, I didn't like Amaro, but, he grew on me until the writers ruined him, and turned I'm into a warmed over Stabler. Don't get me wrong, I really like Stabler, but, the character got old towards the end. He seems to be trying way, way too hard to be something he's not....I'm not sure what it is, and I don't think the writers do, either. Overall, I'm not impressed with the character, and there seems to be very little growth....with the exception of what was on his lip early on. I'm not sure what it is, but he annoys me, and seems to add very little to the crew, and hasn't really developed that much.

Ok, it's been awhile since I've posted, but I did have an idea a few weeks ago while trying to sleep. So, men in a particular apartment complex are raped over the course of several years; some report it, some don't, but, since there is a lack of physical evidence (perp made the victims shower/clean up) and no forced entry, the case(s) grow cold. Several years later, a woman sues a man for (back) child support, and the man refuses to pay, since he claims he never had sex with the woman, and there's no way the child can be his. The court orders a dna test, which proves paternity of the child, but the man still denies any previous relationship with the mother of said child. He talks to the SVU ADA to try to get suggestions as to what to do, and is berated by St. Benson for being scum because he won't pay child support. He still affirms his position of not knowing the woman, let alone fathering her child. St. Benson then has him take a lie detector test, which shows (at least creates some believability) St. Benson that he could at least possibly be telling the truth. They dig through his background, i.e. where he's lived, worked, traveled, went to school, etc., and they discover that he lived in the same apartment complex where there are years old cases of female on male rape that are unsolved. The man, at first, is unwilling to admit he was assaulted, and, of course, St. Benson doesn't believe the story, because, you know, he's a man, and there's no way a woman would/could do such a thing; also, there's "no way woman can over power a man," even though she experienced a similar case years before. The man undergoes hypnosis (with much debate about its' accuracy/reliability) and he recovers a repressed memory. He was asleep, and the landlords' daughter/wife/female relative entered the apartment (with a key- no forced entry) and would tie up/subdue the man, and rape him. She then would clean him/the apartment up, and leave. No one suspected her, since her hair/finger prints/ etc would be all over the complex due to her living/working there. It ends up she had done this numerous times to numerous men, but would space it out to avoid suspicion. She did it at first for the thrill/because she was attracted to certain tenants, and only did it because she felt like they wouldn't otherwise pay her any attention. Eventually, she would attack certain men because she wanted to have children, and, again, felt like "she didn't have a chance otherwise" to have children/be with those tenants. Over the years, she had multiple children, but struggled to provide for them financially, so she started to sue the fathers for child support. The episode could end on a cliff hangar of a verdict- yeah the kids deserve the financial support, but, the mother did break the law. This splits the squad- some say she shouldn't get it, others say she should, and others aren't sure. But, for the love of God, leave it open ended. It could be a dialogue starter and thought provoking; I'm not saying it's a genius episode, but, I am so sick of being brow beat into what to think, and that St. Benson has all the answers. Maybe even have her unsure- she started out not buying it, but the ends up unsure. P.S. Maybe have her be a pharmacist, chemist, or something in the medical field; she'd know what chemicals/medications would subdue a person, but still be able to "function" (for a lack of a better term). Perhaps she stayed in the apartments with her male relative (the landlord) while she was studying/starting out in her career. After she had finished her schooling, she stayed there for x amount of time to get established before moving out; which would explain why the attacks stopped and the trail went cold- also so she could "hide" the multiple children from family.

This episode pissed me off. Granted, it was more of the same old, same old, with St. Benson charging in without back up, "knowing what's best" without all the facts, over acting, etc. What got me the most, was making Sheila crazy, granted I had feeling the writers were going to do that from the beginning, it still was difficult to watch, especially with St. Benson treating Noah as an object, rather than person (HE'S MINE! LEGALLY! YOU DON'T COUNT, EVEN AS HIS BLOOD RELATIVE!). As a side note, I couldn't find it in here to quote, but someone made the point that Mariska is a poor actress, and how the old cast and writing kind of covered it up, I agree. I didn't really think about it before-it just seemed like something was off before-but it does seem like the writers knew how to tailor a script around her to play to others strengths to kind of hide her weaknesses. Now, with her being front and center (in multiple ways), there seems to be nowhere to hide, so to speak. Anyways, I think this episode is a throw away, and almost makes the Sheila character pointless, especially since we'll probably never see her again. I guess what really irks me the most, is that the writers could've made the Sheila character a positive one- a blood relative who cares about Noah, and can tell him about his mom/family, history (medical and otherwise), and just have another woman/parent in his life. Instead, the writers took the lazy/easy way out, and made St. Benson the only person who cares about Noah, and the only person who knows what's best for him, whether he likes it or not! P.S. I was really hoping no one would find Sheila and Noah. I was hoping she would've been a little more level headed; she'd raise him, he'd grow up to be well adjusted and functional, and that he'd forget about his time with St. Benson. It seems like St. Benson is setting him up for failure, she treats him like he's a fragile object that constantly needs to be protected, not raised. Anyway, enough with the Noah stuff, they should changed the name to "Special Noah Unit."

