Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
ElectricBoogaloo

S04.E07: Home

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, The Mighty Peanut said:

The showrunners have said repeatedly that Nichole belongs to Nick, and so has Margaret Atwood. There have been comments on Nichole not taking after Fred. Nichole being born of love and not rape has been a very big point for all involved. I suppose they could always go back on that but I doubt they will. 

IIRC, at June/Serena/Fred's last Ceremony, Fred couldn't achieve/maintain an erection long enough to complete the act, which is when Serena pimped June out to Nick.  Am I remembering that wrong or am I possibly confabulating that scene with one in the movie?  Anyhow, if what I remember is correct, not only is Nick definitely the father, Fred knows that he isn't. 

I think June definitely assaulted Luke.  It was clearly (to me) non-consensual sex, and if the roles were reversed, in today's world it would be considered marital rape.   The argument that Luke could have stopped it if he wanted to is eerily similar to the "she didn't fight back hard enough" argument of the past. 

The only reason I mentioned the house was that we never saw any scene where Luke (and presumably Moira) moved into it.  When we first see them in Canada, they are living as displaced persons apparently on the dole (not clear if it's Canada's dime or the U.S.'s) and residing in public housing.  Neither of them has a job at this point, everybody is consumed with finding out the fate of friends and relatives.  I don't know that we ever see Luke working other than helping new refugees assimilate and while Moira's current job (that I think she's been fired from) appears more official, they both clearly have plenty of time to drop everything and go to rallies/protests of prominent government leaders.  I know we've only gotten snippets of refugee life in Canada, but after 7 years there's an expectation that they would have "made a life for themselves" in Canada.  If part of that was acquiring a house (whether purchased, rented, or provided for security reasons), that seems a big deal to me, and I would have liked to have been shown how that happened. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

In my experience, sex can be incredibly confusing and nuanced. I myself have been in a lot of “gray area” situations, and I’ve also been a rape crisis counselor. For myself, there have been times when I wasn’t enthusiastic about having sex, but just agreed because I knew the other person really wanted it. I don’t consider those rapes, and I wasn’t traumatized . I obviously don’t know how Luke felt, but I know how complex the whole situation can be.

 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Cinnabon said:

For myself, there have been times when I wasn’t enthusiastic about having sex, but just agreed because I knew the other person really wanted it. I don’t consider those rapes, and I wasn’t traumatized . I obviously don’t know how Luke felt, but I know how complex the whole situation can be.

This. Consent is complicated. This seemed to me to be exactly what you described - he wasn't enthusiastic, and was a little surprised but went along because the other person wanted it... so is he being raped if he thought "well, she wants it and I don't mind"?

I'm curious if we're giving this more thought than the writers ever did but its a good discussion.

  • Like 7
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Umbelina said:

As I said, we just disagree.

Let's all forget the fact that Luke, in one move, without any real effort, could have flipped her over, or tossed her off and said, "NO.  You are not ready June."

Using the word rape bothers me greatly.  Because if it was Luke, there is no chance in hell June could have stopped him, and that is true with most rapes.  Women are overpowered.

I will never believe Luke was overpowered, or couldn't have stopped it, and been loving with her after.

Yes. There's a false equivalency being drawn regarding women who are victim shamed for not fighting hard enough and Luke going "hey wait hold on" for a couple of seconds before fully accepting the sex and being a willing participant. Also I think June needs to be given a little bit of credit for having a skewed view of expressing sexuality at this particular moment in time. It does not make her on the same level as the commanders. 

It was weird sex. Uncomfortable. June was processing stuff using Luke's penis and not giving enough thought to the person attached to it. But that was no rape. I think when Luke, June, the reviews, and the showrunners are all saying it wasn't rape, it is safe to say it wasn't rape.  I'm going to shut up now since there's not going to be an agreement reached. 

  • Like 7
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Bannon said:

Heck, maybe when the coup took place, the captains and crews of some US Navy ICBM carrying subs relocated to Hawaii

I wanted to mention that this is close to the actual plot of a show (whose name I can't remember) that ran for half a season a few years ago.  It was on Thursday nights on one of the big 3 broadcast channels.  Anyone remember it? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Shermie said:

That's ridiculous. The sun shines in Canada just as much as it does in the US. Weather patterns don't stop at the border. 

