The Morning Show-Apple TV

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm rewatching season one of this show and the whole plot with Mitch and Hannah, the way it unfolds -- I think this show doesn't get credit for how nuanced they were with that. The show can be hammy and weird at times, and the focus is often on the more soapy plot lines and some of the performances are kind of silly, plus the stunt casting of big names for even small roles is a focus.

But the show actually told a really awful story in an interesting way, and I appreciate how well they were able to show that storyline from the perspective of Mitch and others (who didn't really get what had happened) without detracting from Hannah's story.

I honestly still don't understand what was so "awful" about Mitch. Yes, he had a consensual affair with Mia. Yes, he slept with Hannah. He did not sexually assault anyone. Yet he was pilloried for... what, exactly? And before anyone flames me and accuses me of being a man, I am a woman. I simply do not understand this story line AT ALL.

PP who just rewatched S1 here.

He r*ped Hannah. They did a good job of showing why he didn't think he did, and how he sort of conveniently "forgot" about the power dynamics involved in all of his relationships in order to convince himself that someone in Hannah's position could just turn him down or leave. But also, from Hannah's perspective, it wasn't even just that he was immensely powerful in her workplace and could get her fired. It was also the sheer power of celebrity, of having someone who feels incredibly familiar in a fatherly way (because that's the image Mitch and TMS sold every day) asking something of you and not wanting to say no or let him down. The power imbalance is immense. But Hannah did not flirt with him, told him that's not why she was there, and he chose not to listen. She didn't consent and she didn't feel she could leave. It was r*pe.

Even with Mia, they show how loose his idea of boundaries were, and how even Mia, who did consent and had a lot more agency in that relationship, was very much not in control. They show him in the birthday flashback episode, where it's revealed he and Mia have just broken up (her decision) being unbelievably handsy with her in the hallway at TMS, in full view of other people, and her kind of laughing and pushing him off. And that's what he's doing in front of colleagues. There's the story of him assaulting that assistant (she's the one who does an interview with Bradley about it) -- his initial actions toward her are 100% nonconsensual. It's sexual assault. Yes, she later has a "relationship" with him, but it's very clear that she feels conflicted about it and that it wasn't something she wanted to do, more something she felt she couldn't say no to.

I think the show did a really good job of depicting what it means for someone like Matt Lauer, or Bill Clinton, or HarveyWeinstein, to get away with what they got away with. When you have someone who is that powerful, plus charismatic, plus truly believes that women love them and want them all the time, and put them in a cutthroat business where young women are deeply invested in not being seen as the complainer, the prude, etc. It's just really dangerous. It really is a culture thing because the culture is what enables the behavior. All those people averting their eyes as Mitch feels up an assistant who looks uncomfortable but also isn't saying anything, who laugh at his jokes about how hot Alex would look in a short dress, who watch him pull a producer into his dressing room and know what's going on in there, and just look away, laugh, pretend it isn't happening. That behavior makes it so much harder for someone to say no even if it's screaming from inside them, because they know that if there is punishment for it, people will look away. If they tell anyone, people will look away. The entire system is set up to empower these men (and sometimes women) to get what they want when they want it.

But the system doesn't absolve them of responsibility, either. Mitch is really adamant that he never r*ped anyone, that he just had affairs. But in the episodes where you see his behavior at TMS, his old personality -- he was just pushing boundaries, left and right, seeing what he could get away with. And every time he got away with it, it just emboldened him to push harder. You can see the degree to which power has consumed him and he wants to see how far he can push it. That's what he did with Hannah, and likely with other women (I mean, fiction, but it's implied) -- he was looking to see how far he could push them and each time he didn't get resistance, it made him push that much harder the next time.

Also want to note that upon rewatch, one of the subtle things that jump out about the Hannah situation is that Mitch is taking advantage of the heightened emotions of the moment (they are in Vegas covering a mass shooting) and Hannah's clearly compromised emotional state (she starts crying in her hotel room, clearly overwhelmed, and it is when he's comforting her that he starts coming on to her).

Hannah talks in her interview with Bradley about how Mitch made her feel special and "parented" her, and how valuable that was to her in the moment because she lost her mom when she was young and desperately needed/wanted that kind of parental care.

And there are these parallels to how journalists, especially those who interview people on camera like on a morning news program, are very good at using their subject's vulnerability and emotion to solicit the responses they want, that will play well on camera and give the story a hook. So it feels to some extent that Mitch is doing precisely that, but to get sex -- he's buttering up Hannah, charming her, encouraging her to open up, and then when he sees an opening, he goes in for what he wants. Upon watching it a second time, it feels both instinctual and overtly manipulative, much the way a skilled interviewer's ability to get a money quote would.

[Anonymous]

Ok, I agree with a lot of your points - but I’m afraid I completely disagree that Mitch raped Hannah. He did not rape her, he had sex with her and she did not stop him. That is not rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I agree with a lot of your points - but I’m afraid I completely disagree that Mitch raped Hannah. He did not rape her, he had sex with her and she did not stop him. That is not rape.

Rape is sex without consent. She did not consent. She didn't want to have sex with him. She did not go to his room with the intent of having sex with him and was surprised when he came onto her. She was also in a compromised emotional state.

If you don't want to use the word rape for it, okay I guess. I was raped by a male friend 20 years ago and I didn't call it rape for a long time because it didn't fit my mental definition of forcible rape. But that's what it is when someone has sex with you with out your consent. Eventually I just accepted that's what it was. But I get it can be hard to conceptualize when you've been told for years what rape looks like. I also get that it's hard to understand why a person in that situation might freeze up and make an instinctual decision to let it happen rather than fight (it's call the freeze response, as in fight, flight, or freeze). But the truth is that when a power imbalance is especially dramatic, freezing in place and "letting it happen" is a common trauma response, especially for someone who, like Hannah, has a history of childhood trauma.

