S01.E04: Episode 4

[Captain I0]

I disagree - an allegory for real life is pretty much exactly what science fiction is.  Take a simple story, change one aspect of it (often a technological development), and see what that reveals about humanity and how people think.  In this case it's an interesting take on rape.  Is it rape if you molest something that just looks human but isn't? What if they don't mind getting raped because they're programmed not to mind? 

The problem is that your analogy breaks down because there is no raping or molestation taking place vis a vis Joe & Anita. We have been provided pretty clear context in this show.

 

There was a molestation attempt by Toby. There was a rape attempt by the teens at the party. There was a "rape" attempt by the John at the brothel. There was also unwanted sex at the brothel. 

 

However, none of that is the case in the Anita/Joe situation. Again, in this case consent was clearly asked prior to even accessing the adult features and consent was asked after enabling them. Reciprocated actions were given prior to enabling adult features, by Anita, suggestive of "desire" to participate as much as a robot would be capable and once those features are enabled, it's not a matter of "not minding", but having the personality of wanting to. 

 

We've been given a clear range of different sexual interactions and I would say that Joe and Anita's was clearly meant to show another case, which wasn't meant to be at all like the unwanted examples above. The question of what being programmed to want this means can be explored, but if we accept being programmed to do anything as them not really "wanting" to do it, then you've deconstructed things too far as there is really no point to their existence. 

 

Your question "is it rape if they are programmed not to mind"? Is a loaded question. I'm assuming intentional, but maybe not so. However to answer it anyway. If the issue of sentience is not a question, then the answer is an obvious no. A machine can't be raped any more than a vibrator can, which is also programmed to give sexual pleasure, just not as sophisticatedly programmed .

[henripootel]

The problem is that your analogy breaks down because there is no raping or molestation taking place vis a vis Joe & Anita. We have been provided pretty clear context in this show.

I would argue that there rape only with Joe and Anita.  Let me explain.

 

With the kids, I would argue that there wasn't even attempted 'rape'.  From the kid's perspective, the synth was essentially a toaster, and they are right (she wasn't one of the 'special' synths).  From that synth's perspective, she can't even be molested because she has no concept of sex (lacking the special adult cheat codes) or 'rape'.  It might look like rape to Mattie and Tobe but I'm not sure they get a vote here.  I mean they put a stop to it because of how they felt about what was about to happen but that doesn't mean they were right.  My verdict - no rape here, maybe not even any possibility of rape.

 

The John at the brothel - again, not rape.  He certainly didn't think of it as rape - he was at a brothel with machines.  That doesn't automatically clear him because of his intent, but he was right - he was at a brothel, with machines.  From Niska's perspective, she's a machine, working at a brothel.  Seems to me she went a bit ape-shit over a bit of fairly routine sex (which never actually happened, not with the last guy).  The conceit here is, obviously, that Niska is sentient and so must be human, with the natural human female aversion to having strange men stick stuff in her (fake) hoo-hoo uninvited.  I would say again while working in a brothel but you get my point.  

 

If Niska is aware of 'rape' as a human activity, I'm surprised that she thinks it applies to her.  She's a machine, no reason why she should take offense at much of any kind of contact except for one thing: for whatever reason, she finds such conduct offensive, enough to kill a guy.  Still, hard to say that what the guy intended was rape and even would have been if he'd completed the act.  Yes, a prostitute can be raped but I'm not sure that's what we saw.  Rough pretend sex, yes.  Rape?  Well ...

 

Joe and Anita.  Not to rehash my old posts, but I think Joe kinda thought of Anita as a person - he felt embarrassed to be looking at her naked (even with perfectly good reason), and guilty right after they did it.  Part of this is that Joe (arguably) thinks his wife also thinks of Anita as a person (before she has any proof that she is, in fact, sentient) - he takes steps to cover up the sex and tries to deflect when she finds out saying 'it's not cheating'.  Well, cheating is whatever Laura thinks it is Joe, so good call there, and you were right to try to keep her from finding out.  So Joe kinda thinks Anita has sensibilities that should be respected and yet he has sex with her anyway, while doing an end-run past any objections she might have.  Sounds like rape to me.

