Do D&D hate feminity?

[Kandrax]

Given how Sansa's rape was controversial, i can't imagine how much outrage would be caused, had Ramsay's hunts was like in the books or Raid on Saltpans made onscreen.

[Pink Fat Rast]

1 hour ago, Annara Snow said:

while everyone, especially any "empowered" women, despises traditional feminine things like knitting or wearing dresses (booo!)?

Sansa doesn't despise knitting, and even Ygritte doesn't despite silk dresses.

1 hour ago, Annara Snow said:

And it's also realistic for 150 cm tall, 45 kg teenage girls to become the best knight on thr continent without getting any training fir it, other than a couple of months of non-knightly sword training years earlier and then some time sweeping floors?

I think the thing there was supposed to be that she got supernatural super-instinct training that can now trump standard worldly combat - even though a lot of it wasn't shown, but then again the face changing thing wasn't shown either and now she can do that.

Also, Brienne ended up still kinda beating her, so there's that.

At any rate, this whole part clearly isn't part of any realistic depiction of the middle ages LOL - more like it's a more romantic element that takes place in a setting that's supposed to be realistic.

[Rhae_Valarie]

1 hour ago, Annara Snow said:

The "well it's a superhero/fantasy/SciFi story, so it doesn't have to be realistic" is one of the stupidest and most annoying arguments people use in defending bad fiction. It conflates the realism of the setting and psychological realism. A story may have magic or dragons or time travel or superpowers, but that doesn't mean that 1) it doesn't have to stick to the established rules of its universe and, even more importantly, 2) that it doesn't have to realistically portray the behaviour and emotional responses of humans or human-like people (unless a character is actually supposed to have an alien mindset because of its species - in which case, this needs to be explained/established). A story where characters act in unbelievable ways is simply bad.

Speaking of superhero fiction: look at Jessica Jones, the Marvel Netflix show - it's a very thoughtful exploration of the emotional consequences of rape and abuse.

It conflates the realism of the setting and the psychological realism. I'll probably be quoting you for the rest of my life.

Jessica Jones is the perfect example of how to deal with rape and abuse in the superhero genre. Spider-Man is the perfect example of what not to do. Even Black Widow's roles in various MCU movies (Avengers 1+2, CA:WS) has important significance and opens up conversations about violence against women in a thought provoking and insightful way, and this from a character whose main story arcs aren't even "about abuse" in the way that a show like Jessica Jones is. Point is, film and literature can be used to have important conversations about these things without even having to depict it or talk about it explicitly. Another example: in Maleficent, Angelina Jolie plays her character's loss of wings as a rape scene (more specifically, a date rape). No graphic visual rape and the word is never even used, but the significance to the story is profound. In Cypress, Sassafras, and Indigo, author Ntzoke Shange explores the life of a child survivor of sexual abuse without ever directly referencing the abuse or showing it. That's what is amazing about literature, you can use symbolism and metaphors to explore important topics without exploiting them. GOT, unfortunately, does not do that.

[Pink Fat Rast]

1 hour ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

It conflates the realism of the setting and the psychological realism. I'll probably be quoting you for the rest of my life.

There are many different types of realism, not just these 2 - a particular work can be realistic in one way, and everything but in other ways.

Mixtures are possible - for instance, where the "real" world is portrayed realistically, and then the fantastical storyline that plays out in front of that is completely tropey.

 

Quote

Jessica Jones is the perfect example of how to deal with rape and abuse in the superhero genre. [...]  Even Black Widow's roles in various MCU movies (Avengers 1+2, CA:WS) has important significance and opens up conversations about violence against women in a thought provoking and insightful way, and this from a character whose main story arcs aren't even "about abuse" in the way that a show like Jessica Jones is.

The MCU is a bit of a weird thing, as it does its different storylines in their own distinct genres, and then try clever ways of combining them in the ensemble movies - however I've seen less than half of it so can't comment too much.

Jessica Jones is probably supposed to be a gritty psycho realistic show, which is then supposed to be "interesting" when that world colliders with the cartoony world of the Thor movies or something.
Avengers 1-2 were written by Whedon who tends to include those subjects in his writing, so that was also a thing there.

i know the Hulk movie didn't explore Norton's psychology the way it could've been done (hell, the way Ang Lee did it earlier), and the first Caps movie made a point out of making everything feel understated and sanitized - his complete lack of fear of war, his very stoic way of grieving; the easy resolution to the romantic conflict etc.

 

Quote

Spider-Man is the perfect example of what not to do.

Why? What if the fans just enjoy seeing the "oh you saved me from those evil thugs - thank you heroman!" and then they snog in the rain? Why is this something no one ever should do anywhere, if people like seeing it and writing it?

 

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

Firstly, I'm not making an argument about Craster's wives, just the main characters I referenced.

Yes, just included that for a larger picture - or, rather, to isolate the "just for shock value" argument from the "no consequences for the character" argument.

 

4 hours ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

Secondly regarding the progression of Dany and Drogo's relationship, I do not think that a relationship that started with rape would ever have evolved into anything but abusive. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Well there must be some kind of research out there for this, with statistics and percentages etc.

However, in this particular case, the "rapist abuser" simply did the only thing he seemed to know - there was no malice involved or "I could be really nice and respectful, but instead I'll act like a dick", he just didn't know anything else.
As soon as she showed him a more romantic way of doing things, he instantly took a liking to it and fell in love with her - becoming more protective of and respectful to her: which is consistent with the facts that:
-he now sees her face, so she's less "dehumanized" in his amygdala brain
-she does the work and looks like she really wants to please him - inspiring natural reciprocity
-she comes off really fragile and vulnerable during their interaction, which increases the protective instinct.


Is it realistic that the leader of a tribe that raids countless societies and then absorbs their tech and skills and whatnot - and even sells sex slaves to pleasure houses that are known for their broad curricula - literally wouldn't know any other ways of fucking than like a dog?
That the whole idea of "sensual female seduction" was literally a new world that she just opened up for him, and he had no idea they taught that in Lys?