It was rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I agree with a lot of your points - but I’m afraid I completely disagree that Mitch raped Hannah. He did not rape her, he had sex with her and she did not stop him. That is not rape.

Rape is sex without consent. She did not consent. She didn't want to have sex with him. She did not go to his room with the intent of having sex with him and was surprised when he came onto her. She was also in a compromised emotional state.

If you don't want to use the word rape for it, okay I guess. I was raped by a male friend 20 years ago and I didn't call it rape for a long time because it didn't fit my mental definition of forcible rape. But that's what it is when someone has sex with you with out your consent. Eventually I just accepted that's what it was. But I get it can be hard to conceptualize when you've been told for years what rape looks like. I also get that it's hard to understand why a person in that situation might freeze up and make an instinctual decision to let it happen rather than fight (it's call the freeze response, as in fight, flight, or freeze). But the truth is that when a power imbalance is especially dramatic, freezing in place and "letting it happen" is a common trauma response, especially for someone who, like Hannah, has a history of childhood trauma.

It was rape.

I completely disagree. To use the word "rape" to describe an unpleasant sexual experience cheapens the word immeasurably. We will have to agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I agree with a lot of your points - but I’m afraid I completely disagree that Mitch raped Hannah. He did not rape her, he had sex with her and she did not stop him. That is not rape.

Rape is sex without consent. She did not consent. She didn't want to have sex with him. She did not go to his room with the intent of having sex with him and was surprised when he came onto her. She was also in a compromised emotional state.

If you don't want to use the word rape for it, okay I guess. I was raped by a male friend 20 years ago and I didn't call it rape for a long time because it didn't fit my mental definition of forcible rape. But that's what it is when someone has sex with you with out your consent. Eventually I just accepted that's what it was. But I get it can be hard to conceptualize when you've been told for years what rape looks like. I also get that it's hard to understand why a person in that situation might freeze up and make an instinctual decision to let it happen rather than fight (it's call the freeze response, as in fight, flight, or freeze). But the truth is that when a power imbalance is especially dramatic, freezing in place and "letting it happen" is a common trauma response, especially for someone who, like Hannah, has a history of childhood trauma.

It was rape.

I completely disagree. To use the word "rape" to describe an unpleasant sexual experience cheapens the word immeasurably. We will have to agree to disagree.

I don't agree to disagree, and I think you should think hard about your decision to describe it as "an unpleasant sexual experience." Just to recap what happened:

Hannah was coerced into having sex *by her boss* who also happened to be a famous millionaire, while clearly emotional distraught covering a mass shooting. Even if you don't want to call it rape, it is, at a minimum sexual harassment.

I do not understand why you are so determined to minimize it. This is a character who winds up overdosing because she is so traumatized by this event. Again, if you don't want to use the word rape, don't, but you don't get to hand wave it away because she wasn't held at gunpoint and she didn't behave the way you think a rape victim is supposed to behave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I agree with a lot of your points - but I’m afraid I completely disagree that Mitch raped Hannah. He did not rape her, he had sex with her and she did not stop him. That is not rape.

Rape is sex without consent. She did not consent. She didn't want to have sex with him. She did not go to his room with the intent of having sex with him and was surprised when he came onto her. She was also in a compromised emotional state.

If you don't want to use the word rape for it, okay I guess. I was raped by a male friend 20 years ago and I didn't call it rape for a long time because it didn't fit my mental definition of forcible rape. But that's what it is when someone has sex with you with out your consent. Eventually I just accepted that's what it was. But I get it can be hard to conceptualize when you've been told for years what rape looks like. I also get that it's hard to understand why a person in that situation might freeze up and make an instinctual decision to let it happen rather than fight (it's call the freeze response, as in fight, flight, or freeze). But the truth is that when a power imbalance is especially dramatic, freezing in place and "letting it happen" is a common trauma response, especially for someone who, like Hannah, has a history of childhood trauma.

It was rape.

I completely disagree. To use the word "rape" to describe an unpleasant sexual experience cheapens the word immeasurably. We will have to agree to disagree.

I don't agree to disagree, and I think you should think hard about your decision to describe it as "an unpleasant sexual experience." Just to recap what happened:

Hannah was coerced into having sex *by her boss* who also happened to be a famous millionaire, while clearly emotional distraught covering a mass shooting. Even if you don't want to call it rape, it is, at a minimum sexual harassment.

I do not understand why you are so determined to minimize it. This is a character who winds up overdosing because she is so traumatized by this event. Again, if you don't want to use the word rape, don't, but you don't get to hand wave it away because she wasn't held at gunpoint and she didn't behave the way you think a rape victim is supposed to behave.

Are you the infamous "hand-wavey" poster? Look, you can categorize this *fictional* encounter any way you choose - as can I. Hannah and Mitch had sex. She didn't want to, yet she also didn't object. He did not force himself on her; she could have said stop, or walked away at any point. Was there a power imbalance? Sure. Was it inappropriate for Mitch to have come on to her due to this power imbalance? Absolutely. Did Mitch rape Hannah? No, he did not.

I have been in a similar situation myself. I was disgusted by the end of it and furious with the man and with myself. Was I raped by him? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I agree with a lot of your points - but I’m afraid I completely disagree that Mitch raped Hannah. He did not rape her, he had sex with her and she did not stop him. That is not rape.

Rape is sex without consent. She did not consent. She didn't want to have sex with him. She did not go to his room with the intent of having sex with him and was surprised when he came onto her. She was also in a compromised emotional state.