 

While i would agree that cities like Toronto and Boston probably have a similar amount of sunny days and cloud cover,  plenty of places in the USA get more sun than canada, like Orlando where I live, or Arizona, NM, Nv ,CA and much of the south. Orlando has a Humid subtropical climate compared to canada’s humid continental climate. We, and much of the south do get more sun than most of Canada. You will get plenty more gray days there than here.

Edited by JennyMominFL
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't seen such a good conversation about rape since the funeral sex scene between Cersei and Jaime on GoT.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, GiuliettaMasina said:

This is not what happened on screen. From the moment June stifles his protest, her hand remains over his mouth until she climaxes. When she does remove her hand, he lies flat and expressionless. The camera then cuts to June, and the scene ends on her. The next scene, is him looking happy to June to her face, but changing expressions when her back turns. At this exact moment the voice-over discusses a woman committing rape.

I'm actually surprised by the range of reactions to this scene, because it seemed pretty clear to me that both of them were miserable and no one was having fun.

I actually agree with the assessment that this probably wasn't a traumatic experience for him, but something doesn't have to be traumatic in order for it to be wrong.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

I wanted to mention that this is close to the actual plot of a show (whose name I can't remember) that ran for half a season a few years ago.  It was on Thursday nights on one of the big 3 broadcast channels.  Anyone remember it? 

It was Last Resort, and it was actually a lot of fun. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, EllaWycliffe said:

I'm curious if we're giving this more thought than the writers ever did but its a good discussion.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if we aren't :).

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Bannon said:

This goes to some of the weaker aspects of the show's writing; giving into the urge of going for the supposedly striking visual, at the expense of narrative logic. Thus we get battered and bruised June in a 5 star hotel, and Toronto's most affluent grocery store. Or, worse, an arc shot circling June and Nick smooching, like Scarlett and Rhett, in the middle of a bridge in a bucolic setting, various Guardians looking on,which now requires the audience handwaving into existence a hardened cadre of absolute Nick loyalists surrounding him, which the writers have never fleshed out. Showing a logically sensible entry of June, into her life of asylum, actually would have expanded the interesting narrative options.

I kind of wish they had explored that a bit more. Because parading June through a big, busy downtown Toronto hotel might as well be holding a press conference. Because I have to imagine that even if Gilead doesn't have spies in Canada I would be surprised to find out that there aren't people in Canada who believe in the Gilead cause. I wonder if we would ever get to see those people.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JennyMominFL said:

While i would agree that cities like Toronto and Boston probably have a similar amount of sunny days and cloud cover,  plenty of places in the USA get more sun than canada, like Orlando where I live, or Arizona, NM, Nv ,CA and much of the south. Orlando has a Humid subtropical climate compared to canada’s humid continental climate. We, and much of the south do get more sun than most of Canada. You will get plenty more gray days there than here.

Actually, no.

Average number of sunny days in cities across Canada (Kelowna, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax) vary from 290 to 325 days a year. Sure, some of the Sunshine is over the snow, but that makes it even brighter. And the further north you go, the more sunny hours you get in a day, with only 5 or 6 hours of night at summer solstice.

Average number of sunny days in Florida cities (Daytone, Tampa, Fort Myers, Key West, Orlando) varies from 229 to 266 days a year.

Regarding the rape/not rape, my initial thoughts as that scene played out was that it made me uncomfortable because it didn't seem consensual.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

19 minutes ago, Shermie said:

Average number of sunny days in cities across Canada (Kelowna, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax) vary from 290 to 325 days a year. Sure, some of the Sunshine is over the snow, but that makes it even brighter. And the further north you go, the more sunny hours you get in a day, with only 5 or 6 hours of night at summer solstice.

Average number of sunny days in Florida cities (Daytone, Tampa, Fort Myers, Key West, Orlando) varies from 229 to 266 days a year.

Regarding the rape/not rape, my initial thoughts as that scene played out was that it made me uncomfortable because it didn't seem consensual.

Hours of sunshine per year, toronto 2066, Vancouver 1938

Miami  is 3154 hours of sun per year  Atlanta 2738, Sacramento 3608, Las vegas, 3825, san Diego 3055. Even Denver has 3071 hours of sun per year.  Boston has 2634 hours of sun per year. You guys just have more hours that are  overcast. The highest hours of sunlight that i found in major cities in Canada is Calgary with 2396

I grew up in boston. We have more hours of sun down here in fl. Its one of the reasons so many people come down here  from New England. to live for the winter . The hours of sunlight help their SAD

To be fair though, I said “sunny days” and you correctly called me on that. I should have said hours of sunlight

I was so uncomfortable with the sex scene that I looked away. I guess that says something 

Edited by JennyMominFL
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

IIRC, at June/Serena/Fred's last Ceremony, Fred couldn't achieve/maintain an erection long enough to complete the act, which is when Serena pimped June out to Nick.  Am I remembering that wrong or am I possibly confabulating that scene with one in the movie?  Anyhow, if what I remember is correct, not only is Nick definitely the father, Fred knows that he isn't. 