And that then he'd adapt this instantly to this completely new way of doing things, I suppose because it's simply natural, hardwired instincts that had only been dormant this whole time?

And he'd never then feel the inclination to do it the original way, the way he's been used to his entire life, just every now and then (i.e. what you could describe as their version of an "abusive" relationship - he wasn't into abusing her in other ways, only in that one particular way that was shown, and this abuse would be an on-and-off thing alternating with gentler moments, like a lot of abusive relationships are) - completely 100% switching to the new ways?


I've no idea, always felt a bit fairytale / romance novel to me - but if all those factors are realistic, then I suppose it is realistic. ?

 

4 hours ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

My point in talking about Drogo as a racist stereotype is simply to point out that the choice to make the scene consensual does have a larger affect on the character and shouldn't be able to be changed without consequence.

Well, there was a consequence - the nature of the arc changed.

I really think you need lots more elements / information before drawing conclusions about racism.
What makes him worse than Tywin? Or how does he compare to the Ironborn, are those white guys depicted any more noble? So yeah.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

I guess I don't consider my standards for depiction of rape very high. And as someone who is obsessed with superhero films I can tell you that the best of them often deal with important themes and philosophical questions, the same as fiction like GOT does.

They may "deal" with them, but they don't necessarily try to reach a high level of in-universe realism.


Tolkien "dealt" with the issue of nigh impossible odds and hopeless situations, by introducing the mythical, supernatural concept of Eucatastrophy - not a lesson one should live by, and not intended as realistic either as far as I know.

The writers of PotC "dealt" with the issue of pompous highborns assuming all pirates were evil, by showing that sometimes pirates can be reliatively decent - the irony being that of course then in the audio commentary, they add "well, in real life of course they actually were all evil, but in our universe they're not". So not intending it as a lesson applying to reality.
Double irony that pirates weren't and aren't "evil" by default - many just find themselves in shitty situations and choose an option where they're not treated like shit to the same degree. Blackbeard tried to minimize the violence from what I know.


So just because you feature some kind of subject matter, doesn't mean you're trying to be realistic with it.
 

4 hours ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

Captain America,

As I said, sanitized escapism - contains some inspirational messages that could be applied to real life, but only after being filtered through lots of "gritty deconstruction". The movie contains no such deconstruction, at least the 1st one.

4 hours ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, etc.

It opted for a "more grounded" version of the setting, but still not grounded enough to actually show how Batman did his whole stealth attack thing - he wasn't shown learning it, was he?
Which is exactly what everyone complains about with Arya, but no one complains about BB - why I wonder? Maybe it's because GoT claimed to aspire to high levels of realism, while Nolan was pretty unapologetic about all kinds of tropery.

Also they're apparently so transparent, some smug accountant guy can just look up blueprints and figure out the secret - and Lucius just threatens him subtly and smirks to himself.
A more realistic movie would've made sure to show them take measures to prevent such things, but this one had no such aspirations.

They deal with a couple issues, that maybe some more lighthearted superhero movies don't - they're mainly about the blowback that you can get when you up your game against criminals (or "your enemies" in general).
So that central theme of theirs they do think about, as in construct their main plot around - however, when it comes to showing how "Dent was right not to trust Gordon's corrupt assistants", well... no one much cared about the way he just let his wife get on a car with one of those.

Why? Peoplr probably understood that while it was a plot hole, the movie was more about channeling those messages in memorable dialogue scenes and less about perfectly justifying them with airtight plot logic - so as long as the movie nailed that one part, those other marginal lapses didn't break the game.
Had Nolan gone "OUR MOVIE IS FREE OF PLOT HOLES" the reaction would've been different.


Oh, what was that about Rachel being almost assinated in a dark subway, and then thinking she'd scared the thugs off with a taser and face punch and then it turned out it was actually Batman? Where's the psychological consequences of constantly living in fear of mafia assassins, and then that particular attempt that actually would've succeeded if not for Batman?
But no, just played for a gag mostly - why? Well, psychological trauma by mafia wasn't part of the trilogy's theme, so it wasn't included - that part was more about humor and entertainment, and most Rachel/Bruce scenes were tropey superhero romance that probably was designed with that main appeal.
It was about the fantasy of trying to live up to the high standards of a female moral authority, who goes from chastising and inspiring the would-be hero to eventually gushing and marvelling at his heroics as he out-heros and out-nobles her. No depth of particular realism, just this paricular escapist romantic fantasy.


 

4 hours ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

They are not only about style and escapism, and just because lots of superhero films make the same mistake as Spider-Man does not mean that it is okay.

Why do you think it was a mistake in the first place? Something troubling the writers said?

4 hours ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

Spider-Man is not pure fantasy, in fact the reason that Spider-Man is so popular is that he faces real world problems and has flaws, as do the characters in his stories.

Yes, he deals with mundane problems such as trying to hold a job or wash his cape costume (often played for comedy too) - and then he goes and fights over the top ham villains while doing classic DiD rescues.

4 hours ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

For more on this, go read some interviews by Stan Lee on the character. At the end of the day, I don't think MJ needs to be a victim in order to make Spidey a hero. He's already a hero.

Maybe the comics were different - maybe they went out of their way to avoid DiD cliches while the movies embraced them.

I've no seen Amazig2 or Homecoming yet so I don't know what those did - I know they did kill off Emma Stone (a scene which Kirsten Dunst survived in the 1st movie), but that in itself is also a cliche and hardly a realistic deconstruction.

Do most female love interests IRL die by being thrown down a bridge by a costume wearing ham villain? DIdn't think so. Sounds rather mythical actually.

 

4 hours ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

 And I am completely correct in referring to this as a mythical rape. Go to Wikipedia, look up Rape Myths, it'll be the fourth or fifth one listed.

The idea that it's the majority of rapes is mythical - the type itself isn't mythical.

And the movie made no claims about statistics + it had a limited subject matter: street violence and megalomaniacal ham villains; there was no place for date rape or college rape or boss rape, that simply wasn't part of the story.