If you don't want to use the word rape for it, okay I guess. I was raped by a male friend 20 years ago and I didn't call it rape for a long time because it didn't fit my mental definition of forcible rape. But that's what it is when someone has sex with you with out your consent. Eventually I just accepted that's what it was. But I get it can be hard to conceptualize when you've been told for years what rape looks like. I also get that it's hard to understand why a person in that situation might freeze up and make an instinctual decision to let it happen rather than fight (it's call the freeze response, as in fight, flight, or freeze). But the truth is that when a power imbalance is especially dramatic, freezing in place and "letting it happen" is a common trauma response, especially for someone who, like Hannah, has a history of childhood trauma.

It was rape.

I completely disagree. To use the word "rape" to describe an unpleasant sexual experience cheapens the word immeasurably. We will have to agree to disagree.

I don't agree to disagree, and I think you should think hard about your decision to describe it as "an unpleasant sexual experience." Just to recap what happened:

Hannah was coerced into having sex *by her boss* who also happened to be a famous millionaire, while clearly emotional distraught covering a mass shooting. Even if you don't want to call it rape, it is, at a minimum sexual harassment.

I do not understand why you are so determined to minimize it. This is a character who winds up overdosing because she is so traumatized by this event. Again, if you don't want to use the word rape, don't, but you don't get to hand wave it away because she wasn't held at gunpoint and she didn't behave the way you think a rape victim is supposed to behave.

Are you the infamous "hand-wavey" poster? Look, you can categorize this *fictional* encounter any way you choose - as can I. Hannah and Mitch had sex. She didn't want to, yet she also didn't object. He did not force himself on her; she could have said stop, or walked away at any point. Was there a power imbalance? Sure. Was it inappropriate for Mitch to have come on to her due to this power imbalance? Absolutely. Did Mitch rape Hannah? No, he did not.

I have been in a similar situation myself. I was disgusted by the end of it and furious with the man and with myself. Was I raped by him? No.

Who is the infamous hand-wavey poster? I don't even know what you are talking about.

That's fine, you can define your own experience however you want. But you are not the arbiter of what is rape. It's sex without consent. That's what happened to Hannah -- sex without consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I agree with a lot of your points - but I’m afraid I completely disagree that Mitch raped Hannah. He did not rape her, he had sex with her and she did not stop him. That is not rape.

Rape is sex without consent. She did not consent. She didn't want to have sex with him. She did not go to his room with the intent of having sex with him and was surprised when he came onto her. She was also in a compromised emotional state.

If you don't want to use the word rape for it, okay I guess. I was raped by a male friend 20 years ago and I didn't call it rape for a long time because it didn't fit my mental definition of forcible rape. But that's what it is when someone has sex with you with out your consent. Eventually I just accepted that's what it was. But I get it can be hard to conceptualize when you've been told for years what rape looks like. I also get that it's hard to understand why a person in that situation might freeze up and make an instinctual decision to let it happen rather than fight (it's call the freeze response, as in fight, flight, or freeze). But the truth is that when a power imbalance is especially dramatic, freezing in place and "letting it happen" is a common trauma response, especially for someone who, like Hannah, has a history of childhood trauma.

It was rape.

I completely disagree. To use the word "rape" to describe an unpleasant sexual experience cheapens the word immeasurably. We will have to agree to disagree.

I don't agree to disagree, and I think you should think hard about your decision to describe it as "an unpleasant sexual experience." Just to recap what happened:

Hannah was coerced into having sex *by her boss* who also happened to be a famous millionaire, while clearly emotional distraught covering a mass shooting. Even if you don't want to call it rape, it is, at a minimum sexual harassment.

I do not understand why you are so determined to minimize it. This is a character who winds up overdosing because she is so traumatized by this event. Again, if you don't want to use the word rape, don't, but you don't get to hand wave it away because she wasn't held at gunpoint and she didn't behave the way you think a rape victim is supposed to behave.

Are you the infamous "hand-wavey" poster? Look, you can categorize this *fictional* encounter any way you choose - as can I. Hannah and Mitch had sex. She didn't want to, yet she also didn't object. He did not force himself on her; she could have said stop, or walked away at any point. Was there a power imbalance? Sure. Was it inappropriate for Mitch to have come on to her due to this power imbalance? Absolutely. Did Mitch rape Hannah? No, he did not.

I have been in a similar situation myself. I was disgusted by the end of it and furious with the man and with myself. Was I raped by him? No.

Who is the infamous hand-wavey poster? I don't even know what you are talking about.

That's fine, you can define your own experience however you want. But you are not the arbiter of what is rape. It's sex without consent. That's what happened to Hannah -- sex without consent.

Guys the show lives in this ambiguity - it's part of what makes this situation so challenging and hard, and it's one of the things TMS does well.

You don't have to figure it out for all time today, if sex with someone who is in a fragile state and doesn't really want to do it, but doesn't say no, meets the definition of rape or is merely upsetting and gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I agree with a lot of your points - but I’m afraid I completely disagree that Mitch raped Hannah. He did not rape her, he had sex with her and she did not stop him. That is not rape.

Rape is sex without consent. She did not consent. She didn't want to have sex with him. She did not go to his room with the intent of having sex with him and was surprised when he came onto her. She was also in a compromised emotional state.

If you don't want to use the word rape for it, okay I guess. I was raped by a male friend 20 years ago and I didn't call it rape for a long time because it didn't fit my mental definition of forcible rape. But that's what it is when someone has sex with you with out your consent. Eventually I just accepted that's what it was. But I get it can be hard to conceptualize when you've been told for years what rape looks like. I also get that it's hard to understand why a person in that situation might freeze up and make an instinctual decision to let it happen rather than fight (it's call the freeze response, as in fight, flight, or freeze). But the truth is that when a power imbalance is especially dramatic, freezing in place and "letting it happen" is a common trauma response, especially for someone who, like Hannah, has a history of childhood trauma.