So apparently I didn't remember correctly.  I've been re-watching from the beginning and I just came to the episode where this happens.  Fred could not perform one time, and after that (the next night or the next month isn't clear) Serena suggests doing it with Nick.  Offred agrees, and Serena takes Offred to Nick's room in the afternoon just before the Ceremony.  Fred then manages to perform that evening.  So Offred had sex with both Nick and Fred within the period of a few hours.  Given that we now know that Fred is not 100% sterile, there is a chance that Nicole is his. 

Edited by Quilt Fairy
  • Like 1
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

So apparently I didn't remember correctly.  I've been re-watching from the beginning and I just came to the episode where this happens.  Fred could not perform one time, and after that (the next night or the next month isn't clear) Serena suggests doing it with Nick.  Offred agrees, and Serena takes Offred to Nick's room in the afternoon just before the Ceremony.  Fred then manages to perform that evening.  So Offred had sex with both Nick and Fred within the period of a few hours.  Given that we now know that Fred is not 100% sterile, there is a chance that Nicole is his. 

I think this is one of those things that's bound to come up later on down the line when the show is looking for more wrenches to throw into the plot.

Re: the rape/unrape.

We really don't know. The fact that the board is split speaks of the scene's ambiguity. We all bring our own personal experiences to the topic, too, which colors things. Personally, I don't like June as a character so that colors my views, too. As a former rape victim I can say that I don't like missionary because it makes me feel locked down. If my husband put his hand over my mouth like that he'd lose some digits. I'm not saying which ones. However, I can also say that if I awoke my husband from his sleep by climbing on top of him and not letting him do any of the work, or to talk, he'd think he'd died and gone to heaven. We have vastly different work schedules and the majority of our sex starts with one of us still slightly asleep. Context matters, of course. 

There's not going to be a consensus here, at least not until the storyline has played out or if the show addresses it, and that's fine. I think we can all pretty much agree that June, like most of the Gilead refugees, needs extensive therapy. 

I miss the girl who escaped with Luke. They dropped her as a character, and I understand why, but I still wish we'd gotten to know her. 

  • Like 7
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/27/2021 at 5:30 PM, EllaWycliffe said:

Guys, they probably went with the grocery store willing to let them film.

Toronto is represented on American television maybe 1 out of 1 million times so it's fun for us to discuss the logistics.

Toronto actually being Toronto and not disguised as Chicago, New York, or even San Francisco as I've seen before.  This does not happen.  This all actually took place in my neighbourhood so to me it's interesting.

Edited by Ms Blue Jay
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

 

20 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Toronto is represented on American television maybe 1 out of 1 million times so it's fun for us to discuss the logistics.

I get it - I just don't think there's any grand mystery to it. My thinking is they wanted a really nice looking store with that fancy high end feel to contrast it with the bare shelves of Gilead. 

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Any thing that happens on television can be explained by "because that's what production chose to do".  But the discussion of it is interesting all the same.

Edited by Ms Blue Jay
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

13 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

So apparently I didn't remember correctly.  I've been re-watching from the beginning and I just came to the episode where this happens.  Fred could not perform one time, and after that (the next night or the next month isn't clear) Serena suggests doing it with Nick.  Offred agrees, and Serena takes Offred to Nick's room in the afternoon just before the Ceremony.  Fred then manages to perform that evening.  So Offred had sex with both Nick and Fred within the period of a few hours.  Given that we now know that Fred is not 100% sterile, there is a chance that Nicole is his. 

I wonder why they haven't done a DNA test on Nichole already considering Fred and Serena were trying to claim custody of her. Seems like the first thing they would have done once Nichole was in Canada and the Waterford's tried to get custody of  her was establish that neither was her biological parent. I know Luke isn't either but he is still the legal spouse of Nichole's biological mother.

On that  note wouldn't  it be funny if DNA testing showed that Fred wasn't the father of Serena's baby either?