4 hours ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

Also, you are at once arguing that almost raping MJ is okay because it is realistic for that situation, and then saying that her reaction is okay because a superhero film isn't supposed to be realistic. So do you think realism matters or not?

Realism in movies can be selective, as I said - the "set up a realistic situation and then answer it with magic solution" is a rather common combination.

If you want a very obviously cartoony version of the attack and then an even cartoonier gratitude reaction, watch Batman Forever.

 

4 hours ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

Also, I brought up "people not thinking of that as rape" to show that these depictions do have real consequences. In fact, there are many people who will blame a victim of date rape for "putting herself in that position", etc. Because society focuses on stranger rape, which is statistically unlikely, it puts a burden on those who have survived date rape. There is a lot of interesting scholarship on the subject, it's worth looking into.

The same pricks who'd argue that, would say MJ shouldn't have gone into a dark alleyway all by herself.

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

The shows depiction of Dany and Drogo is not similar to Stockholm syndrome. Girls Like Us by Rachel Lloyd is a terrific book dealing with women who have been sold into the sex industry and developed loving yet abusive relationships with their pimps (Stockholm syndrome). Their similarities to Dany's situation are striking, but the depiction of their relationships could not be more different. The relationship the show chose to portray is a loving and intimate relationship as in the book, but one that started with rape. I personally find this unacceptable.

So... you're saying it can be loving, but it also had to stay abusive to some degree - and the fact that the abuse was completely gone overnight is the unacceptable part?

Well, maybe it is.
Two core differences here. 1) Daenerys is his wife - not one of many, and not a hua; not only that, but he also believes her to be the future mother of a messianic hero;
and 2) what#s already been said - those pimps probably know other ways, but they've chosen this life over other alternatives; Drogo apparently didn't know anything else, so there was no active immorality in "choosing" those ways. The idea is that this made him an easier convert, but maybe that idea is complete horse I dunno
 

4 hours ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

Also, the idea that you can "tame" your abuser is unsupported by fact,

What, literally 0%? Okay.

4 hours ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

but it is the reason many women stay in abusive relationships.When shows depict women changing abusive men, it sends a potentially dangerous message, one that is also incorrect.

well, in this case "tame" is maybe not the correct word - she introduced something new to him, something he hadn't considered and rejected before (like most abusive men irl do).

 

 

4 hours ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

And as far as Jaime and Cersei is concerned, I am not into debating degrees of rape. It isn't about if she "looks like she wants to" or if she resisted at first and then gave in, or whatever else. If she said no and he continued to force her (which is what happened) it is rape (even by Westerosi standards). There is no 50% rape or 100% rape or anything. There is consensual sex, where the person says yes and participates fully. And there is rape, where the person did not consent. Poldark is another example of a show that tried to say, well she resisted at first and then when he kept going she decided she was into it. No. That is rape.

You can draw such lines and refuse to discuss outside those parameters, but the reality is that transitional grey areas do exist.

If Cersei herself, if asked, wasn't sure whether she wanted it or not - like a cognitive dissonance thing - you can say "well then it's definitely rape; consent requires certainty".
But, you know, she wouldn't see it the same way - and anyone operating under the premise of "if it was certainly unwanted it's rape, if it was certainly wanted it's consent, and if it was uncertain then it's uncertain" would also end up calling it an ambiguous case.
Your attitude is probably more motivated by moral, goal-oriented motivations (making sure that no rape gets past the radar under the guise of "uncertainty"), while that other attitude is based around dry assessment of reality.


If a couple likes to roleplay rape and they hate safe words (or aren't familiar with the concept), you can get lots of uncertain situations that way too.
Which, again, you can choose to err on the side of safety and simply call it all rape until there's a reliable safe word system introduces - but all one has to do is *not* choose to err on any side, and they'll end up with a more ambiguous conclusion.

[Pink Fat Rast]

4 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

The "well it's a superhero/fantasy/SciFi story, so it doesn't have to be realistic" is one of the stupidest and most annoying arguments people use in defending bad fiction.

Who used it and why are you talking about those people now?

4 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

It conflates the realism of the setting and psychological realism.

As I said in my previous post, there are more different kinds (or "planes") of realism than just those 2.

For starters, the setting can be realistic, but those realistic rules not apply to the plot armor wearing protagonists - or, things look realistic, but events don't unfold realistically (in general, or only those directly tied to the plot).

Characters can have realistic names and occupations, but act and talk like mythical figures representing philosophical concepts (Nolanbat movies do that a lot).
And, uh, what was that movie called, the ramake of Dangerous Liaisons with Ryan Philippe etc.? It had a bunch of college students talk in 19th century prose or something. Was the setting realistic but the psychology not realistic? Eh?

Guess it's a bit more complicated than that.

4 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

A story may have magic or dragons or time travel or superpowers, but that doesn't mean that 1) it doesn't have to stick to the established rules of its universe and, even more importantly, 2) that it doesn't have to realistically portray the behaviour and emotional responses of humans or human-like people (unless a character is actually supposed to have an alien mindset because of its species - in which case, this needs to be explained/established).

No, there being dragons and magic and time travel and superpowers doesn't "mean" that rules don't have to be consistent and character actions and responses realistic.

Rather, consistent rules and realistic in-universe behavior is optional both in realistic settings and fantastical settings - you can have a completely mundane realistic setting and characters still don't have to act realistically (unless them acting realistically is aprt of your concept).

4 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

A story where characters act in unbelievable ways is simply bad.

The realism movement in art came and went - now people, in general, are a bit wiser than go "well, in this century we only paint to worship God, any painting that doesn't is bad! and now in this century we only draw realistic buildings and destitute workers in front of them, and anyone that doesn't is bad!", they (by and large eh) realize that there's a multitude of approaches and concepts in any given artform.
 

4 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

Speaking of superhero fiction: look at Jessica Jones, the Marvel Netflix show - it's a very thoughtful exploration of the emotional consequences of rape and abuse.

I've heard something like that, yeah. Not sure that approach applies to the whole MCU though.

[Rhae_Valarie]

5 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

There are many different types of realism, not just these 2 - a particular work can be realistic in one way, and everything but in other ways.