It was rape.

I completely disagree. To use the word "rape" to describe an unpleasant sexual experience cheapens the word immeasurably. We will have to agree to disagree.

I don't agree to disagree, and I think you should think hard about your decision to describe it as "an unpleasant sexual experience." Just to recap what happened:

Hannah was coerced into having sex *by her boss* who also happened to be a famous millionaire, while clearly emotional distraught covering a mass shooting. Even if you don't want to call it rape, it is, at a minimum sexual harassment.

I do not understand why you are so determined to minimize it. This is a character who winds up overdosing because she is so traumatized by this event. Again, if you don't want to use the word rape, don't, but you don't get to hand wave it away because she wasn't held at gunpoint and she didn't behave the way you think a rape victim is supposed to behave.

Are you the infamous "hand-wavey" poster? Look, you can categorize this *fictional* encounter any way you choose - as can I. Hannah and Mitch had sex. She didn't want to, yet she also didn't object. He did not force himself on her; she could have said stop, or walked away at any point. Was there a power imbalance? Sure. Was it inappropriate for Mitch to have come on to her due to this power imbalance? Absolutely. Did Mitch rape Hannah? No, he did not.

I have been in a similar situation myself. I was disgusted by the end of it and furious with the man and with myself. Was I raped by him? No.

Who is the infamous hand-wavey poster? I don't even know what you are talking about.

That's fine, you can define your own experience however you want. But you are not the arbiter of what is rape. It's sex without consent. That's what happened to Hannah -- sex without consent.

Guys the show lives in this ambiguity - it's part of what makes this situation so challenging and hard, and it's one of the things TMS does well.

You don't have to figure it out for all time today, if sex with someone who is in a fragile state and doesn't really want to do it, but doesn't say no, meets the definition of rape or is merely upsetting and gross.

I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I agree with a lot of your points - but I’m afraid I completely disagree that Mitch raped Hannah. He did not rape her, he had sex with her and she did not stop him. That is not rape.

Rape is sex without consent. She did not consent. She didn't want to have sex with him. She did not go to his room with the intent of having sex with him and was surprised when he came onto her. She was also in a compromised emotional state.

If you don't want to use the word rape for it, okay I guess. I was raped by a male friend 20 years ago and I didn't call it rape for a long time because it didn't fit my mental definition of forcible rape. But that's what it is when someone has sex with you with out your consent. Eventually I just accepted that's what it was. But I get it can be hard to conceptualize when you've been told for years what rape looks like. I also get that it's hard to understand why a person in that situation might freeze up and make an instinctual decision to let it happen rather than fight (it's call the freeze response, as in fight, flight, or freeze). But the truth is that when a power imbalance is especially dramatic, freezing in place and "letting it happen" is a common trauma response, especially for someone who, like Hannah, has a history of childhood trauma.

It was rape.

I completely disagree. To use the word "rape" to describe an unpleasant sexual experience cheapens the word immeasurably. We will have to agree to disagree.

I don't agree to disagree, and I think you should think hard about your decision to describe it as "an unpleasant sexual experience." Just to recap what happened:

Hannah was coerced into having sex *by her boss* who also happened to be a famous millionaire, while clearly emotional distraught covering a mass shooting. Even if you don't want to call it rape, it is, at a minimum sexual harassment.

I do not understand why you are so determined to minimize it. This is a character who winds up overdosing because she is so traumatized by this event. Again, if you don't want to use the word rape, don't, but you don't get to hand wave it away because she wasn't held at gunpoint and she didn't behave the way you think a rape victim is supposed to behave.

Are you the infamous "hand-wavey" poster? Look, you can categorize this *fictional* encounter any way you choose - as can I. Hannah and Mitch had sex. She didn't want to, yet she also didn't object. He did not force himself on her; she could have said stop, or walked away at any point. Was there a power imbalance? Sure. Was it inappropriate for Mitch to have come on to her due to this power imbalance? Absolutely. Did Mitch rape Hannah? No, he did not.

I have been in a similar situation myself. I was disgusted by the end of it and furious with the man and with myself. Was I raped by him? No.

Who is the infamous hand-wavey poster? I don't even know what you are talking about.

That's fine, you can define your own experience however you want. But you are not the arbiter of what is rape. It's sex without consent. That's what happened to Hannah -- sex without consent.

Guys the show lives in this ambiguity - it's part of what makes this situation so challenging and hard, and it's one of the things TMS does well.

You don't have to figure it out for all time today, if sex with someone who is in a fragile state and doesn't really want to do it, but doesn't say no, meets the definition of rape or is merely upsetting and gross.

I agree, but even if you don't think it qualifies as rape, I think it's weird to dismiss it as the PP did with "unpleasant sexual experience." Mitch was Hannah's boss, he was married, and he did this kind of thing a lot. It was, at a minimum, sexual harassment. You can think he'd be unlikely to be convicted of rape and also think it was a fireable offense he'd lose a lawsuit over, and that his behavior made him pretty irredeemable as a character.

I continue to be kind of shocked by the poster on the last page who needed to have it explained what exactly it was that Mitch did "wrong."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I agree with a lot of your points - but I’m afraid I completely disagree that Mitch raped Hannah. He did not rape her, he had sex with her and she did not stop him. That is not rape.

Rape is sex without consent. She did not consent. She didn't want to have sex with him. She did not go to his room with the intent of having sex with him and was surprised when he came onto her. She was also in a compromised emotional state.