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, ww92 said:

I wonder why they haven't done a DNA test on Nichole already considering Fred and Serena were trying to claim custody of her. Seems like the first thing they would have done once Nichole was in Canada and the Waterford's tried to get custody of  her was establish that neither was her biological parent. I know Luke isn't either but he is still the legal spouse of Nichole's biological mother.

I honestly assumed they had. I mean, with June's claim that the father is Nick, it seems a significant point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

How would domestic law be handled internationally in this situation? For instance, let's say that June got Hannah to Canada. Luke is her legal father in Canada but the Mackenzies are her legal parents in Gilead. Could the Mackenzies have Hannah deported back to Gilead? Because even though June was the bio mother I'm sure that by Gilead law Mrs. Mackenzie is Hannah's legal mother. Who gets the child? Ethically it should be Luke since he never gave consent, but by Gilead law maybe that doesn't matter. Same for Nicole-June and Nick are her bio parents (as far as we know) but do the Waterfords have ANY legal claim to her? Because they do in Gilead. 

I know there are international adoption laws and contracts and things are usually signed, but since Gilead women aren't allowed to read or write then how could they give consent? Does June's tape (or was it a letter?) that accompanied Nicole stand in as enough proof of lack of consent?

In a real world situation: I adopt a child here in the US. The child legally becomes mine. A friend of the birth mother kidnaps my new child, goes to England, and gives the child to the birth mother's husband (who is NOT the father). 

Or: I pay a surrogate for a child. I cover all their medical care and expenses. Child is born and a few weeks later the birth mother's friend takes the baby across borders. 

Or is it that Gilead is so fucked up at the moment with all the sanctions and slavery and murders that the rest of the world is more or less like "fuck their laws"?

I understand the ethical and moral stances on this. Clearly the children were kidnapped by Gilead and deserve to be with their bio parents in Canada (or wherever) since the bio parents didn't give consent. And the Handmaids are forced into sexual and reproduction slavery with hardly a choice in the matter. I'm just playing devil's advocate here and I'm honestly curious.

This is actually going on in parts of Africa right now. Americans are adopting the babies, but though the birth parents signed papers they didn't really give full consent. Baby brokers are lying to the parents and making them think their child is in a foster situation and will eventually be returned. Some children are being outright kidnapped. It's become a huge trafficking problem.  The legality of it is murky. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Mod Announcement- 
 

A large number of off topic posts have been removed. The episode thread is not the appropriate place to discuss book vs show, the book sequels, Atwood’s universe as a whole OR the number of sunny days of a city in North America (outside of how it relates to the events of the episode). 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mamadrama said:

How would domestic law be handled internationally in this situation? For instance, let's say that June got Hannah to Canada. Luke is her legal father in Canada but the Mackenzies are her legal parents in Gilead. Could the Mackenzies have Hannah deported back to Gilead? Because even though June was the bio mother I'm sure that by Gilead law Mrs. Mackenzie is Hannah's legal mother. Who gets the child? Ethically it should be Luke since he never gave consent, but by Gilead law maybe that doesn't matter. Same for Nicole-June and Nick are her bio parents (as far as we know) but do the Waterfords have ANY legal claim to her? Because they do in Gilead.

I think the main legal argument would be that the biological/legal parents of the children didn't willingly give them up.

June and Luke were and still are Hannah's biological and legal parents in Canada (and everywhere in the world except for Gilead). June and Hannah were kidnapped and brought to Gilead against their will, in Hannah's case against the will of both of her parents. Neither June or Luke ever consented to Hannah being adopted or raised by anyone else. If they can somehow get Hannah onto Canadian soil then I don't see how the Mackenzies or anyone in Gilead could lay any legal claim to her.

June is Nichole's biological and legal mother in Canada. A simple DNA test could prove that Serena is not her mother and hopefully that Fred is not her father. Without DNA from Nick they can't prove that he is the father but it would at least make it much more difficult for Fred to try and get any kind of custody in a Canadian court. I think if I were June I'd be consulting a  Canadian attorney as to how to establish Luke as Nichole's legal father. Now if a DNA test proved that Fred is the father then that would definitely throw a  wrench into things.

Hopefully the first  thing Luke did when he was first handed Nichole was apply for asylum in Canada on her behalf. If they somehow manage to get Hannah there they need to apply for it on her behalf as well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I don’t know about Canada, but US law does consider Luke to be Nichole’s legal father because they were married when Nichole was born.