My main concern is that the laptop committed its especially heinous crime(s) while in international waters......what then, QueenMab? What then? Who will speak for the victim, and force her to testify, and how?

Even if it's not in in their jurisdiction.....and happened 20 years ago....and only if it's a male laptop. Hey, she means business!

I've been hearing something about that- but just blurbs here and there. That would be an interesting episode!

I agree about it being horrific for the victim, and understand that that episode was based on the Brock Turner case. I was not trying to upset anyone or side with the defendant or defend him by any means. Again, I wasn't trying to side with the defendant and I wasn't trying to excuse his behavior or explain it away at all. I understand that the victim has gone through all kinds of hell, and has to live with it everyday.

I was just thinking about this last night while trying to sleep- the episode this past season got me thinking about it. I think it was "Rape Interrupted" where the victim and perp were both intoxicated, and the perps dad was trying to get him off. It seemed like this was going to (or could be) a gray case, since both parties couldn't consent/weren't capable of consenting. The writers wussed out, and had the perp admit that he knew the victim was passed out. I would have liked to have seen the case be gray- since both parties were intoxicated (therefore neither could really be held TOO accountable...and no, I'm not trying to defend the perp), it would have been interesting to see how it played out. Since the victim had passed out, yeah, it was way wrong to continue "the deed," how accountable is the perp? Again, I'm not trying to defend him, but, he was also intoxicated, and was not of sound mind. It kind of pissed me off that he admitted it and seemed to be sober enough to know better (again, I'm not defending him by any means). It would have been an interesting defense and issue- can the perp be held accountable (and to what degree) if he/she was drunk, but not too drunk to perform; are they still totally to be held liable? Yeah, they committed a crime, but, if a drunk person can't consent to having sex, shouldn't it work both ways? I guess what I'm getting at is: we can have St. Benson be her usual preachy pious self with the whole "All men are rapists, all women are victims, all sex is rape" and maybe have someone perhaps bring up the point that both parties were unable to consent:; I think that it's a bit different than a sober person seeing a passed out drunk person then raping them. Also, I think that it could put a damper on people who may be in a relationship (or even going to a bar/club to look for a drunken one night stand) where both people might want to have drinks and have consensual sex. I guess I'm just kind of wondering: if both parties are drunk, is it still rape? P.S. I guess intent has a lot to do with it, as in: purposely getting someone drunk to take advantage of them, or keeping track of a drunk person with the sole intention of having an "easy mark/sure thing." But, if both parties are drinking together and are both into each other, where does consent stop? I just think it would be an interesting idea to have it a gray area, because I think that's a little more "real life." I'd like to see it come down to how the jury finds it, instead of every case being a slam dunk for the SVU crew- it'd be more realistic, and make the audience think and debate.

He is woefully underused, as many people have mentioned. In earlier episodes, he went undercover, and was used as someone who had connections and insight to certain issues. Now, he's kind of there just to nod his head. And, I agree with the standing up to St Benson; it doesn't have to be some big dramatic production, but to show that she may mean well, but doesn't know it all.

The episode where an accountant serial killer was just on. It had a Detective John Hawkins as a supplemental detective who locked up the wrong person for the murders....anyways, my point to this, is that when the squad finally got the right guy, Cabot was in the squad room. The squad was trying to hold the perp, and she said there wasn't enough evidence, and what they had was circumstantial, so they couldn't hold him, and IF they tried to convict him at trial, they'd lose, big time. I don't see that happening now with Barba. As much as I like the character, Barba seems to be a lapdog for St Benson, and does everything she says, without question. I kind of don't get that (but I kind of do, since St Benson can do no wrong, and it isn't her that will be laughed out of court), that he goes ahead with little to no hesitation or consideration, and then HE'S the one who has to deal with the fallout/depreciation of character/reputation. I liked that Cabot (and others) would at least sometimes stand up to the squad and say: "Give me more to work with, so we can nail this guy" instead of: "Okay! I'll gladly take on this case that shouldn't even be considered! I hate my reputation and job!"

I agree, Rollins started out at least a little bit likeable, and the character had potential. Like you said, the (over) focus on St Benson has really been a detriment to the show and everyone else on it. I do like that there isn't too much focus on Rollins' baby (a LITTLE would be ok...again, moderation is key....take a hint, Noah. You're a camera hog like your adoptive mother!), and Finn seems to have checked out in a sense. I'm not sure if that's a choice that he made, or the writers/producers made, but, like you said, everyone is there to support St Benson, our fearless leader. It's her world, we're just living in it.