If you don't want to use the word rape for it, okay I guess. I was raped by a male friend 20 years ago and I didn't call it rape for a long time because it didn't fit my mental definition of forcible rape. But that's what it is when someone has sex with you with out your consent. Eventually I just accepted that's what it was. But I get it can be hard to conceptualize when you've been told for years what rape looks like. I also get that it's hard to understand why a person in that situation might freeze up and make an instinctual decision to let it happen rather than fight (it's call the freeze response, as in fight, flight, or freeze). But the truth is that when a power imbalance is especially dramatic, freezing in place and "letting it happen" is a common trauma response, especially for someone who, like Hannah, has a history of childhood trauma.

It was rape.

I completely disagree. To use the word "rape" to describe an unpleasant sexual experience cheapens the word immeasurably. We will have to agree to disagree.

I don't agree to disagree, and I think you should think hard about your decision to describe it as "an unpleasant sexual experience." Just to recap what happened:

Hannah was coerced into having sex *by her boss* who also happened to be a famous millionaire, while clearly emotional distraught covering a mass shooting. Even if you don't want to call it rape, it is, at a minimum sexual harassment.

I do not understand why you are so determined to minimize it. This is a character who winds up overdosing because she is so traumatized by this event. Again, if you don't want to use the word rape, don't, but you don't get to hand wave it away because she wasn't held at gunpoint and she didn't behave the way you think a rape victim is supposed to behave.

Are you the infamous "hand-wavey" poster? Look, you can categorize this *fictional* encounter any way you choose - as can I. Hannah and Mitch had sex. She didn't want to, yet she also didn't object. He did not force himself on her; she could have said stop, or walked away at any point. Was there a power imbalance? Sure. Was it inappropriate for Mitch to have come on to her due to this power imbalance? Absolutely. Did Mitch rape Hannah? No, he did not.

I have been in a similar situation myself. I was disgusted by the end of it and furious with the man and with myself. Was I raped by him? No.

Who is the infamous hand-wavey poster? I don't even know what you are talking about.

That's fine, you can define your own experience however you want. But you are not the arbiter of what is rape. It's sex without consent. That's what happened to Hannah -- sex without consent.

Guys the show lives in this ambiguity - it's part of what makes this situation so challenging and hard, and it's one of the things TMS does well.

You don't have to figure it out for all time today, if sex with someone who is in a fragile state and doesn't really want to do it, but doesn't say no, meets the definition of rape or is merely upsetting and gross.

I agree, but even if you don't think it qualifies as rape, I think it's weird to dismiss it as the PP did with "unpleasant sexual experience." Mitch was Hannah's boss, he was married, and he did this kind of thing a lot. It was, at a minimum, sexual harassment. You can think he'd be unlikely to be convicted of rape and also think it was a fireable offense he'd lose a lawsuit over, and that his behavior made him pretty irredeemable as a character.

I continue to be kind of shocked by the poster on the last page who needed to have it explained what exactly it was that Mitch did "wrong."

Yeah! I don't blame you. I will guess you're a little younger, and the PP is my age or older - Gen X - where we grew up normalizing a lot of kinds of sex that now, in retrospect, seem pretty awful. On the other hand, it also feels like there's been an over-correction in these younger generations.

In any case - at the very least, Mitch was a lecherous creep who used his power to have sex with underlings who didn't feel they were in a position to say no. Whatever label we put on that, it's bad and he should not have done it - and he should have faced personal consequences (which he did!), even if not legal ones. But I do think that over and over TMS shows us situations that are deeply ambiguous, and we're supposed to experience all the conflicting thoughts and emotions that you'd really have if you knew these people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I agree with a lot of your points - but I’m afraid I completely disagree that Mitch raped Hannah. He did not rape her, he had sex with her and she did not stop him. That is not rape.

Rape is sex without consent. She did not consent. She didn't want to have sex with him. She did not go to his room with the intent of having sex with him and was surprised when he came onto her. She was also in a compromised emotional state.

If you don't want to use the word rape for it, okay I guess. I was raped by a male friend 20 years ago and I didn't call it rape for a long time because it didn't fit my mental definition of forcible rape. But that's what it is when someone has sex with you with out your consent. Eventually I just accepted that's what it was. But I get it can be hard to conceptualize when you've been told for years what rape looks like. I also get that it's hard to understand why a person in that situation might freeze up and make an instinctual decision to let it happen rather than fight (it's call the freeze response, as in fight, flight, or freeze). But the truth is that when a power imbalance is especially dramatic, freezing in place and "letting it happen" is a common trauma response, especially for someone who, like Hannah, has a history of childhood trauma.

It was rape.

I completely disagree. To use the word "rape" to describe an unpleasant sexual experience cheapens the word immeasurably. We will have to agree to disagree.

I don't agree to disagree, and I think you should think hard about your decision to describe it as "an unpleasant sexual experience." Just to recap what happened:

Hannah was coerced into having sex *by her boss* who also happened to be a famous millionaire, while clearly emotional distraught covering a mass shooting. Even if you don't want to call it rape, it is, at a minimum sexual harassment.

I do not understand why you are so determined to minimize it. This is a character who winds up overdosing because she is so traumatized by this event. Again, if you don't want to use the word rape, don't, but you don't get to hand wave it away because she wasn't held at gunpoint and she didn't behave the way you think a rape victim is supposed to behave.

Are you the infamous "hand-wavey" poster? Look, you can categorize this *fictional* encounter any way you choose - as can I. Hannah and Mitch had sex. She didn't want to, yet she also didn't object. He did not force himself on her; she could have said stop, or walked away at any point. Was there a power imbalance? Sure. Was it inappropriate for Mitch to have come on to her due to this power imbalance? Absolutely. Did Mitch rape Hannah? No, he did not.