  • Like 3
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post

On 5/28/2021 at 9:38 AM, Bannon said:

Gilead can't even take Chicago despite years of fighting, so it seems obvious that the only reason other nations still greatly fear its military is because it retains nukes, but the fact that those nukes don't allow Gilead to simply dictate terms to other nations, means that other nations still have nukes, too.

What's happening in Chicago is guerilla warfare against Gilead, and guerillas are very difficult to stop with conventional troops. But what you end up with is an area that is deeply unpleasant, if not flat out unlivable, for anyone stuck within its limits. Gilead may not be able to steamroll Canada with its military, but any war conducted in Canadian territory would be very hard for the Canadian populace. Canada does not want Toronto or Montréal getting turned into Chicago II.

Plus, since Gilead considers Chicago part of its nation, they're a little reluctant to drop nukes on it. Toronto would receive no such consideration.

I take the view that what June did to Luke was deeply problematic. She heard him saying "Wait" repeatedly. It doesn't matter why he might have been saying it, because she doesn't know why he was saying it (and neither do we). She didn't want to hear it, and deliberately placed her hand over his mouth to stop him from talking. Yes, he could have gotten physical at that point, but there are reasons why he wouldn't. Some of them have been talked about already. I'll also make the point that it seems like the partners of people returning from Gilead have been counseled about how they partners had no power in Gilead and need to reclaim their power, which is understandable. But it seems like there's a natural human tendency to go too far in the other direction, into granting them all of the power in their relationships - go along, don't contradict them, don't do anything to make them feel again like they did in Gilead. And I think there's a part of June that took advantage of that with Luke. She knew he wasn't going to get physical and overpower her.

I think, but I'll grant that I don't know, that Luke's issue was that this wasn't the way he wanted to reunite sexually with the wife he's waited faithfully for so many years. There was no connection whatsoever happening; she treated him entirely as an object for her use rather than as a human. She was essentially masturbating. She obviously isn't ready for that connective kind of sex with Luke; she couldn't handle the kissing earlier, which was a scene in which there was an actual connection happening between them, which she's not ready for - and not only because of the trauma she suffered in Gilead, but because in the intervening years she fell in love with Nick, and probably feels more like she's with Nick than with Luke, the husband she not only hasn't seen in years but actually believed for a time was dead - she'd mourned him and moved on. How married does she really feel?

Luke has the right to decide what kind of sex he wants to have, just as June has the right to decide what kind of sex she wants to have.  If those don't align, they need to have a conversation about it: June doesn't get to shut him up and carry on anyway, knowing that he'll go along for complicated reasons. I think because of her trauma, he intends to give her a pass this time, but if she continues treating him as a dildo that won't continue. The "happy family" scene in the next sequence was centered on Nichole, whom they both love, and he had a quite disturbed look on his face when the voiceover said "rape." He is troubled.

Speaking of Nichole, for all that Moira said that she never wanted to be a mother, right now Moira is very much continuing that with Nichole. It's very early days of June's return, so it's understandable, but it will be interesting to see if Moira is able to back off on her own, before June decides to tell her to. Moira also loves Luke now, so she'll have different opinions than she once did on that topic, which June will not be used to and may resent (especially if she wants to talk to Moira about loving Nick now or whatever).

Poor Emily. Reading between the lines of what she said, her marriage is a disaster. I'm sure her wife is indeed very patient about Emily not being ready to move back into the bedroom, because it sounds like her wife doesn't want her there anyway.

I freeze-framed the whiteboard to get a look at what was written and put up about Fred, Serena and Nick. No real surprises. With Nick, there was nothing that gave concrete information into whatever it is that he did to warrant Serena's commentary about him and the way other nations want nothing to do with him, but I did notice there was a printout of what looked like a Facebook-style comments thread in which one comment was circled - I'm assuming a comment Nick had posted. I could not read the name of the commenter, but the lengths of the first and last names did match up with Nick's name.

  • Like 9
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Black Knight said:

Poor Emily. Reading between the lines of what she said, her marriage is a disaster. I'm sure her wife is indeed very patient about Emily not being ready to move back into the bedroom, because it sounds like her wife doesn't want her there anyway.

Well, three to five years apart and your wife comes back with devastating genital injuries and serious PTSD, I can see taking it slow and also maybe having a hard time since Emily's wife (I forget her name) just might not have expected Emily to return.