Mixtures are possible - for instance, where the "real" world is portrayed realistically, and then the fantastical storyline that plays out in front of that is completely tropey.

 

The MCU is a bit of a weird thing, as it does its different storylines in their own distinct genres, and then try clever ways of combining them in the ensemble movies - however I've seen less than half of it so can't comment too much.

Jessica Jones is probably supposed to be a gritty psycho realistic show, which is then supposed to be "interesting" when that world colliders with the cartoony world of the Thor movies or something.
Avengers 1-2 were written by Whedon who tends to include those subjects in his writing, so that was also a thing there.

i know the Hulk movie didn't explore Norton's psychology the way it could've been done (hell, the way Ang Lee did it earlier), and the first Caps movie made a point out of making everything feel understated and sanitized - his complete lack of fear of war, his very stoic way of grieving; the easy resolution to the romantic conflict etc.

 

Why? What if the fans just enjoy seeing the "oh you saved me from those evil thugs - thank you heroman!" and then they snog in the rain? Why is this something no one ever should do anywhere, if people like seeing it and writing it?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, just included that for a larger picture - or, rather, to isolate the "just for shock value" argument from the "no consequences for the character" argument.

 

Well there must be some kind of research out there for this, with statistics and percentages etc.

However, in this particular case, the "rapist abuser" simply did the only thing he seemed to know - there was no malice involved or "I could be really nice and respectful, but instead I'll act like a dick", he just didn't know anything else.
As soon as she showed him a more romantic way of doing things, he instantly took a liking to it and fell in love with her - becoming more protective of and respectful to her: which is consistent with the facts that:
-he now sees her face, so she's less "dehumanized" in his amygdala brain
-she does the work and looks like she really wants to please him - inspiring natural reciprocity
-she comes off really fragile and vulnerable during their interaction, which increases the protective instinct.


Is it realistic that the leader of a tribe that raids countless societies and then absorbs their tech and skills and whatnot - and even sells sex slaves to pleasure houses that are known for their broad curricula - literally wouldn't know any other ways of fucking than like a dog?
That the whole idea of "sensual female seduction" was literally a new world that she just opened up for him, and he had no idea they taught that in Lys?

And that then he'd adapt this instantly to this completely new way of doing things, I suppose because it's simply natural, hardwired instincts that had only been dormant this whole time?

And he'd never then feel the inclination to do it the original way, the way he's been used to his entire life, just every now and then (i.e. what you could describe as their version of an "abusive" relationship - he wasn't into abusing her in other ways, only in that one particular way that was shown, and this abuse would be an on-and-off thing alternating with gentler moments, like a lot of abusive relationships are) - completely 100% switching to the new ways?


I've no idea, always felt a bit fairytale / romance novel to me - but if all those factors are realistic, then I suppose it is realistic. ?

 

Well, there was a consequence - the nature of the arc changed.

I really think you need lots more elements / information before drawing conclusions about racism.
What makes him worse than Tywin? Or how does he compare to the Ironborn, are those white guys depicted any more noble? So yeah.

 

 

 

They may "deal" with them, but they don't necessarily try to reach a high level of in-universe realism.


Tolkien "dealt" with the issue of nigh impossible odds and hopeless situations, by introducing the mythical, supernatural concept of Eucatastrophy - not a lesson one should live by, and not intended as realistic either as far as I know.

The writers of PotC "dealt" with the issue of pompous highborns assuming all pirates were evil, by showing that sometimes pirates can be reliatively decent - the irony being that of course then in the audio commentary, they add "well, in real life of course they actually were all evil, but in our universe they're not". So not intending it as a lesson applying to reality.
Double irony that pirates weren't and aren't "evil" by default - many just find themselves in shitty situations and choose an option where they're not treated like shit to the same degree. Blackbeard tried to minimize the violence from what I know.


So just because you feature some kind of subject matter, doesn't mean you're trying to be realistic with it.
 

As I said, sanitized escapism - contains some inspirational messages that could be applied to real life, but only after being filtered through lots of "gritty deconstruction". The movie contains no such deconstruction, at least the 1st one.

It opted for a "more grounded" version of the setting, but still not grounded enough to actually show how Batman did his whole stealth attack thing - he wasn't shown learning it, was he?
Which is exactly what everyone complains about with Arya, but no one complains about BB - why I wonder? Maybe it's because GoT claimed to aspire to high levels of realism, while Nolan was pretty unapologetic about all kinds of tropery.

Also they're apparently so transparent, some smug accountant guy can just look up blueprints and figure out the secret - and Lucius just threatens him subtly and smirks to himself.
A more realistic movie would've made sure to show them take measures to prevent such things, but this one had no such aspirations.

They deal with a couple issues, that maybe some more lighthearted superhero movies don't - they're mainly about the blowback that you can get when you up your game against criminals (or "your enemies" in general).
So that central theme of theirs they do think about, as in construct their main plot around - however, when it comes to showing how "Dent was right not to trust Gordon's corrupt assistants", well... no one much cared about the way he just let his wife get on a car with one of those.

Why? Peoplr probably understood that while it was a plot hole, the movie was more about channeling those messages in memorable dialogue scenes and less about perfectly justifying them with airtight plot logic - so as long as the movie nailed that one part, those other marginal lapses didn't break the game.
Had Nolan gone "OUR MOVIE IS FREE OF PLOT HOLES" the reaction would've been different.


Oh, what was that about Rachel being almost assinated in a dark subway, and then thinking she'd scared the thugs off with a taser and face punch and then it turned out it was actually Batman? Where's the psychological consequences of constantly living in fear of mafia assassins, and then that particular attempt that actually would've succeeded if not for Batman?
But no, just played for a gag mostly - why? Well, psychological trauma by mafia wasn't part of the trilogy's theme, so it wasn't included - that part was more about humor and entertainment, and most Rachel/Bruce scenes were tropey superhero romance that probably was designed with that main appeal.
It was about the fantasy of trying to live up to the high standards of a female moral authority, who goes from chastising and inspiring the would-be hero to eventually gushing and marvelling at his heroics as he out-heros and out-nobles her. No depth of particular realism, just this paricular escapist romantic fantasy.