 

Now I'm perfectly aware that the writers would have us think the kids at the party and the guy at the brothel, they're complete scumbags who deserve our scorn.  Joe, however, is a good guy who made a mistake.  I don't care what the writers intended, I think they got it exactly wrong.  

[Captain I0]

Joe kinda thinks Anita has sensibilities that should be respected and yet he has sex with her anyway, while doing an end-run past any objections she might have. Sounds like rape to me.

This sounds like a very strange definition of rape.

Joe thinks she should be respected but has sex with her anyway after checking if she objects? I just fail to see this adequately explained as rape. Adultry? Maybe. Creepy? Perhaps. But rape? I can't see anywhere in which that fits the standards of rape.

Lets say it was his cousin rather than a machine. Or his coworker. Both would be considered innapropriate relationships. Both might be women he thinks should be respected. But having sex with them wouldn't be rape, unless they objected to it. Which we've edtablished Anita didn't.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Captain I0

[henripootel]

But having sex with them wouldn't be rape, unless they objected to it. Which we've edtablished Anita didn't.

Given her machine nature, she wasn't in a position to do so, as she was programmed to obey (Anita, moreso than Mia, although she's in there too).  An analogy might be getting a human female sufficiently drugged up that they don't object, but that is very far from say they consent, and is in fact the very opposite of consent.  Anita literally cannot consent, and sex - consent = rape.  Not sure I can put it any more simply than that.

 

Of course, this brings us back to whether or not consent is even needed - if Anita's just a toaster, then this is a moot point.  My point, however, is that the evidence suggests that she wasn't just a toaster to Joe even before he found out about Mia.  And he went ahead anyway.

 

There's also the point of why the synths should be bothered by human sexual contact at all, I mean they might be sentient now but they're still not humans.  But we do know that Niska was pretty bothered by it.  More interesting to me was Mia's reaction to Joe once Mia was back.  She seemed pretty blasé all things considered, but that's more of what I'd expect from a sentient non-human.  Does this mean that's it's all bygones for the non-consensual sex with Joe?  Not sure.

 It does seem like it's pretty much water under the bridge by the last episode, which I can understand from Mia's perspective but not so much Joe's or Laura's.

[Which Tyler]

The John at the brothel - again, not rape. He certainly didn't think of it as rape - he was at a brothel with machines. That doesn't automatically clear him because of his intent, but he was right - he was at a brothel, with machines. From Niska's perspective, she's a machine, working at a brothel. Seems to me she went a bit ape-shit over a bit of fairly routine sex (which never actually happened, not with the last guy). The conceit here is, obviously, that Niska is sentient and so must be human, with the natural human female aversion to having strange men stick stuff in her (fake) hoo-hoo uninvited. I would say again while working in a brothel but you get my point.

Am I the only one who thinks this is kinda concerning?

So Niska can't be raped because, whilst fully sentient and not consenting, she is enslaved against her will and made to work in a brothel; whilst Anita who isn't sentient (but has a different sentient being trapped inside of her but unable to make her feelings known) actively consents to sex; but IS rape because she can't consent, even though she gives every indication of doing so.

So someone who is capable of consent, but doesn't give it, ISN'T raped, whilst someone incapable of consent, but who does anyway, IS rape???

I must admit, I always thought of rape as an issue with consent; not location.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Which Tyler

[henripootel]

So someone who is capable of consent, but doesn't give it, ISN'T raped, whilst someone incapable of consent, but who does anyway, IS rape???

Niska's working in a brothel, she has some expectation that sex is gonna take place there.  The guy who showed up at the brothel, he also has some expectation that sex will occur.  Now whether Niska is forced to be there, do we know that?  We know she can't just leave (you need a warm hand for that) but I assumed she was working there to keep a low profile.  If you're working in a brothel, I think we can assume that consent is kinda given.  Maybe not consent to get beat up and she can still say no, but you can't be all that surprised when the guy, you know, expects sex.  Even weird sex.  Plus the guy seemed to have no illusions that Niska was (as far as he knew) a malfunctioning appliance.  I know the writers want us to hate this guy for being all rapey but we know things he couldn't, such as the fact that Niska is actually sentient and what the guy was doing was heinous.  I think what Joe did was at least as bad and maybe worse, but I get the feeling we're supposed to go easy on him because he's basically a 'nice guy'.  