Honestly, in a "real" situation, I don't think Luke and June would have a good marriage after all of this either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Has it been 3-5 years of Gilead. I was wondering how long June was gone. I thought someone mentioned 7 years in this episode.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, EllaWycliffe said:
3 hours ago, Black Knight said:

Poor Emily. Reading between the lines of what she said, her marriage is a disaster. I'm sure her wife is indeed very patient about Emily not being ready to move back into the bedroom, because it sounds like her wife doesn't want her there anyway.

Well, three to five years apart and your wife comes back with devastating genital injuries and serious PTSD, I can see taking it slow and also maybe having a hard time since Emily's wife (I forget her name) just might not have expected Emily to return.

Honestly, in a "real" situation, I don't think Luke and June would have a good marriage after all of this either.

Nevertheless, Emily appears to have rekindled her relationship with her son Oliver, which I take as a good sign. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, EllaWycliffe said:

Well, three to five years apart and your wife comes back with devastating genital injuries and serious PTSD, I can see taking it slow and also maybe having a hard time since Emily's wife (I forget her name) just might not have expected Emily to return.

Emily had also fallen in love with another woman and had to watch her get executed.

34 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Nevertheless, Emily appears to have rekindled her relationship with her son Oliver, which I take as a good sign. 

That's one of the brightest spots of the show for me. Emily is the only handmaid so far who's gotten to be a mother again to the child she had before Gilead.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

Emily had also fallen in love with another woman and had to watch her get executed.

That's one of the brightest spots of the show for me. Emily is the only handmaid so far who's gotten to be a mother again to the child she had before Gilead.

Yes, and the doctors were supposed to do surgery to "reconstruct" her vulva, but I honestly never knew what that meant.  If her clitoris was removed, how on earth can they "fix" that so she could orgasm again?

I suppose I should look it up, but I'm not sure I want that search on my computer.  ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

11 hours ago, EllaWycliffe said:

Well, three to five years apart and your wife comes back with devastating genital injuries and serious PTSD, I can see taking it slow and also maybe having a hard time since Emily's wife (I forget her name) just might not have expected Emily to return.

Honestly, in a "real" situation, I don't think Luke and June would have a good marriage after all of this either.

If Gilead was willing to nuke a major Canadian city, those children June smuggled out would have been returned pretty quickly. Something must be preventing Gilead from credibly threatening such an attack. The most simple explanation is that some entity is credibly threatening a nuclear response if Gilead carries out such a threat. There are multiple possibilities of such an entity, including the surviving United States retaining nuclear capability, like ballistic missile subs. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/29/2021 at 7:54 AM, The Mighty Peanut said:

Yes. There's a false equivalency being drawn regarding women who are victim shamed for not fighting hard enough and Luke going "hey wait hold on" for a couple of seconds before fully accepting the sex and being a willing participant. Also I think June needs to be given a little bit of credit for having a skewed view of expressing sexuality at this particular moment in time. It does not make her on the same level as the commanders. 

It was weird sex. Uncomfortable. June was processing stuff using Luke's penis and not giving enough thought to the person attached to it. But that was no rape. I think when Luke, June, the reviews, and the showrunners are all saying it wasn't rape, it is safe to say it wasn't rape.  I'm going to shut up now since there's not going to be an agreement reached. 

There’s also a lot of argument that someone can’t be raped if they are physically stronger/weigh more than the other person, that I personally find troubling.

Those involved with the show seem to be dancing around the word rape that I can’t reconcile with the clear directorial choice of “she’ll rape you” over Luke’s pained face, but a great deal of the reviews/commentary surrounding this episode is calling this rape based on what is there on the screen, regardless of the show’s intent.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bannon said:

f Gilead was willing to nuke a major Canadian city, those children June smuggled out would have been returned pretty quickly. Something must be preventing Gilead from credibly threatening such an attack. The most simple explanation is that some entity is credibly threatening a nuclear response if Gilead carries out such a threat. There are multiple possibilities of such an entity, including the surviving United States retaining nuclear capability, like ballistic missile subs. 

This and also people forget that England is a nuclear power and Canada is part of the British realm.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, mamadrama said:

How would domestic law be handled internationally in this situation? For instance, let's say that June got Hannah to Canada. Luke is her legal father in Canada but the Mackenzies are her legal parents in Gilead. Could the Mackenzies have Hannah deported back to Gilead? Because even though June was the bio mother I'm sure that by Gilead law Mrs. Mackenzie is Hannah's legal mother. Who gets the child? Ethically it should be Luke since he never gave consent, but by Gilead law maybe that doesn't matter. Same for Nicole-June and Nick are her bio parents (as far as we know) but do the Waterfords have ANY legal claim to her? Because they do in Gilead. 

