(no subject)
Jan. 16th, 2017 01:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rainwaterspark"But Laurent apologized to Damen [therefore their relationship isn't problematic]!"
Shockingly, one apology is not going to make up for how Laurent treated Damen.
This is also not to say that I personally believe that a person who does a bad act towards another person can never be redeemed. However, we (as a society) differentiate between intentional crimes and unintentional crimes. Torture and rape are ALWAYS intentional crimes and are things that can NEVER be justified due to mistake or self-defense, and that's exactly what Laurent did to Damen. It would take a LOT to redeem a character who committed torture and/or rape (if that's even a possible or worthwhile endeavor), and one vague, general apology is not going to cut it.
Saying Laurent "only" tortured and raped Damen because Damen killed his brother in combat would also be ascribing to "2 wrongs equal 1 right," which is morally and ethically extremely dubious in most cases. Furthermore, the "wrongs" Damen and Laurent committed toward each other were nowhere near "equal": while Damen did intentionally kill Auguste, it was in battle, as a result of an honorable duel, with no malice; had Damen lost, Auguste would've killed him, presumably. Meanwhile, Laurent intentionally and maliciously tortured, humiliated, assaulted, and traumatized Damen.
(Edited to add: Saying Damen's act of killing Laurent led to Laurent's abuse by his uncle—which I have seen someone say—is ALSO not a justification, because Damen could not have foreseen that as the outcome of his act; also, what happened to Laurent was partially because his father also died at Marlas, which was 100% unrelated to Damen.)
Also, Laurent saying "words can't atone for what I did" (which is true) does NOT mean "therefore I only need to verbally apologize once" (which is wrong). Words may be imperfect, but they're all we have to communicate our intents and feelings to each other. Saying Laurent spoke/could speak through his actions isn't good enough, because simply abstaining from torturing/raping Damen further doesn't mean Laurent necessarily regrets what he did and/or recognizes that it was wrong and unjustified. And yeah, it matters that Laurent provided a general instead of specific apology. A specific apology would require Laurent to recognize everything he did that was wrong—the flogging, the drugging of Damen, orchestrating Damen's sexual assault (even if it was unsuccessful, attempted crimes are still crimes, and Laurent clearly intended to have Damen raped in public for entertainment), sexually assaulting Damen by proxy. A general apology allows Laurent to gloss over exactly what he did wrong, instead of fully and completely taking responsibility.
By the way, Laurent only apologized in book 2; I don't remember him ever apologizing in book 3, and in fact he even acts like he enjoyed flogging Damen. It doesn't matter whether it was for show or not (...but who would it have been a show for? It was a private conversation among Laurent, Damen, and Nikandros); the author never made clear what Laurent's intentions were, and it's all the more worse since Laurent knows that Damen has difficulties with people lying to him.
Shockingly, one apology is not going to make up for how Laurent treated Damen.
This is also not to say that I personally believe that a person who does a bad act towards another person can never be redeemed. However, we (as a society) differentiate between intentional crimes and unintentional crimes. Torture and rape are ALWAYS intentional crimes and are things that can NEVER be justified due to mistake or self-defense, and that's exactly what Laurent did to Damen. It would take a LOT to redeem a character who committed torture and/or rape (if that's even a possible or worthwhile endeavor), and one vague, general apology is not going to cut it.
Saying Laurent "only" tortured and raped Damen because Damen killed his brother in combat would also be ascribing to "2 wrongs equal 1 right," which is morally and ethically extremely dubious in most cases. Furthermore, the "wrongs" Damen and Laurent committed toward each other were nowhere near "equal": while Damen did intentionally kill Auguste, it was in battle, as a result of an honorable duel, with no malice; had Damen lost, Auguste would've killed him, presumably. Meanwhile, Laurent intentionally and maliciously tortured, humiliated, assaulted, and traumatized Damen.
(Edited to add: Saying Damen's act of killing Laurent led to Laurent's abuse by his uncle—which I have seen someone say—is ALSO not a justification, because Damen could not have foreseen that as the outcome of his act; also, what happened to Laurent was partially because his father also died at Marlas, which was 100% unrelated to Damen.)
Also, Laurent saying "words can't atone for what I did" (which is true) does NOT mean "therefore I only need to verbally apologize once" (which is wrong). Words may be imperfect, but they're all we have to communicate our intents and feelings to each other. Saying Laurent spoke/could speak through his actions isn't good enough, because simply abstaining from torturing/raping Damen further doesn't mean Laurent necessarily regrets what he did and/or recognizes that it was wrong and unjustified. And yeah, it matters that Laurent provided a general instead of specific apology. A specific apology would require Laurent to recognize everything he did that was wrong—the flogging, the drugging of Damen, orchestrating Damen's sexual assault (even if it was unsuccessful, attempted crimes are still crimes, and Laurent clearly intended to have Damen raped in public for entertainment), sexually assaulting Damen by proxy. A general apology allows Laurent to gloss over exactly what he did wrong, instead of fully and completely taking responsibility.
By the way, Laurent only apologized in book 2; I don't remember him ever apologizing in book 3, and in fact he even acts like he enjoyed flogging Damen. It doesn't matter whether it was for show or not (...but who would it have been a show for? It was a private conversation among Laurent, Damen, and Nikandros); the author never made clear what Laurent's intentions were, and it's all the more worse since Laurent knows that Damen has difficulties with people lying to him.
