Pete Campbell 'Not a Rapist,' Says Pete Campbell

It only took a year and a half, but Mad Men star Vincent Kartheiser finally got around to explaining what everyone else apparently misunderstood about Pete Campbell's rapey Season 3 tryst with the German au pair.

"It says in the scene, 'she kisses him back,'" he recently told the Wall Street Journal. "After she kisses me back, then we're supposed to copulate. I don't know why but she wouldn't kiss me back! [...] That actress just didn't want to smooch me. She changed the whole course of Pete Campbell. And Matthew [Weiner] was all, 'You didn't rape her! I don't know why people are saying you raped her! That wasn't supposed to be rape!'"

Yeah! Totally! Why would anybody say a guy who gently forces his way through a closing door, applies pressure for sex he feels entitled to, and gets reprimanded by the au pair's employer ever be construed as anything close to a rapist? If only the actress had kissed him! Also: I need a shower.

· Vincent Kartheiser Defends Mad Men's Pete Campbell: 'Not a Rapist' [WSJ]


  • daveed says:

    There is no rape in Matthew Weiner's America. Those bitches are always just asking for it.

  • NP says:

    How do you say "Hell's bells" in German?

  • OldTowneTavern says:

    Love the show, but seriously? He's the wealthy neighbor of her boss, she's the lowly nanny who could be deported on a whim. She said no, he was insistant. She cries bitterly to her boss the next day. All of this is in the script. What actress wouldn't read this as her character being on the losing end of a power struggle?

    • kirksroom says:

      I agree, but they should have fired the woman for refusing to perform the kiss. What can she do, sue them for sexually exploiting her? She signed up for the damn part, and if she doesn't like it, she can quit.

  • anna says:

    The more I read about Matthew Weiner, the more I am creeped out by him.

    • Charlotte says:

      I quite agree, I have to say. I love the show, and I am a big fan of Pete Campbell's complexity as a character, but this episode depicted some very disturbing sexual power play. Quite why Weiner and Kartheiser seem to insist that this is not the case, I don't know. It seems very disingenuous. If the writers genuinely wanted Pete to appear as a seductor in this episode, rather than a rapist, they failed. Plain and simple.

    • kirksroom says:

      There's nothing creepy about his sentiment. He's right. If she kissed him back, it would send a signal to Pete that she was attracted to him back, and thus his intoxicated mind would obviously view this as an approval for sex. On the other hand, Pete obviously wasn't looking for approval, but if we are not shown what he would have done if she had resisted him, then it doesn't really count.

      It's worth noting that even in the following product she doesn't try to fight back against him once they're on the bed.

  • Miki says:

    After bumping into VK and listening to his conversation after he order his coffee, he is a little bit more like Pete in season 1 than most people like to admit. He still has the 'Minnesota Nice' to cover up the fact he is a little bit of a d-bag

  • kirksroom says:

    Why didn't she just kiss him back? What the fuck are actors paid for? That woman singlehandedly ruined a character just because she didn't want to smooch Vincent Kartheiser! Hey, bitch, you could have washed your mouth out with mouthwash and scrubbed your lips if you wanted! You ruined the whole damn thing!

    • Rufus says:

      Well,thanks for telling us all we need to know about *your* attitude to women (bitches, how dare they have minds of their own and ris making a [fictional] man look bad) and rape (didn't happen if the guy says it didn't). Please do us a favour and wear a warning sign on your forehead, you asshole.

      • kirksroom says:

        The woman was an actress. The crew of Mad Men did not stop her on the street and force her at gunfight to perform that scene. She signed up to play the part. If she did not feel comfortable performing the kiss, then she should not have taken the money, and she should not have agreed to perform the part in the first place.

        There is nothing sexist or chauvinistic in my remarks. All I was saying is that a person should be required to do what they are paid to do and what they signed up to and I do not appreciate you inferring that I am .

        And my attitude was not that rape does not happen if "the guy says it didn't". It was that rape had not occurred because in the original script the au pair had given Pete a definite signal of approval by kissing him back, so even if she did not want to go all the way, Pete could hardly be blamed. By not doing this, it was clear in the script that Pete did commit rape. The blame goes to Mr. Weiner for allowing the actress to breach contract and

        I think that you should wear a warning sign on your forehead that you are incapable of telling a paid actress from a prostitute, and that you will make rash harsh judgments and idiotic assumptions about random strangers that you don't know because of your overreaction to anything perceived as anti-feminist. Please do all that favor, you asshole.

        • Rebecca says:

          As a woman, I would like to wholeheartedly applaud your comment here. I agree with you 100% and cannot express how tired I am of women, under the guise of being "feminist", and also exploiting the word "feminist", turn the concept of equality between the sexes into one long rage against men, whether they are television characters, or actors, producers, writers, or the regular Joe. It's such an old excuse for not being able to handle discussing issues that have a tendency to inflame, with men, and it makes all rational, adult women look bad. I know I'll probably get slammed for this comment, by many of those same-thinking women, but it's true, and it's high time those of us without need of anger management therapy stood up for both ourselves, and our point of view, and for all the good guys out there taking a beating.

          • Catherine says:

            Well, I think perhaps his use of calling the actress "bitch" may have been insulting to Rufus. It is insulting to me too. And good for you for being so modern and hip you awesome woman you. Yeah. Sarcasm intended.

          • kirksroom says:

            You seem to be a bit behind on the times, Catherine. That comment was made almost a year ago so I think the time to reply to it has expired a bit.

            And it's interesting for me how you knew I was a "him". You were, of course, correct in that assumption, but I could easily have been a girl trying to disguise her identity via a male name or a female fan of Captain Kirk on Star Trek, among other options.

            You should never assume you know so easily on the Internet.......

  • I really like what you've acquired here, really like what you are saying and the way in which you say it

  • I all the time used to read post in news papers but now as I
    am a user of net therefore from now I am using net for posts, thanks to web.

  • video says:

    fantastic issues altogether, you simply received a logo new reader.
    What would you suggest in regards to your post that
    you just made a few days in the past? Any sure?

  • I'm really impressed with your writing skills and also with the layout
    on your blog. Is this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself?
    Anyway keep up the excellent quality writing, it is rare to see a nice blog like this one
    these days.

  • I visit day-to-day some blogs and websites to read articles
    or reviews, except this website offers feature based posts.