I know there are international adoption laws and contracts and things are usually signed, but since Gilead women aren't allowed to read or write then how could they give consent? Does June's tape (or was it a letter?) that accompanied Nicole stand in as enough proof of lack of consent?

In a real world situation: I adopt a child here in the US. The child legally becomes mine. A friend of the birth mother kidnaps my new child, goes to England, and gives the child to the birth mother's husband (who is NOT the father). 

Or: I pay a surrogate for a child. I cover all their medical care and expenses. Child is born and a few weeks later the birth mother's friend takes the baby across borders. 

Or is it that Gilead is so fucked up at the moment with all the sanctions and slavery and murders that the rest of the world is more or less like "fuck their laws"?

I understand the ethical and moral stances on this. Clearly the children were kidnapped by Gilead and deserve to be with their bio parents in Canada (or wherever) since the bio parents didn't give consent. And the Handmaids are forced into sexual and reproduction slavery with hardly a choice in the matter. I'm just playing devil's advocate here and I'm honestly curious.

This is actually going on in parts of Africa right now. Americans are adopting the babies, but though the birth parents signed papers they didn't really give full consent. Baby brokers are lying to the parents and making them think their child is in a foster situation and will eventually be returned. Some children are being outright kidnapped. It's become a huge trafficking problem.  The legality of it is murky. 

Those are excellent food for thought. It is hard to know which way the writers would choose because it seems the rest of the world is afraid of Gilead's war power, even if in the first season they had a shortage of food and apparently under sanctions (?). So, if Canada wants to side with human rights, since Gilead clearly rejects them, they could negotiate lifting the sanctions and Gilead would stop claiming Nichole. But I don't trust the writers to do this well. I am still mourning the lost premise of the book.

As for what is actually happening in our world, I would add that this has been happening in our borders for a long time. Kids are separated from their families when they either try to cross the border without papers, or when they come asking for asylum, then the parents, who do not speak english, and many times only speak native languages that are not Spanish either, sign papers that allow the US to put up their kids for adoption, then they are deported and don't even know what happened. Thousands of "adoptions" happening this way. 

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, Bannon said:

If Gilead was willing to nuke a major Canadian city, those children June smuggled out would have been returned pretty quickly. Something must be preventing Gilead from credibly threatening such an attack. The most simple explanation is that some entity is credibly threatening a nuclear response if Gilead carries out such a threat. There are multiple possibilities of such an entity, including the surviving United States retaining nuclear capability, like ballistic missile subs. 

Or maybe because they know that one nuclear weapon will destroy 2/3 of the population, and make life completely catastrophic for any survival - not only where the nuclear weapon hits, but the whole world. Changes in weather patterns, breakdown of the supply chain, avoidance of shipping things to a certain an area, the mutations in the genes of anyone who doesn't die immediately, causing a even more serious crisis of fertility that is part of the original story

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, circumvent said:

Or maybe because they know that one nuclear weapon will destroy 2/3 of the population, and make life completely catastrophic for any survival - not only where the nuclear weapon hits, but the whole world. Changes in weather patterns, breakdown of the supply chain, avoidance of shipping things to a certain an area, the mutations in the genes of anyone who doesn't die immediately, causing a even more serious crisis of fertility that is part of the original story

This. All major population centers in Canada are within 100 miles of the US border and radiation doesn't stop at the borders. Bombing Canada bombs Gilead even if England (a nuclear power with very close ties to Canada) doesn't bomb Gilead in retaliation. Or if the boomer subs that the de facto US government might control exist... its still a nightmare scenario for Gilead.

Are 86 kids, 87 counting Nicole really worth killing millions over?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

This. All major population centers in Canada are within 100 miles of the US border and radiation doesn't stop at the borders.

Well they could bomb maybe Edmonton or something, but other than that there aren't many options, especially since it is not clear to me how much territory (if any) Gilead controls on the West Coast. But like half of Canada lives in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. Bomb any of those people and you are nuking New York or New England which is territory that Gilead controls and people live in.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Just wanted to add that firepower is not all nuclear. Gilead could choose to use non radioactive bombs.

