Does Melchior rape Wendla in SPRING AWAKENING? — Page 4

Wendla's listening to "the word of her body" without knowledge of sex and birth control leads to tragedy. Those who insist on "just say no" abstinence programs today instead of real education create the same dilemma for our teens, who face not only unwanted pregnancy, but the dangers of HIV/AIDS and STDs. They also have pressure to have sex before they feel ready, and those who are ready don't always have access and info on safe sex.
SA is so powerful because it asks its audience- parents and teens alike to focus on these issues and prevent more tragedy.

au contraire, condoms have existed since 1000 bc in one form or another. mass produced rubbers came on the scene around 1861.

but i think they don't use one because they're both bug chasers.
condom history

---

"I don't think so. She thought this was love, just like she thought being brutally beaten was a way to express love. "

In my view, I don't think she thought being beaten was a way to express love.

When I first saw the show, the thought that it was rape hadn't even really crossed my mind until I got home and joined discussions on it. I'm assuming this is because of how the actors played it the night I saw it; whenever Wendla protested outright, Melchior stopped what he was doing, and Wendla was one that resumed the act.

I could see it going both ways, but I personally saw it as consensual--and to me, that does not dumb down the play at all. The idea that Melchior is still a hero in the play even though he rapes Wendla does not sit well with me. I never sympathized with Melchior in Wedekind's version, because I did not buy the fact that since he was acting on repressed emotion, it made it "okay". Rape is never okay.

In my mind, the theme of the musical is chiefly that of miscommunication (and lack of communication) between the characters, and the consequences of that miscommunication. The musical's main point, in my mind, is to warn against that miscommunication.

Yes, he raped her. He should have stopped as soon as she said no, but instead he took advantage of her naivety and kept going.

I still see it as rape.

No, she wants it . . .

This is actually an important topic, I feel.

Here's my take on it:
It was NOT rape, imo. Yes, she does object in the beginning, but I feel like you really have to look at it beyond a surface level. What makes a rape a rape, I feel, is when the victim feels violated. A person can lay there and not object at all, but if they are hurt by what is being done to them, it is a rape (granted in that situation, I'd have to place SOME of the blame on them for not objecting at all). Likewise, a person can technically say "no, no" all they want, but if in reality it IS something they want and that they're not hurt by, it's not a rape. Also, I never really felt like Wendla was objecting to the actual sex in the first place. I saw it more as that she was scared by the fact that they weren't allowed to do it. When she says no, she's saying "no, we're not supposed to", not "no, I don't want to". So I viewed it more as that she was never afraid to do it with him, she was just afraid to be doing something she wasn't allowed to. So when he finally convinced her not to worry about "the rules" of it all, that's when she finally gave in and said yes.

That's not to say that I don't think it's irresponsible of Melchior to persuade Wendla to go along with it knowing that she has no knowledge of what may come of it, but it's not rape. Seduction, sure, but there's a very big difference between seduction and rape.

The fact is that it's made very clear, more throughout the course of act 2 even than in the sex scene itself, that Wendla was not hurt emotionally by what Melchior did. In fact, she fully WANTED to be with him again, just as he wanted to be with her again. It wasn't great that he took advantage of her naivety, but to call him a rapist is way too harsh in my opinion.

I guess I have a problem with people saying he's a rapist because to say that almost, to me, undermines those who ARE real rapists- like Martha's father, for instance. To put Melchior in the same league as someone like that just doesn't seem right to me.

Also, I think there's something to be said for the fact that Melchior is naive too. Yes, he's read about sex in books. Yes, he understands the physicality of it. But could we really asume that he'd even know what rape IS? I'm very, very willing to bet none of the books he read ever delved into the idea of sex, if it is not wanted, being a painful and scarring experience. So to place the blame on him for pushing her into it.. that's kind of unfair. If he doesn't realize at all that what he is doing could possibly be hurtful, how can he know to stop?

Again, I'm not saying he's completely and totally innocent: what he did was irresponsible, and probably a little bit selfish to push her into it like that. But I just think you have to remember that he's young and naive also, and though he technically knows what he's doing, that doesn't mean he realizes the full emotional aspect of it.

---

Not only do (especially young) men have to have it spelled out to them, but there's also a tendency to try and convince the girl that it's okay, or whatever. Even a perfectly comprehensible expression of not wanting to is too often followed by an "oh, come on." Which, personally, I just see as an issue of respect.

---

I can only speak for myself, but for me, the issue is that in the play, it is clearly, indisputably rape. The musical took that and flipped it in favor of romance and heroism. It's not clear in the musical that it is or isn't supposed to be rape. Isn't that why the question was posed in the first place?

I love how one teenager's pro-SA rant is suddenly the final word and THE correct view. That's honestly just laughable.

---

Updated On: 2/3/08 at 12:23 PM

Oh for God's sake. You obviously didn't read. I explained that my perspective, as far as the musical goes, isn't one or the other BECAUSE IT IS UNCLEAR. The musical takes pains to turn Melchior into a hero, and to romanticize an incredibly ugly reality. It's a bastardization of what the play says. It is SUPPOSED to be rape. It SHOULD be rape in order for the point that Wedekind intended to make the most sense. For me, it's not an issue of disputing the assumption that in the musical, it's not rape, because it's so obvious why people can see it that way. Snl's post goes to show that she sees exactly what Stephen Sater's book WANTS you to see. But that's why I didn't -- and am not going to -- sit here and address her point by point, because what I'm saying is not about arguing that it IS, in the MUSICAL, a clear-cut case of rape. I'm not TRYING to prove that it is. I'm saying that it. should. be. This is about a problem with the writing. And yes, it's laughable that because one teenager fell into the trap Sater's book sets, you decided to march in and tell everyone who has actually used their head about the matter that the case is now "closed" and nobody else may discuss it, because the final word has been spoken.

---

Updated On: 2/3/08 at 12:48 PM

Wow you sure are angry.....and I did the opposite of what you accused me of....I encouraged you to keep the convo going, but by acknowleding previous posters and giving your own opinions, rather than just making petty comments like "you obviously didn't read"
All I said was, I agreed with what SNL89, said; I thought it was a compelling case, rather than a wild rant with lots of random capitalizations, etc. You'll have to excuse me that I didn't think to check SNL89's age before I reacted to the posting.

---

Updated On: 2/3/08 at 12:58 PM