 

Why do you think it was a mistake in the first place? Something troubling the writers said?

Yes, he deals with mundane problems such as trying to hold a job or wash his cape costume (often played for comedy too) - and then he goes and fights over the top ham villains while doing classic DiD rescues.

Maybe the comics were different - maybe they went out of their way to avoid DiD cliches while the movies embraced them.

I've no seen Amazig2 or Homecoming yet so I don't know what those did - I know they did kill off Emma Stone (a scene which Kirsten Dunst survived in the 1st movie), but that in itself is also a cliche and hardly a realistic deconstruction.

Do most female love interests IRL die by being thrown down a bridge by a costume wearing ham villain? DIdn't think so. Sounds rather mythical actually.

 

The idea that it's the majority of rapes is mythical - the type itself isn't mythical.

And the movie made no claims about statistics + it had a limited subject matter: street violence and megalomaniacal ham villains; there was no place for date rape or college rape or boss rape, that simply wasn't part of the story.

Realism in movies can be selective, as I said - the "set up a realistic situation and then answer it with magic solution" is a rather common combination.

If you want a very obviously cartoony version of the attack and then an even cartoonier gratitude reaction, watch Batman Forever.

 

The same pricks who'd argue that, would say MJ shouldn't have gone into a dark alleyway all by herself.

 

 

 

 

So... you're saying it can be loving, but it also had to stay abusive to some degree - and the fact that the abuse was completely gone overnight is the unacceptable part?

Well, maybe it is.
Two core differences here. 1) Daenerys is his wife - not one of many, and not a hua; not only that, but he also believes her to be the future mother of a messianic hero;
and 2) what#s already been said - those pimps probably know other ways, but they've chosen this life over other alternatives; Drogo apparently didn't know anything else, so there was no active immorality in "choosing" those ways. The idea is that this made him an easier convert, but maybe that idea is complete horse I dunno
 

What, literally 0%? Okay.

well, in this case "tame" is maybe not the correct word - she introduced something new to him, something he hadn't considered and rejected before (like most abusive men irl do).

 

 

You can draw such lines and refuse to discuss outside those parameters, but the reality is that transitional grey areas do exist.

If Cersei herself, if asked, wasn't sure whether she wanted it or not - like a cognitive dissonance thing - you can say "well then it's definitely rape; consent requires certainty".
But, you know, she wouldn't see it the same way - and anyone operating under the premise of "if it was certainly unwanted it's rape, if it was certainly wanted it's consent, and if it was uncertain then it's uncertain" would also end up calling it an ambiguous case.
Your attitude is probably more motivated by moral, goal-oriented motivations (making sure that no rape gets past the radar under the guise of "uncertainty"), while that other attitude is based around dry assessment of reality.


If a couple likes to roleplay rape and they hate safe words (or aren't familiar with the concept), you can get lots of uncertain situations that way too.
Which, again, you can choose to err on the side of safety and simply call it all rape until there's a reliable safe word system introduces - but all one has to do is *not* choose to err on any side, and they'll end up with a more ambiguous conclusion.

Well I think we're going have to agree to disagree on a lot of this, though I sincerely do appreciate being able to have this conversation in such an honest and polite manner. I will try to answer a few of the questions you asked, just to clarify, but I understand that we simply hold different opinions on these issues. In regard to Cersei and Jaime, rape is defined by a lack of consent (or ability to consent) rather than a lack of desire. This is important because desire is subjective. Studies have been conducted that show the majority of convicted rapists were convinced that their victims desired it, thus believing they merely acted in a so called grey zone. I forget the researcher who conducted it, but if I run on to it in one of my sociology texts, I'll post it. Even the example you give about couples role playing is different, because in that case there is consent, at least initially, that isn't present in the scene with Jaime and Cersei. (Though I won't pretend to understand the nuances in that area. There's probably an answer, I just don't know it)

So for example, even if Cersei wanted to have sex with Jaime but decided it was wrong because of their son's dead body and therefore said no, her desire, in that case, would not override her lack of consent. Still rape. Desire might play a role in if a person consents or not, but in the end it is the consent that matters, not the desire. It is just troubling to see these "well she ended up liking it, so it's okay in the end even if the relationship/encounter started off badly" attitudes in so many films and shows because it is so similar to rape myths and even the views of convicted rapists. You ask why the Spider-Man scene is wrong, even if it is unrealistic. I completely understand why it seems harmless to many, like critics are just being overly sensitive or something. But when you study violence against women in society you see that it is both reflected and perpetuated by our films, literature and music. Especially with the #metoo movement exposing abuse in Hollywood, you realize that in many cases the art was imitating life or vice versa, even more directly than a lot of people had supposed. Basically, I feel these types of scenes both reflect and perpetuate rape culture, which leads to very real and quantifiable damage to many people. I feel that higher standards in writing these scenes would be a step towards solving this. 

And lastly, in regard to Dany and Drogo, the pimps actually have a lot more in common with this situation than one might suppose. Many times they were pressured into the sex industry at a young age, only know that line of work, were abused as children themselves, face economic and educational deficiencies that would make it difficult to leave, etc. Not excusing them in any way, but there is more to their situation than meets the eye and they have more in common with the women they pimp out than they know. And when I said abusive but loving, I mean that often the women in those situations genuinely love the man who abuses them and pimps them out. They call him their boyfriend, never pimp. He calls her his girlfriend or wife and the other girls are "wives in law". The same man that tortured and nearly killed her the night before might paint her toenails and make her breakfast in bed the next morning. But the most significant thing is that no matter what she does to please him, the abuse doesn't stop. This is a constant in these situations (though I will have to research and see if there are ever any rare exceptions. So far I have never encountered any) I am utterly failing at doing justice to the complexities of that kind of situation, but maybe I'm giving you an idea of what Dany and Drogo would have looked like in the show if they truly had represented a Stockholm syndrome situation. Yes, there could have been moments of genuine emotion on both sides, but the abuse would have continued. Dany's moment of empowerment would have come from leaving Drogo, not changing him. Not that this is what I wanted to see in the show. I wanted them to stay true to the book, lol.