 

And no, you're not the only one who's concerned here - how in any way can Anita consent to anything?  'does anyway'?  How does being unable to do anything but comply count as 'consent'?  Seriously, if this all you had to do to get implied consent was render women incapable of doing anything else, Bill Cosby wouldn't be in the trouble he rightfully is.  Mia could have consented but Mia can choose, but she wasn't in the driver's seat then so she didn't get a vote even though she was 'there' too when Joe activated the adult subroutine.  This is a pretty horrifying scene once you know everything that happened - I'da thought Joe, once he learned the truth, would spend more time feeling terrible and less time explaining to his wife how technically he didn't actually cheat.

[Which Tyler]

Niska is a sex slave; we know this, it is established very early on. She doesn't want to be there, but she has no choice, she cannot leave. However, she is sentient and can consent or not-consent; it just makes no difference as to whether she has sex or not. You don't call that rape - it fits every definition I've ever seen.

On anita - ok, so by your definition, she is unable to consent - just like a vibrator, a cucumber, an apple pie - are those all rape too? either you consider Anita sentient and thereby able to consent, or you consider her non-sentient, and therefore consent is irrelevant.

As for Mia - whom Joe doesn't know, and has no reason to possibly know - even exists; I have no problem calling her a rape victim. However, that doesn't make Joe a rapist - the person at fault is the person who put a sentient mind into the body of an inanimate object.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Which Tyler

[LeGrandElephant]

The problem with the whole thing of Joe asking Anita if its ok to turn on adult mode is that he knows she can't refuse to do something her primary user wants her to do. So asking permission doesn't really mean anything. 

 

I think he felt guilty because he knew it was a betrayal of Laura and the rest of the family, but I don't think he thought Anita was a person who could get hurt. 

 

I was surprised in the more recent episode that

Mia seemed to pretty much forgive Joe immediately and tell him not to feel guilty about it. 

 

Niska's working in a brothel, she has some expectation that sex is gonna take place there.  The guy who showed up at the brothel, he also has some expectation that sex will occur.  Now whether Niska is forced to be there, do we know that?  We know she can't just leave (you need a warm hand for that) but I assumed she was working there to keep a low profile.  If you're working in a brothel, I think we can assume that consent is kinda given.  

 

I thought it was 100% clear that Niska did not choose or agree to be in the brothel and could not physically leave without a human taking her out. She is definitely trapped and enslaved, but the culpability for those who enslaved her is unclear, because they presumably didn't have any idea she was sentient (she was pretending to be a normal synth to avoid a worse fate of being studied/destroyed by the government). I think the fault for this situation lies almost 100% with Leo, since he's the only one who knew she was sentient, knew she didn't want to be there, and actively chose not to let her out ("for her own good"). 

[Captain I0]

Given her machine nature, she wasn't in a position to do so, as she was programmed to obey (Anita, moreso than Mia, although she's in there too).  An analogy might be getting a human female sufficiently drugged up that they don't object, but that is very far from say they consent, and is in fact the very opposite of consent.  Anita literally cannot consent, and sex - consent = rape.  Not sure I can put it any more simply than that.

But this is a bit of a circular argument that fails to connect with your original reasoning, is what I'm saying. You are claiming that it only matters what Joe thinks of Anita. So, from Joe's perspective, if Anita can't consent due to programming, then she's simply a programmable appliance. If she's more than that, then she has some ability to consent, which he asked for.

[henripootel]

You are claiming that it only matters what Joe thinks of Anita. So, from Joe's perspective, if Anita can't consent due to programming, then she's simply a programmable appliance. If she's more than that, then she has some ability to consent, which he asked for.

I'm saying it's not clear what Joe thought, but yes, what was in his head tells us something about his decision to screw Anita.  He was clearly torn about it - he was bashful when he examined her naked, he was tentative and shameful when he activated her adult features, and immediately shameful after the deed.  Nobody was around then, so this probably wasn't a performance for anyone else's benefit.  I don't think this is a guy who's just trying to be discreet about his onanistic behavior, this is a guy who's wondering if he should be doing this.  If Joe had thought Anita was no different than a roomba, he'd have acted differently.  The disconnect here is that I think the writers want to have it both ways - Joe's a nice guy who also occasionally does things he himself feels might possibly be a bit horrible.  This is why it's important what Joe thinks at some points (at least for some purposes), rather than what's actually true (but Joe can't possibly know).