I have been in a similar situation myself. I was disgusted by the end of it and furious with the man and with myself. Was I raped by him? No.

Who is the infamous hand-wavey poster? I don't even know what you are talking about.

That's fine, you can define your own experience however you want. But you are not the arbiter of what is rape. It's sex without consent. That's what happened to Hannah -- sex without consent.

Guys the show lives in this ambiguity - it's part of what makes this situation so challenging and hard, and it's one of the things TMS does well.

You don't have to figure it out for all time today, if sex with someone who is in a fragile state and doesn't really want to do it, but doesn't say no, meets the definition of rape or is merely upsetting and gross.

I agree, but even if you don't think it qualifies as rape, I think it's weird to dismiss it as the PP did with "unpleasant sexual experience." Mitch was Hannah's boss, he was married, and he did this kind of thing a lot. It was, at a minimum, sexual harassment. You can think he'd be unlikely to be convicted of rape and also think it was a fireable offense he'd lose a lawsuit over, and that his behavior made him pretty irredeemable as a character.

I continue to be kind of shocked by the poster on the last page who needed to have it explained what exactly it was that Mitch did "wrong."

Yeah! I don't blame you. I will guess you're a little younger, and the PP is my age or older - Gen X - where we grew up normalizing a lot of kinds of sex that now, in retrospect, seem pretty awful. On the other hand, it also feels like there's been an over-correction in these younger generations.

In any case - at the very least, Mitch was a lecherous creep who used his power to have sex with underlings who didn't feel they were in a position to say no. Whatever label we put on that, it's bad and he should not have done it - and he should have faced personal consequences (which he did!), even if not legal ones. But I do think that over and over TMS shows us situations that are deeply ambiguous, and we're supposed to experience all the conflicting thoughts and emotions that you'd really have if you knew these people.

The lock on his office door take it a step beyond, though - and shows us a pattern of perhaps more clearly criminal behavior.

But then there's Mia, who loved him - and Alex, who also seems to have gone to bed with him willingly. It wasn't all rape. Again - the conflicts and contradictions.

I think I am only really starting to appreciate that this show might be good? I thought it was awful but I enjoyed it, until now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I agree with a lot of your points - but I’m afraid I completely disagree that Mitch raped Hannah. He did not rape her, he had sex with her and she did not stop him. That is not rape.

Rape is sex without consent. She did not consent. She didn't want to have sex with him. She did not go to his room with the intent of having sex with him and was surprised when he came onto her. She was also in a compromised emotional state.

If you don't want to use the word rape for it, okay I guess. I was raped by a male friend 20 years ago and I didn't call it rape for a long time because it didn't fit my mental definition of forcible rape. But that's what it is when someone has sex with you with out your consent. Eventually I just accepted that's what it was. But I get it can be hard to conceptualize when you've been told for years what rape looks like. I also get that it's hard to understand why a person in that situation might freeze up and make an instinctual decision to let it happen rather than fight (it's call the freeze response, as in fight, flight, or freeze). But the truth is that when a power imbalance is especially dramatic, freezing in place and "letting it happen" is a common trauma response, especially for someone who, like Hannah, has a history of childhood trauma.

It was rape.

I completely disagree. To use the word "rape" to describe an unpleasant sexual experience cheapens the word immeasurably. We will have to agree to disagree.

I don't agree to disagree, and I think you should think hard about your decision to describe it as "an unpleasant sexual experience." Just to recap what happened:

Hannah was coerced into having sex *by her boss* who also happened to be a famous millionaire, while clearly emotional distraught covering a mass shooting. Even if you don't want to call it rape, it is, at a minimum sexual harassment.

I do not understand why you are so determined to minimize it. This is a character who winds up overdosing because she is so traumatized by this event. Again, if you don't want to use the word rape, don't, but you don't get to hand wave it away because she wasn't held at gunpoint and she didn't behave the way you think a rape victim is supposed to behave.

Are you the infamous "hand-wavey" poster? Look, you can categorize this *fictional* encounter any way you choose - as can I. Hannah and Mitch had sex. She didn't want to, yet she also didn't object. He did not force himself on her; she could have said stop, or walked away at any point. Was there a power imbalance? Sure. Was it inappropriate for Mitch to have come on to her due to this power imbalance? Absolutely. Did Mitch rape Hannah? No, he did not.

I have been in a similar situation myself. I was disgusted by the end of it and furious with the man and with myself. Was I raped by him? No.

Who is the infamous hand-wavey poster? I don't even know what you are talking about.

That's fine, you can define your own experience however you want. But you are not the arbiter of what is rape. It's sex without consent. That's what happened to Hannah -- sex without consent.

Guys the show lives in this ambiguity - it's part of what makes this situation so challenging and hard, and it's one of the things TMS does well.

You don't have to figure it out for all time today, if sex with someone who is in a fragile state and doesn't really want to do it, but doesn't say no, meets the definition of rape or is merely upsetting and gross.

I agree, but even if you don't think it qualifies as rape, I think it's weird to dismiss it as the PP did with "unpleasant sexual experience." Mitch was Hannah's boss, he was married, and he did this kind of thing a lot. It was, at a minimum, sexual harassment. You can think he'd be unlikely to be convicted of rape and also think it was a fireable offense he'd lose a lawsuit over, and that his behavior made him pretty irredeemable as a character.

I continue to be kind of shocked by the poster on the last page who needed to have it explained what exactly it was that Mitch did "wrong."

Yeah! I don't blame you. I will guess you're a little younger, and the PP is my age or older - Gen X - where we grew up normalizing a lot of kinds of sex that now, in retrospect, seem pretty awful. On the other hand, it also feels like there's been an over-correction in these younger generations.