Also to be clear, I'm not saying that an abuser is always an abuser. I believe there are some who reform. But the abusive relationship itself will not change, and if the abuser reforms it will be once they are isolated from that relationship. If any of this is intriguing, I really do suggest the book Girls Like Us by Rachel Lloyd, based on stories of survivors of child sex trafficking collected by a survivor turned activist herself. It's a riveting yet quick read (and hardly as morbid as it seems, focusing on the humor and strength of many survivors), and offers truly valuable insight that I have found extremely applicable to the world of literature.

Also Captain America: Winter Soldier (the second Cap movie) is the best MCU film by far. It's a gritty, modern political thriller with amazing action. Highly recommend. 

[Beardy the Wildling]

On 28/01/2018 at 11:17 PM, Pink Fat Rast said:

Maybe the practical things women could do for provisioning were overlooked by the writers or something (again, forgot the exact dialogue), but the intent of the scene was to show her commanding to put women to useful work instead of pampering.

Which has never been the case in wartime, Westerosi or ever? During wartime, the civilians provision while the soldiers fight. It's how a warlike race like us function. In a crapsack world like Westeros, assuming the civilians are fucking pampered is such a moronic assumption that it's almost like DnD never read aFfC, a book that makes it clear just how taxing and destructive civilian life is during a war, both in terms of forced labour and rape/destruction of homes.

But, I know, PFR. Themes are for eighth-grade book reports. You wouldn't want to think about that, the show's just automatically the best thing ever to you.

[Beardy the Wildling]

14 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

The "well it's a superhero/fantasy/SciFi story, so it doesn't have to be realistic" is one of the stupidest and most annoying arguments people use in defending bad fiction. It conflates the realism of the setting and psychological realism. A story may have magic or dragons or time travel or superpowers, but that doesn't mean that 1) it doesn't have to stick to the established rules of its universe and, even more importantly, 2) that it doesn't have to realistically portray the behaviour and emotional responses of humans or human-like people (unless a character is actually supposed to have an alien mindset because of its species - in which case, this needs to be explained/established). A story where characters act in unbelievable ways is simply bad.

The worst part is, this argument is a zombie argument. You kill it, but it just keeps coming back, again and again. This is the line of reasoning that keeps fantasy in its genre ghetto. Fantasy fans tend to be uncritical, willing to take in whatever schlock bad writers throw at them as long as there are cool dragons, hot damsels to save, and lots of cool magical violence.

Game of Thrones in its early stages, and naturally A Song of Ice and Fire, managed to start a push away from the ghetto and perhaps allow fantasy readers to get a higher set of standards, but now that the popularity is high but the standards for the writing have dropped, people are falling back on the whole 'it's fantasy, it's supposed to be over-the-top and stupid'. Despite the fact critics used to (and in some particularly delusional cases following Season 7, still do) consider the show as 'worthy' of being viewed as a serious, legitimate drama.

One of my workmates was like 'ah, it's just a dark fantasy, it was never meant to be taken seriously'. What kind of revisionist bullshit is that? It's about time people called a spade a spade and just admitted that if your characterisation is as sporadic and inconsistent as Game of Thrones, it's not complex and nuanced, or excusable because 'it's fantasy lol'. It's just fucking bad.

[Beardy the Wildling]

On 09/02/2018 at 10:09 PM, StepStark said:

So are you saying that the books are wrong for making Theon improved through extreme suffering?

What's utterly bizarre is they pulled Sansa out of an arc where she was going to learn how to be savvy just to be raped as a plot device for another person's plot development. One of the biggest strengths of Theon's arc in the books is that Jeyne Poole really is no-one to him. He's not saving Jeyne because he 'owes the Starks one', he's not doing it to redeem himself, he's doing it because he and Jeyne are both suffering under Ramsay, and he wants both of their suffering to stop.

It's about him finding raw, empathetic humanity underneath his tortured, broken exterior. Not 'making it up to the Starks'

And how does Sansa's rape affect her arc? Well, she gets to be Jon's sidekick and participate in a tired rape revenge plot. Oh goodie, such emmy-winning writing.

[Pink Fat Rast]

3 hours ago, Rhae_Valarie said:

Well I think we're going have to agree to disagree on a lot of this, though I sincerely do appreciate being able to have this conversation in such an honest and polite manner. I will try to answer a few of the questions you asked, just to clarify, but I understand that we simply hold different opinions on these issues.

In regard to Cersei and Jaime, rape is defined by a lack of consent (or ability to consent) rather than a lack of desire. This is important because desire is subjective.

Yes, I may have phrased that inaccurately - having used the word "want" or something along those lines, probably under the assumption that everyone already knows it's defined by consent.

So here are two greyzones where one can put theoretical/imagined cases, and possibly some real ones too:
1) (verbalized) refusal can be either explicit, or exist on a spectrum ranging anywhere between explicit and "kind of not really sure"
2) possible dissonance between the verbalized refusal, and the "real meaning" that's supposed to be understood by the perpetrator:- either they're identical, or intonations / shared context can convey an opposite message, or convey that the "no" wasn't really meant to be that important; 
this is particularly plausible with a couple (or sub/cultural environment) where various dominance play is accepted and established, but hasn't been explicitly defined with clear rules and boundaries - practice which of course exists precisely for those who wish to prevent such risks and uncertainty.

-A reverse scenario is also possible, as I believe has appeared among the #metoo stories as well - victims kind of agreeing verbally (out of fear / compliance / politeness etc.), but trying to convey the opposite meaning and stop the situation;
if the perpetrator understood this dissonance and still kept going with an asshole smirk, that obviously makes him much guiltier and rapeyer than if he hadn't noticed the subtext.

3) The victim isn't sure themselves whether they agree/want it or not - which can result in either accordingly mixed verbalization, or coexist with an explicit refusal.