That seems to be a common trait in this show- they develop a character, usually pretty well, then, nothing. Either the character leaves the series, they turn into a rage monster, a glory hog, or they get to a point and....nothing. Look at Rollins- she was supposed to be a hot shot detective, and they did some development (poorly, with her family story line being the only development), then, nothing. She kind of has just been there, and has been the whipping boy (girl?) for St Benson for a good while. Now, she seems to be getting a little more, but still, it seems like they have forgotten about her. And with choir boy Carisi (hey! his new moniker!), he is still somewhat stuck where he was when he first got on the show, with minimal development. Anyways, it seems like the writers get lazy, crazy, stupid, forceful, or scared when it comes to development of characters- they seem to start strong, or with a somewhat good and clear path, then, poof! Nothing happens, the character twist is just horrible and seems to contradict earlier dogma, or they become a caricature of their beliefs/views and/or what they could naturally become.

I would like Barba to earn his money haha. It seems that every case this season was extremely weak, but he easily pulled it off. There's almost no resistance for him, to the point where it's boring. Bring in a defense attorney who is sleazy and has connections, and finds all kinds of dirt on the victim/witness. That would make St Benson really make those weird faces! It seems like Barba is almost never in any episodes, and, when he is, it seems like he doesn't have to try to win the case- he's not researching things, or trying to redefine/refit something, or having to really go after the defendant; it's all too predictable and boring. Bring on him having to really stretch to get the victory. Make him live up to the hype they gave him early on. This is not a slam on the actor, or even the Barba character, it's solely on the writers.

I don't mind a show being a little biased/slanted/whatever...even if I don't agree with that particular stance. I understand it's "just" a tv show. That being said, I totally agree. This show has gotten more and more one sided, and into a niche; and everyone who disagrees is a rapist, rape apologist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, etc. etc. Like I said, have your slant, that's fine, you'll be fine in my book, it's just when you're hit over the head repeatedly that "this is the way to be, think, and do! If not, you're garbage and dumb!" Anyone who has a differing view seems (according to the show) to be uneducated and a gross caricature, and having someone in charge who is so close minded and "my way is the ONLY way!" is off putting. I understand the show has been on for awhile, and, times change. This show can change with the times, and even bring about change, but the whole badgering victims and witnesses to testify(one example) is no way to do it. With Dodds and Barba SOMETIMES challenging St Benson, they almost immediately back off, and have the case go astray, almost like the writers are retaliating against those two for daring to challenge our Lord and Savior, St Benson. Anyways, I think that there are plenty of real world cases that they can draw from (without ripping it from the headlines), and be fresh. Maybe even revisit an old case that is similar to a new case- and maybe the squad finds out that the perp in the old case was innocent (but they were executed), and new technology/methods proved their innocence, and they now have to deal with that fallout; or, maybe, the perp in the original case was innocent, and was an actual pillar of the community, until they were locked away. Say they got paroled, and now are actual criminals because they had to adapt to prison life to survive, so they're hard and have a score to settle, or they just turned into a criminal after they got arrested.

That's kind of my hang up; for being a progressive/empowering type of show/vibe, SVU has gone backwards in a lot of their views. They're reaching and catering to a very specific niche "market" (again, for lack of better terms...maybe demographic?) with the pretty, young, white women. Again, I'm not saying things/assault don't happen to that particular group, but.....enough! And. like you said, why can't anyone stand up to St Benson? AND, why can't anyone stand up to her, or at least have a differing view/opinion, and be RIGHT, or at least have it be a valid view? If you go against the all knowing, all seeing St Benson, you're wrong! It's gotten and is getting old, fast. I'm no expert when it comes to porn, but, like the episode where porn was being debated, it has come a long way, especially with in the last 5-15ish years- there are women run business, the female stars are in control, so to speak, to have a scene cut when/if they're uncomfortable or whatever. There's a decent article on Thoughcatalg.com about the very thing you're talking about, with the porn industry coming along. Anyways, I have enjoyed the show, but, it needs some work; I don't think they do, but I think it'd really be helpful for the writers to read some of our message boards, it may give them some ideas, insights, gripes, praises, etc. Sorry for the shameless plug! haha P.S. YES! I remember when there were kidnapping cases, child abuse, so on and so forth....I mean, it is "SPECIAL VICTIMS," isn't it? Give us some diversity, and tone down St Benson- it was nice to see her grow and learn...and that doesn't stop no matter how long you've been doing your job.