In any case - at the very least, Mitch was a lecherous creep who used his power to have sex with underlings who didn't feel they were in a position to say no. Whatever label we put on that, it's bad and he should not have done it - and he should have faced personal consequences (which he did!), even if not legal ones. But I do think that over and over TMS shows us situations that are deeply ambiguous, and we're supposed to experience all the conflicting thoughts and emotions that you'd really have if you knew these people.

I'm not that young -- I'm 45. But I'm a survivor of sexual violence and have worked with other survivors, so the minimizing and normalizing of these behaviors makes me mad. It hurts people. It's one thing to say "this doesn't meet my definition of rape." And it's okay for things to be ambiguous. But ambiguous doesn't mean we can't make moral judgments of behavior.

I really appreciated how the show handled this story line. I even liked the semi-redemption of Mitch in the second season, because they did it in a way that was, yes, ambiguous -- that was a believable portrayal of how someone who perceived himself as a "good guy" would grapple with overwhelming evidence that he wasn't, and while I didn't love everything about it, I thought it was worth it to explore because a major part of the challenge when it comes to combatting sexual violence is dealing with the fact that people can see it in such fundamentally different ways, and that sometimes something that seems so obviously wrong to me might not even register to someone like Mitch. It's important to try and understand why that is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I agree with a lot of your points - but I’m afraid I completely disagree that Mitch raped Hannah. He did not rape her, he had sex with her and she did not stop him. That is not rape.

Rape is sex without consent. She did not consent. She didn't want to have sex with him. She did not go to his room with the intent of having sex with him and was surprised when he came onto her. She was also in a compromised emotional state.

If you don't want to use the word rape for it, okay I guess. I was raped by a male friend 20 years ago and I didn't call it rape for a long time because it didn't fit my mental definition of forcible rape. But that's what it is when someone has sex with you with out your consent. Eventually I just accepted that's what it was. But I get it can be hard to conceptualize when you've been told for years what rape looks like. I also get that it's hard to understand why a person in that situation might freeze up and make an instinctual decision to let it happen rather than fight (it's call the freeze response, as in fight, flight, or freeze). But the truth is that when a power imbalance is especially dramatic, freezing in place and "letting it happen" is a common trauma response, especially for someone who, like Hannah, has a history of childhood trauma.

It was rape.

I completely disagree. To use the word "rape" to describe an unpleasant sexual experience cheapens the word immeasurably. We will have to agree to disagree.

I don't agree to disagree, and I think you should think hard about your decision to describe it as "an unpleasant sexual experience." Just to recap what happened:

Hannah was coerced into having sex *by her boss* who also happened to be a famous millionaire, while clearly emotional distraught covering a mass shooting. Even if you don't want to call it rape, it is, at a minimum sexual harassment.

I do not understand why you are so determined to minimize it. This is a character who winds up overdosing because she is so traumatized by this event. Again, if you don't want to use the word rape, don't, but you don't get to hand wave it away because she wasn't held at gunpoint and she didn't behave the way you think a rape victim is supposed to behave.

Are you the infamous "hand-wavey" poster? Look, you can categorize this *fictional* encounter any way you choose - as can I. Hannah and Mitch had sex. She didn't want to, yet she also didn't object. He did not force himself on her; she could have said stop, or walked away at any point. Was there a power imbalance? Sure. Was it inappropriate for Mitch to have come on to her due to this power imbalance? Absolutely. Did Mitch rape Hannah? No, he did not.

I have been in a similar situation myself. I was disgusted by the end of it and furious with the man and with myself. Was I raped by him? No.

Who is the infamous hand-wavey poster? I don't even know what you are talking about.

That's fine, you can define your own experience however you want. But you are not the arbiter of what is rape. It's sex without consent. That's what happened to Hannah -- sex without consent.

Guys the show lives in this ambiguity - it's part of what makes this situation so challenging and hard, and it's one of the things TMS does well.

You don't have to figure it out for all time today, if sex with someone who is in a fragile state and doesn't really want to do it, but doesn't say no, meets the definition of rape or is merely upsetting and gross.

I agree, but even if you don't think it qualifies as rape, I think it's weird to dismiss it as the PP did with "unpleasant sexual experience." Mitch was Hannah's boss, he was married, and he did this kind of thing a lot. It was, at a minimum, sexual harassment. You can think he'd be unlikely to be convicted of rape and also think it was a fireable offense he'd lose a lawsuit over, and that his behavior made him pretty irredeemable as a character.

I continue to be kind of shocked by the poster on the last page who needed to have it explained what exactly it was that Mitch did "wrong."

Yeah! I don't blame you. I will guess you're a little younger, and the PP is my age or older - Gen X - where we grew up normalizing a lot of kinds of sex that now, in retrospect, seem pretty awful. On the other hand, it also feels like there's been an over-correction in these younger generations.

In any case - at the very least, Mitch was a lecherous creep who used his power to have sex with underlings who didn't feel they were in a position to say no. Whatever label we put on that, it's bad and he should not have done it - and he should have faced personal consequences (which he did!), even if not legal ones. But I do think that over and over TMS shows us situations that are deeply ambiguous, and we're supposed to experience all the conflicting thoughts and emotions that you'd really have if you knew these people.

The lock on his office door take it a step beyond, though - and shows us a pattern of perhaps more clearly criminal behavior.

But then there's Mia, who loved him - and Alex, who also seems to have gone to bed with him willingly. It wasn't all rape. Again - the conflicts and contradictions.

I think I am only really starting to appreciate that this show might be good? I thought it was awful but I enjoyed it, until now.

