In the second chapter, Andrea vaguely addresses a link between wartime and rape. She says that "the dark was some army of them" (30) and it's a topic to which she returns later on. Her use of the word army suggests to me that it's a huge crowd, but it also implies military. At this point, Andrea is generalizing males. All males symbolize rape now, it seems. They're an army… "some mass, a creature from the deep, the blob, a giant parasite, some spreading monster, pods, wolfmen." While she lists many things which were mainstream horror topics at the time, Andrea also shows that she sees all men in one way. Furthermore, she seems to be suggesting the growth of the sexually-violent-towards-females behavior. She describes the men committing acts of sexual violence as a giant parasite. The number of people in her own life who do it has increased very much since her childhood in chapter one. Perhaps she also means to say that it is growing in the world? The number is increasing – to whatever extent – because no one takes action to stop it. Who should stop it? Andrea cannot, right? Because of societal restrictions she cannot stop the sexual violence (can this be related to being a civilian in war? to being powerless compared to other people in your environment?) In any case, Andrea feels like she cannot. This type of paradigm where things happen to Andrea is something which starkly contrasts the power with which she is named. 

 

And then in chapter four Andrea returns to relating sexual oppression to warfare. She writes of her silence, how she is powerless to effect war-time protest efforts. The peace boys take action and glory and power, while Andrea licks stamps and types letters. That is, until she has something to give their cause. She protests for them and pays a huge personal price for it. No one is thankful. No one helps her. This is somewhat analagous to wartime rape it seems. While men fight to protect the country in wartime, women get raped by members of the opposing military. They pay huge personal prices and get hurt, but no one congratulates them, thanks them, or cares. The men/soldiers are those who receive glory once the war is finished. The women are forgotten.

 

Andrea likes to think of herself as a poet. I think this is partly the reason (or the effect?) for her questionable descriptions of rape scenes. She focuses on sensation, she uses personalization, and she writes to express emotion. Either her lifestyle of submitting to traumatic experiences caused her to view the world differently, or she views the world differently and thus views her experiences as less traumatic and more transcendental. I think the claim that the playpen of the rape/darkness allows her to be free through poetry has some merit. Also the idea that Mercy itself is trauma-inspired poetry is one which is able to be supported. Indeed many parts of the book are characterized by a poetic form - repetition of words, a lack of punctuation, and raw emotions. To me, it seems her inclination to view the world poetically has caused her to perceive sexual violence poetically as well. It is during the second chapter that Andrea learns the correct names for profane body parts/acts. She learns the four letter words, the Germanic words which sound rough in our mouths. And she learns to sing them. She takes her traumatic knowledge/experiences and learns to sing. Learns to view them poetically. Learns to take the violent Germanic and make it a soft French or Italian.  

 

In response to a post further down (though it was not addressed to me), yes of course the second chapter would have affected me differently were it worded more explicitly. It would have shown an awareness of the narrator that it currently does not. Instead of showing that she recognizes what is happening and that she chooses to react the way she does in particular situations, it shows the way it is written now that she experiences confusion and lack of self-assuredness when it comes to matters of sexual violence/exploitation.

 

I also agree that one can use the "you only think this is what you want" argument for just about anything in addition to heterosexual relations. This argument against heterosexual relations implies that the male is deceiving the female or that society is deceiving the female and (at least to me) it implies that this is done to the end that the male receives sexual satisfaction from the female. Supposedly, rape in the current vernacular sense refers to acts which are not sexual in nature. Well, the acts are in that they include the use of sexual organs. But the motives behind them are not. When a man rapes a woman in the way many people today picture it, it is said to be motivated by a desire for power and rewarded with a feeling of power. This instead of what most people believe – that the act is motivated by and rewarded with a feeling of sexual satisfaction. I don't know the motives for the various people who raped Andrea, but the author/narrator dichotomy plays with it. The author's perspective (which is well-known) implies that the men did it for power instead of pure pleasure. The narrator's perspective on the other hand implies various things. For example, the narrator describes rape as "making love" and describes it positively as well as negatively and euphemistically.  

 

I think sex as an act can also be both nonviolent and devoid of love. I think it's possible for two people to have sex without either actually wanting to do so. This might happen for example if both of the two people feel that they need to have sex in order to please the other person. If two people have sex when both would prefer to not have sex, is it rape?