 

Oddly, I think Joe might have been a better guy if he clearly thought she is just a sex toy and been (discreetly) boffing Anita 12 ways from sunday.  At least he'd have been doing so with a clear conscience.  Not sure about the state of Joe's conscience here - he must have figured out that forced Mia to have sex with him, even if he wasn't so clear about his having coerced Anita to do so (or if that question is relevant with Anita).  He may not have meant to do so but that doesn't mean he didn't do it - have we seen much remorse from him for this?  I think I'd feel pretty bad about this, and not just because everybody found out about it. 

[Which Tyler]

Still sounds exactly like someone indulging in abnormal forms of masturbation to me.

I also still consider it utterly irrelevant.

IMO the only person who has a valid opinion about whether someone has been raped is the rape victim, not the rapist. Otherwise we might just as well ask all rapists if they felt it was rape, and let them go if they didnt , and convict a few who felt bad later even though consent is given.

Mind you, I consider rape to be an issue of consent, not about whether the perp feels dirty.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Which Tyler

[henripootel]

IMO the only person who has a valid opinion about whether someone has been raped is the rape victim, not the rapist.

Fine enough in normal life but let's consider a possibility this show opens up.  Let's say synths are sentient and one gets forced to have sex, then made to delete the memory of it.  The synth now has no opinion about whether or not they've been raped.  Question: no rape occurred then? There's more to this than the subjective opinion of the victim.

Mind you, I consider rape to be an issue of consent, not about whether the perp feels dirty.

 

That's less an opinion and more pretty much the definition of rape.  For my part, I was only interested in Joe's character development and why the writers seemed to want to have things different ways depending on the needs of the plot.  Joe's opinion about his own actions speak only to this, not to whether a crime has occurred.  Whether a crime has occurred and whether Joe feels bad about (possibly) committing a crime are separate issues, and we should be careful not to confuse the two.  

[Tara Ariano]

It's so surprising to me that this is still a point of contention. To me, the show seems unambiguous in its position on human/synth sex: it's consistently portrayed as something that happens, but not a practice any human characters we're supposed to like or admire engage in or feel good about afterward. But...obviously people are finding all sorts of loopholes I'm not seeing portrayed at all.

[fauntleroy]

This kind of goes to the issue mentioned earlier about the anachronistic (?*) portrayal of the synths I think. Jokes are made about the fact that a synth is a 'toaster' so who cares. But even the ones that lack consciousness are physically indistinguishable from human beings. Sex with an intelligent, decision-making mobile 'object', if you will, that is physically indistinguishable from the actress Gemma Chan, for example, is not like having sex with a toaster, even if that object cannot give consent.

 

I think the show is cheating (heh) on this issue because for all practical purposes, Anita is effectively 'conscious'. Laura has abdicated after all the critical job of minding the kids to Anita because she does a better job--she makes better decisions.

 

This gets to my dissatisfaction with the model--that 'consciousness' is something that can be bestowed if only the gang can get together long enough to hold hands and...whatever. To me consciousness is more of an emergent property--any sufficiently complex decision-making machine will tend to become conscious. Gradual realization, rather than a switch, seems the more likely model. We have not seen it yet in reality but neither do we have such complex autonomous devices. Consciousness was not bestowed on humans, it emerged. So with these synths I think.

 

* Is there a word for an anachronism from the future? That's what the synths are. They are cousins of Data--24th-century tech plopped into present-day Britain. The 'toaster rights' issue would have been long processed and evolved beyond by any society that had such creatures in its midst over time, due to exposure to the earlier, not-so-lifelike models.

[Mabinogia]

Whether a crime has occurred and whether Joe feels bad about (possibly) committing a crime are separate issues, and we should be careful not to confuse the two.

 

Technically no crime has been committed that we know of. They put an adult option in the packet so it's easy to assume that having sex with a synth is not a crime.