It really vacillates between great and soapy BS. But I think it's a lot deeper and more thought provoking than it sometimes gets credit for.

I definitely think one of the central features of the Mitch storyline was how all these various people interacted with him and felt about him. He was like 20 different people, depending on whether you were his peer colleague, his boss, his subordinate, his mistress, his wife, his kids, his audience, etc. It's what makes it hard to assess people, "cancel" them, whatever. People are deeply complicated.

But I also think that was kind of the point of Bradley's character in that first season -- she was an outsider who came in at a high level and had no relationship with Mitch, so she could be an avatar for the audience in trying to understand. I've never loved her character but I think she worked best when she was a journalist reporting on the Mitch situation or interacting with people in this world and trying to understand it. The stuff with her family and her love life has been a lot less interesting to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I agree with a lot of your points - but I’m afraid I completely disagree that Mitch raped Hannah. He did not rape her, he had sex with her and she did not stop him. That is not rape.

Rape is sex without consent. She did not consent. She didn't want to have sex with him. She did not go to his room with the intent of having sex with him and was surprised when he came onto her. She was also in a compromised emotional state.

If you don't want to use the word rape for it, okay I guess. I was raped by a male friend 20 years ago and I didn't call it rape for a long time because it didn't fit my mental definition of forcible rape. But that's what it is when someone has sex with you with out your consent. Eventually I just accepted that's what it was. But I get it can be hard to conceptualize when you've been told for years what rape looks like. I also get that it's hard to understand why a person in that situation might freeze up and make an instinctual decision to let it happen rather than fight (it's call the freeze response, as in fight, flight, or freeze). But the truth is that when a power imbalance is especially dramatic, freezing in place and "letting it happen" is a common trauma response, especially for someone who, like Hannah, has a history of childhood trauma.

It was rape.

I completely disagree. To use the word "rape" to describe an unpleasant sexual experience cheapens the word immeasurably. We will have to agree to disagree.

I don't agree to disagree, and I think you should think hard about your decision to describe it as "an unpleasant sexual experience." Just to recap what happened:

Hannah was coerced into having sex *by her boss* who also happened to be a famous millionaire, while clearly emotional distraught covering a mass shooting. Even if you don't want to call it rape, it is, at a minimum sexual harassment.

I do not understand why you are so determined to minimize it. This is a character who winds up overdosing because she is so traumatized by this event. Again, if you don't want to use the word rape, don't, but you don't get to hand wave it away because she wasn't held at gunpoint and she didn't behave the way you think a rape victim is supposed to behave.

Are you the infamous "hand-wavey" poster? Look, you can categorize this *fictional* encounter any way you choose - as can I. Hannah and Mitch had sex. She didn't want to, yet she also didn't object. He did not force himself on her; she could have said stop, or walked away at any point. Was there a power imbalance? Sure. Was it inappropriate for Mitch to have come on to her due to this power imbalance? Absolutely. Did Mitch rape Hannah? No, he did not.

I have been in a similar situation myself. I was disgusted by the end of it and furious with the man and with myself. Was I raped by him? No.

Who is the infamous hand-wavey poster? I don't even know what you are talking about.

That's fine, you can define your own experience however you want. But you are not the arbiter of what is rape. It's sex without consent. That's what happened to Hannah -- sex without consent.

Guys the show lives in this ambiguity - it's part of what makes this situation so challenging and hard, and it's one of the things TMS does well.

You don't have to figure it out for all time today, if sex with someone who is in a fragile state and doesn't really want to do it, but doesn't say no, meets the definition of rape or is merely upsetting and gross.

I agree, but even if you don't think it qualifies as rape, I think it's weird to dismiss it as the PP did with "unpleasant sexual experience." Mitch was Hannah's boss, he was married, and he did this kind of thing a lot. It was, at a minimum, sexual harassment. You can think he'd be unlikely to be convicted of rape and also think it was a fireable offense he'd lose a lawsuit over, and that his behavior made him pretty irredeemable as a character.

I continue to be kind of shocked by the poster on the last page who needed to have it explained what exactly it was that Mitch did "wrong."

Yeah! I don't blame you. I will guess you're a little younger, and the PP is my age or older - Gen X - where we grew up normalizing a lot of kinds of sex that now, in retrospect, seem pretty awful. On the other hand, it also feels like there's been an over-correction in these younger generations.

In any case - at the very least, Mitch was a lecherous creep who used his power to have sex with underlings who didn't feel they were in a position to say no. Whatever label we put on that, it's bad and he should not have done it - and he should have faced personal consequences (which he did!), even if not legal ones. But I do think that over and over TMS shows us situations that are deeply ambiguous, and we're supposed to experience all the conflicting thoughts and emotions that you'd really have if you knew these people.

I'm not that young -- I'm 45. But I'm a survivor of sexual violence and have worked with other survivors, so the minimizing and normalizing of these behaviors makes me mad. It hurts people. It's one thing to say "this doesn't meet my definition of rape." And it's okay for things to be ambiguous. But ambiguous doesn't mean we can't make moral judgments of behavior.

I really appreciated how the show handled this story line. I even liked the semi-redemption of Mitch in the second season, because they did it in a way that was, yes, ambiguous -- that was a believable portrayal of how someone who perceived himself as a "good guy" would grapple with overwhelming evidence that he wasn't, and while I didn't love everything about it, I thought it was worth it to explore because a major part of the challenge when it comes to combatting sexual violence is dealing with the fact that people can see it in such fundamentally different ways, and that sometimes something that seems so obviously wrong to me might not even register to someone like Mitch. It's important to try and understand why that is.

I'm sorry you went through that - and I appreciate your perspective.