In such cases, there may be a difference between the extent to which the victim is a victim, and the rapist is a rapist - the victim may only be a "half-victim" while the rapist can be a 100% rapist if he didn't catch that dissonance and still kept going.


What doesn't count would be 4):
-possible dissonance between verbalized refusal (which is identical to the way it's supposed to be understood) and desire/wanting.
If someone starts being attacked with a rape intention, and convincingly acts in all the ways that convey refusal while secretly wanting it to happen - that's basically voluntary rape.
Some people say voluntary rape is an oxymoron, however it seems to be a valid concept under these definitions - an important factor there is whether the victim had the ability to fend off the rapist but chose not to, and, if yes, whether the attacker knew the victim had that ability; but by default, that's what it is.



The very simple truth here is that when there's a case in which the victim:
-really doesn't want it
-explicitly refuses and means it that way, and it also comes out that way and also understood correctly by the rapist, and
-has no (safe) option to escape or fight back, or tries and fails,
that is very clearly, unambiguously rape.

But when some of these factors start changing, the situation may become more ambiguous and enter a greyzone.



So some may choose to compleley refuse considering such "greyzones", ultimately driven by the goal to minimize the amount of real rapes that would end up passing for non-rape within such a framework - and some even internalize this goal to such a degree that they literally equate it with reality.
However, these considerations will always keep coming up, and being brought up - especially in fictional stories that "explore morality" and where people feel more free to view events from various perspectives (incl. very evil ones) since there are no real victims that they might be letting down that way.

And I guess now I'm bringing them up in the context of a stupid scene that was messed up in editing  
 

Quote

Studies have been conducted that show the majority of convicted rapists were convinced that their victims desired it, thus believing they merely acted in a so called grey zone. I forget the researcher who conducted it, but if I run on to it in one of my sociology texts, I'll post it.

Them believing that doesn't mean they were correct - in fact I assume they were incorrect.

Cases where they may have been actually correct, obviously would have to be looked at differently.

 

Quote

Even the example you give about couples role playing is different, because in that case there is consent, at least initially, that isn't present in the scene with Jaime and Cersei. (Though I won't pretend to understand the nuances in that area. There's probably an answer, I just don't know it)

Point was if you've got a BDSM couple where "one just going for it and the other one acting like they're being violated"  is part of an established norm - definitely consensual if said so in their contract, but without contract that can still be the case; although mutual confusion can also happen, which is why contracts are useful in the first place.
 

The theory here was that maybe Jaime and Cersei have this decadent thing going on already - merely hypothetical since there isn't enough information.

Judging from the "war for Cersei's cunt" scene, there's definitely some slapping, manhadling and playful insults going on - and it's also almost certainly true that whatever may have been going on there, escalated to entirely new proportions in that tomb scene: as Jaime was clearly motivated by anger at Cersei for wanting to kill Tyrion and rejecting Jaime for having lost a hand and been away for too long; 
that kind of drama is definitely new to their relationship, only question is if this response grew out of something less extreme than that, or didn't.



What you're describing there, however, isn't really a greyzone - it's rape that "turns into consensual" (and how valid that consent is, is also arguable and depends on various factors - mostly power dynamics).
Maybe that's a moral greyzone, but it unambiguously does start out as a rape. That *also* may have been the case with Jaime/Cersei - the likelier scenario probably.

 

 

Quote

So for example, even if Cersei wanted to have sex with Jaime but decided it was wrong because of their son's dead body and therefore said no, her desire, in that case, would not override her lack of consent. Still rape. Desire might play a role in if a person consents or not, but in the end it is the consent that matters, not the desire.

Tbis is yet another dimension where greyzones can exist (although probably not in the sense that it stops counting as "rape", ultimately).:

The "lack of consent" is commonly understood (again, in the really unambiguous default case) as directly referring to the act itself: being violated and acted upon, while not wanting to be violated and acted upon, being repulsed by that very act, and wanting to get away but being unable to.

If, however, the victim refuses on the sole basis of, let's say, some kind of superstitious or ritualistic consideration - having sex on that day would bring about a curse or even something much less severe (from "bad luck" to merely "bad vibes"), and then the only reason the victim is upset about having been raped is because of this factor: wrong room, went against some planned ritual, conjured up bad spirits, angered God etc. - one would still have to count that as rape, but (esp. depending on how trivial that secondary reason was) people would start the degree of the immorality of this rape.

In this case it's about hwo bad of a guy this made Jaime - having sex with Cersei when she specifically didn't want sex, or merely violating Joffrey's corpse in her mind; the 2nd option would make him less evil by comparison, especially given how little sympathy Cersei's love for Joffrey deserves (even compared to how much sympathy she herself deserves - having done worse to Ros and many other women).

 

However, it's also possible that she really didn't want sex, and the "not here on Joffrey's corpse" was just said to dissuade Jaime (because she assumed he'd be more likely to stop then).

Can't tell for sure from this scene - in fact, an "intended reality" doesn't even exist here as it was "accidentally" changed in editing and was neither written nor filmed that way.
 

 

Quote

It is just troubling to see these "well she ended up liking it, so it's okay in the end even if the relationship/encounter started off badly" attitudes in so many films and shows because it is so similar to rape myths and even the views of convicted rapists.

I don't think they're saying "it's ok" - D&D adopted the (false) narrative that that scene was supposed to show that Jaime still wasn't a good guy, despite the changes he went through.

Another reason why people might not care that much, is because they have no sympathy if it happens to an evil person who's done worse to other people (and Jaime's aware of most of it).

The might also look at the way they were acting before, and the way they're acting after, and decide that they're both so decadent and messed up, that it all "doesn't really matter anyway" - the BDSM theory that I suggested earlier, is kind of related to this perception, although a bit different.
It's similar to the way people react to the way mobsters treat each other in movies - they're all evil killers with some likeable qualities, so the viewers aren't invested in their wellbeing in the same way they would normally be.