 

As for rape or not, in the Humans world (and ours, at this moment in time) it is not rape since Anita is not a person and rape is defined as sexual intercourse without a person's consent. It could be interesting to see this argued in court. The "rapist" would get off because Synths are not human and have no human rights but it could open up all kinds of new precedents. 

 

For me, I hesitate calling it rape because Joe did not intend to rape her. I do believe that if he knew there was a sentient Mia inside of Anita he would not have done what he did. He intended to masturbate with a lifelike appliance. That he felt bad about it afterward doesn't mean he thinks it was rape but he does think he cheated on his wife.

 

The great thing about this show is, the existence of Synths can't help but blur our concept of what a human is, which I think is the point. And I love it!

 

So, if more sentient Synths emerge, they will have to fight for their rights to become citizens, to have the same basic rights as humans. Right now, they don't. Ergo, Joe didn't rape something that can't actually be raped because it's not a person. This could be a direction the show takes in future seasons.

[queenanne]

Catching up here:  IMO Anita can’t give or deny consent in any meaningful way, and I didn’t come out the end of the episode feeling as if she was violated.  I agree in retrospect the writers probably did want me to think she was violated, but I don’t feel even the actress acted Anita as violated (Mia may be a different circumstance, as I think the writers do clearly intend for me to think of Niska as sexually violated and feeling so; thus, Niska and Anita/Mia would be different points on the same spectrum of sexual violation).  I mean, you (neither a character or a showrunner) wouldn’t go apeshit on johns, unless you’re trying to say they’re wrong'uns simply by the act of being johns.  I always felt like from the point of view of Joe-Anita/Mia-Laura triangle, the problem for Laura is akin to the porn/blow-up doll/any other type of marital aid, which parallel others are making.  I thought the idea was that Joe thinks this "human figure" is hot, and that the unspoken subtext for Laura, is that it's bad because Joe clearly felt he couldn't live without having sex with this plastic (ok, silicon) facsimile of a human.  He wasn't even compelled to cheat with a live person.

Edited August 19, 2015 by queenanne

[Sakura12]

I think of it like this, they didn't get Anita as a sex toy, they got her to be a nanny to their kids. So I understand Laura being angry at Joe even without Anita being human. 

Edited August 20, 2015 by Sakura12

[Tara Ariano]

Also, the show doesn't seem to want us to approve of it -- which is convenient, because I don't!

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Ugh, OF COURSE Joe just can't resist having sex with Anita. It is always extremely disappointing when people like Joe live down to the cliche expectations of the stupidest thing they could possibly do. And that was AFTER he got confirmation from Anita that Laura really was meeting with a client, not cheating on him.

Similarly, Toby gets an ugh too for thinking he has feelings for Anita. I know he's a pubescent boy but still.

Interesting that Mattie has been the one who doesn't like synths but she felt enough to stop the idiot boys at the party from having sex with one. Maybe she's finally turned a corner there.

I know Leo was desperate to find Mia, but he blew it when he got too eager with Mattie. Calm down, dude!

Wow, Karen is one brave synth to let a human stay at her house without worrying that he'll find out her secret. When she locked her bedroom door, I really just thought that was because she's a police officer and therefore very thorough about security.

While part of me thought it was kind of cool for Niska to want to set free all the synths at fight club, she really drew a lot of unnecessary attention to herself. There were people recording on their phones when she started attacking the humans, so what are the chances that someone posted the video before she finished clearing out the place? If it goes viral, she is going to have a pretty hard time hiding.

I've been wondering for the past few episodes why two of the sentient synths who were captured (Niska and Fred) remained sentient after their mods but Mia seems like she's had her sentience and memories mostly removed. Since they were captured by the same scavengers and taken to Silas, I assumed that he'd wiped them all the same way so I don't understand why Mia is the only one who seems to be all synthy. I considered the possibility that she's senient and just pretending not to be, but given her brief memory where she screamed for help, I think she's not faking it. Heh or if she was, she'd be faking it better instead of letting hints of her sentience seeping through with her sympathy for Laura about reading Sophie's bedtime story. I liked that once Laura found out that Anita is fourteen years old, she immediately wanted to keep her. Heh, and I love that Joe is now sweating bullets thinking that she's going to find out that he fucked their synth.

Edited September 24, 2018 by ElectricBoogaloo