But show hasn't really told us what is in Gilead's arsenal exactly. That's information that Fred presumably knows and the rest of the world is after.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Well they could bomb maybe Edmonton or something, but other than that there aren't many options, especially since it is not clear to me how much territory (if any) Gilead controls on the West Coast. But like half of Canada lives in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. Bomb any of those people and you are nuking New York or New England which is territory that Gilead controls and people live in.

An actual nuclear bomb anywhere in the world would end life for 2/3 of the population in the entire planet. Some instantly, many slowly and painfully. 

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

This. All major population centers in Canada are within 100 miles of the US border and radiation doesn't stop at the borders. Bombing Canada bombs Gilead even if England (a nuclear power with very close ties to Canada) doesn't bomb Gilead in retaliation. Or if the boomer subs that the de facto US government might control exist... its still a nightmare scenario for Gilead.

Are 86 kids, 87 counting Nicole really worth killing millions over?

I've been thinking of this, too. I just watched the amazing HBO movie CONSPIRACY (about the Wansee Conference) and it was incredible to listen to the Nazi leaders continue to reset the parameters on who was considered Jewish. They changed shit to fit their needs. I imagine Gilead would do the same. Rather than start a war over the 86/87 kids they lost, they'd probably just redefine the Handmaid parameters and start roping in more econowives (or whoever they could get) and increase the babymaking rituals.  

  • Like 4
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

6 minutes ago, mamadrama said:

I imagine Gilead would do the same. Rather than start a war over the 86/87 kids they lost, they'd probably just redefine the Handmaid parameters and start roping in more econowives (or whoever they could get) and increase the babymaking rituals.  

Which is likely to piss off the general population, therefore more rebellion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, WearyTraveler said:

Just wanted to add that firepower is not all nuclear. Gilead could choose to use non radioactive bombs.

Fair point - but I'd also argue that Canada isn't a nation of pacifists and has its own military. If Gilead bombs Toronto, Canada does have the ability to ALSO use non radioactive bombs.

Btw am I the only one who finds it hilarious that all the diplomacy and stuff seems to happen in Toronto but Ottawa is Canada's capitol?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

Which is likely to piss off the general population, therefore more rebellion.

Well I didn't say it was a GOOD idea...

  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

Gilead is already cleaning up nuclear waste in several large areas of it's land.  They hate nukes, and have even closed power plants.  

They also, to be fair, hate pollution and using chemicals on the land, pesticides or herbicides, and have cleaned up pollution in water ways and the air as well.  

They would never nuke "next door" and I do think they would use conventional bombing, which would be devastating anyway, without the pollution threat.

From the sound of the Commanders though?  I think "war" is a bluff just to get sanctions lifted.  Fred knows, and the world wants to know "Just what is Gilead capable of here?"

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, circumvent said:

An actual nuclear bomb anywhere in the world would end life for 2/3 of the population in the entire planet. Some instantly, many slowly and painfully. 

Yes, that's why none of us survived Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Or any of the test bombs exploded in Nevada, the south Pacific, etc. 

A single bomb is a localized catastrophe. The (additional) trouble is you don't know where it'll stop after the one.

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Bannon said:

If Gilead was willing to nuke a major Canadian city, those children June smuggled out would have been returned pretty quickly. Something must be preventing Gilead from credibly threatening such an attack. The most simple explanation is that some entity is credibly threatening a nuclear response if Gilead carries out such a threat. There are multiple possibilities of such an entity, including the surviving United States retaining nuclear capability, like ballistic missile subs. 

Much of the US military is overseas. I wonder who controls that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, akr said:

Yes, that's why none of us survived Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Or any of the test bombs exploded in Nevada, the south Pacific, etc. 

A single bomb is a localized catastrophe. The (additional) trouble is you don't know where it'll stop after the one.

The bombs today are several times more powerful than the ones that the US dropped in Japan (and The US wants to spend billions in yet another one, even more destructive). The bombs they use in tests are test bombs, like North Korea does as well. Not harmless but not a bomb that is detonated to cause a nuclear damage. I am not the one saying that, it is not speculation or a guess. That is actually what scientists say. There is no "localized" anything in a nuclear attack. I listened to this not too long ago on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour, or maybe it was an interview with Chris Hedges. They talk about this quite often.

I concede that some nations have more powerful bombs than others and then, to your point, the counter attack would making sure that the first catastrophe is more wide spread, irreversible and basically the beginning of the end. The world doesn't really have an strategy for a possible nuclear conflict because well, it wouldn't matter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size