Does Melchior rape Wendla in SPRING AWAKENING? — Page 8

Exactly, snl. That's all you're saying because you KNOW there's no evidence to prove Melchior doesn't know about rape as you've repeatedly claimed and don't want to admit you have nothing to back up your argument. "Case closed."

---

Updated On: 2/4/08 at 05:59 PM

-it's still painfully obvious that their society did NOT have the same "no means no" standards we have today-
-How do you know that? How is that "painfully obvious?"-

I agree that what Melchior does is rape, but I disagree with this point. It seems like willful ignorance to purport that society to have had a healthy, feminist, enlightened view on the subject of rape. I mean, it is painfully obvious there wouldn't be a No Means No standard at that time, because No Means No (as a rally cry, as something a society would teach their young women and young men alike) places the blame on the perpetrator. While rape would certainly never be something encouraged of a young man, the shame and the blame would most likely fall on the woman. And forget about the idea of a man raping his wife. There's no way the society portrayed in Spring Awakening would consider that as anything but a man's right and duty.

I don't agree with SNL, and I see why people can find some of the defenses somewhat startling. But I think the discussion is definitely devolving when a respectful poster is being shamed and condescended to because they've taken up the controversial defense. If you can admit that there is a flaw in the writing, it doesn't seem fair to say so and in the same post belittle someone for interpreting something the way it was intended to be interpreted.

The elevation of Melchior as the hero of the piece after all of his manipulation and selfishness is such an uncomfortable, irresponsible, and maddening thing to have to watch play out. But I think the supposed danger and villainy of actually viewing him as a defensible protagonist is being a bit overstated.

Everyone should understand that the musical is NOT Wedekinde's play, nor is it ever supposed to be. It's Sater and Sheik's INTERPRETATION of Wedekind's play. Sater and Sheik view the story (and they have repeatedly said the following) as a parable NOT on the dangers of sexuality, but on the dangers of miscommunication between the knowledgeable and the unknowledgeable. Wedekind's play is a very wonderful piece, but it is not and never should it be comparable to Spring Awakening; that's like comparing the POTO novel with the POTO musical--they are two completely different entities with two completely different messages, and some of the characters have complete face-lifts. Some aren't even there at all.

In defining Melchior's "rape" of Wendla, in the musical's case, you have to look at it in the musical's context. Based on the libretto OF THE MUSICAL, Melchior is a relatively naive boy. He finds things out by reading books, yes, but that by no means translates into his actually understanding those things in their entirety. Hell, the kid giggles when Moritz asks specific questions about everything "fitting". He draws pictures and uses medical terminology to describe sex to Moritz, and, when asked about the girl's experience, he replies: "I just put myself in her shoes and imagine." Which is evidence to the fact that he does not in fact really know what the girl experiences.

The actual sex scene is, by definition, not rape. When Wendla says no, Melchior STOPS what he is doing BOTH TIMES. It is WENDLA who reinitiates it both times--the first by kissing him, the second by placing his hand on her breast. In the context of the musical, then, it cannot be defined as rape. Thus, in the context of the musical, rape is not romanticized, as it does not exist in the first place.

The musical's message is the consequences of miscommunication. The play's message is the consequences and dangers of sexuality. Two completely different messages, two completely different scenes.

I'm disappointed that it seems like you got the idea that I suggested that academic discourse must be stale and boring. Nothing is further from the truth, especially when it comes to a shockingly emotionaly topic like rape.

This:

"this thread could be a real actual discussion if it werent for the mean-spiritedness."

seemed to indicate that this could only be a "real" discussion if not for the heated nature. But I'm glad you don't actually think academics can't be emotional, because that'd be very sad.

I think the show does ask you to have affection for Melchior. There's a lot that's likable about him, especially in the way he's set up. He's smart, he's popular, he's cute, he seems like a caring enough guy. But good theatrical characters are built to be like real people. They aren't clean-cut good and bad. So to say imply that we're supposed to feel pity for Melchior as some sort of "courtesy" just because part of his character is sympathetic, is something I have a bit of trouble with. I do agree that he's a tragic character, largely because of his mistakes, but again, that doesn't mean we can't point fingers at him. I understand liking a character. I really do. But liking or having affection for a character shouldn't stop you from being able to look at his or her actions critically, and at the end of the day, as a device within the drama. It shouldn't make you look at that person in clear-cut, black and white terms of good and bad.

---

Updated On: 2/4/08 at 11:20 PM

oh man that reform school scene was so awkward to explain to the juniors I brought to the show last month....I used as many euphemisms as I could.

---

Just by consenting to let him continue touching and kissing her, she didn't initiate the sex. She couldn't, because we're supposed to believe that she literally has no idea what sexual intercourse entails.

She didn't know what the act was, let alone the consequences. There's basically nothing it could be but a form of rape.

"Just by consenting to let him continue touching and kissing her, she didn't initiate the sex. "

True, just consenting is not initiating. However, as I've said multiple times, in the musical Melchior stops both times she says no. The first time, Wendla says no as he's trying to kiss her. Melchior stops, and Wendla ends up kissing him to continue what they are doing. The second time she says no and he stops, taking his hand off her chest. She proceeds to place it back onto her chest.

If that's not re-initiation, I don't know what is.

As well, there are no signs at all during the rest of the play that she was scarred, physically or mentally, in any way. She never regrets what she has done with Melchior--in fact, she often says how she wants to spend more time with him. Right after the sex scene, Melchior and Wendla are kissing, and Wendla sings how it was "sweet and unknown". How can it be a rape if the "victim" does not consider herself as one?

Updated On: 2/6/08 at 06:45 PM

And yet those are the only two times she says no in the musical. And, as I already mentioned, she does not seem to regret the act. So, once again, I ask: how is she a rape victim if she does not feel victimized in any way?

"So, once again, I ask: how is she a rape victim if she does not feel victimized in any way?"

How do you have consensual sex with someone who doesn't know what sex is?

Do you think he'll rape anyone in Hair?

So how is it rape if there is no victim?

If admitted shame, sadness, regret, or suffering from the victim was required to classify it 'rape', there wouldn't be any such thing as 'statutory rape'. A 13 year old who concedes to sex with a 19 year old is being raped, even if she enjoys it and feels confident in the rightness of it. Probably thinking to herself "I let him love me".

But, usually, it will have a negative impact on a girl to be sexualized that young. Especially by an adult man, self aware and controlling the situation. Whether she feels it, whether she admits it, it will probably manifest. For Wendla, it manifested in her pregnancy and subsequent death. Thus, making her a victim of an act that she didn't understand.

You missed the point of Craww's comparison to statutory rape. And Shakespeare never implies Juliet does not know what sex is. Spring Awakening makes a point that Wendla did not. Your comparison isn't valid.

---

omg. Why is this thread back?!

---