So, D&D aside, does the show itself convey the notion that since they make up afterwards and Cersei's kind of okay (aside from being angry at him when she sends him to Dorne), that that rape was okay? Well, it's impossible to tell what it's saying since there was no clear intent behind it - all that can be done is analyze different possibilities based on what was shown;
and Cersei is neither really "ok" in S5-6-7, but then neither is she prior to that..

 

 

 

 

Quote

You ask why the Spider-Man scene is wrong, even if it is unrealistic. I completely understand why it seems harmless to many, like critics are just being overly sensitive or something.

Whether it's "wrong" or "harmless" are 2 different questions.
 

Take the example of "shooting violence in video games" - whether they inadvertedly cause harm by inspiring some consumers to be more violent (and to what extent that is balanced by serving as a catharctic outlet and hence reducing it) is one question;

how "wrong" it is to still keep publishing and promoting them, given whichever answer is given to the above question - or to be uninterested in those unintended effects to begin with - is another question.

It's also true that other social factors influence the amount and types of gun violence - some of them that can even be designed as a direct response to counteract the harmful influence from video games (or, if you're evil, counteract the beneficial effect by encourating people to still try the real thing); 
others already exist on their own - upbringing, education, the spreading of moral values through non-fictional means, keeping the economy prosperous and the citizens content etc.



Another example: wrong depiction. Now I'm not an expert in medicine, or anything for that matter - but as I understand it, real CPR only serves to maintain the patient while additional help arrives; the "pound the chest until he hopefully wakes up" is apparently a myth.

So... what are the hamrful effects of this false depiction, on people who watch it and assume it to be accurate? (In this case NOT balanced by beneficial catharsis effect!) And is it still wrong to include that trope in your movie, even if you aren't claiming it to be accurate medicine?

Well, there may be an element of wrongness or irresponsibility there - less so if you excplicitly come out and call it inaccurate.

But it'll still be argued by many that if someone wants that trope in their movie (for aesthetical reasons, "homage", good dramatic device etc.), they can damn well do it - and that it's up to the education system to teach people the actual reality, and point out which movies/shows do it accurately and which don't.



3rd example - also scientific accuracy, but this time low human stakes: accurate space physics.
Well, here there are actually well-known terms for that: "hard Science Fiction" aspires to be accurate and is held to that standard by critics; "soft Sci-Fi" openly does whatever it wants and criticizing it for inaccuracies is silly and misguided.

Yet some physicists still complain about it spreading false notions - on principle, and because miseducation of the population can harm research funding and whatnot.

Well, once again, education can't solely rely on fiction to begin with - in fact, it doesn't need it at all. 
Real public education is supposed to teach the real science and then use accurate and inaccurate fiction as examples - critiicizing inaccurate supposed "hard" SF works for failing their own standards and making false claims about their own accuracy.

Neil Degrasse Tysion has the correct approach - points out nonsense in SF movies but doesn't complain about them when they're not claiming to be accurate in the first place.
A good example of "inaccurate science intneded as accurate" (not sure if ever addressed by Tysion, but whatever) would be the way TV Trek (in particular "The Chase" and "Threshold") depicted programmed evolution, and then the writers gave interviews where they obliviously showed that that's what they really believed.
Not sure about Prometheus, but I think that might be a counterexample to that - the humanoid appearence IS programmed into the primordial soup, but that's kind of treated like a twist or something.



So the same general principles apply here as well.:

Quote

But when you study violence against women in society you see that it is both reflected and perpetuated by our films, literature and music.

a) The perpetuation can be counteracted - by non-fictional educational means, or with alternative fiction that says "that other thing was just fantasy, but here's the real thing with the proper values".

b ) What is "reflected", can either be reality (as studied or perceived by the writer, and subsequently included as a "real element), or pure imagination - or a mixture.

What is depicted, can either be the creator's real value - or fake, escapist values that go against what the writer really thinks.

Quote

Especially with the #metoo movement exposing abuse in Hollywood, you realize that in many cases the art was imitating life or vice versa, even more directly than a lot of people had supposed.

The connection between the corrupt behind the scenes abuse and what happened on screen, wasn't necessarily always there - in fact it looks like it was mostly unrelated.

Fact is, even if all those producers, writers and directors were moral paragons, they'd still be making scenes like this - and worse (like erotic cannibal movies and whatnot). Just like they'd still be making sympathetic mob movies even without being paid off by the mob or even belonging to it (not that such a thing has been revealed yet).

However, when you see some percentage of the creators having those immoral, questionable or misguided moral values (and displaying behaviors too) irl - the distinction starts to blur in a way;
and if there's shady business going on behind the actual filmed scenarios (like pressuring an actress to do some sauce scene and then having everyone lie about it during promotion), the distinction virtually disappears - what you're seeing on screen, IS the abuse, even though the problem technically is still the irl context behind it and not the scenario itself.

However it's only when some immoral action is shown on screen, that reflects the creators' real values or even was intended as an encouragement for the audiences - only then the distinction truly becomes non-existent.
Then we're literally talking about the reflection and perpetuation of evil immoral values.

 

Quote

Basically, I feel these types of scenes both reflect and perpetuate rape culture, which leads to very real and quantifiable damage to many people. I feel that higher standards in writing these scenes would be a step towards solving this.

Again - exclude the inaccurate CPR / space physics / cool gun scenes, or make sure that:
1) they're not being written and filmed by actual scumbags
1a) especially if they're really doing those with the intent of corrupting society, and-
2) counteract it with proper education and values in other venues?

When 1) is guaranteed, these scenes are still gonna be written - because people enjoy writing them and audiences enjoy watching them.
Insisting on taking everyone's escapist fun away is going to create further complications:
-influence some people in the intended direction, but create a rebellious backlash on the other hand;
-possibly cause harm by taking away people's fantasy outlets and stress relievers.



So it seems like the proper answer to those kinds of scenes, is simply to do the equivalent of what Degrasse does - create a platform on which you calmly put those fantasy scenarios in perspective;
the less undeserved condemndation of the movies in question, the more successful the campaign.



 

Quote

And lastly, in regard to Dany and Drogo, the pimps actually have a lot more in common with this situation than one might suppose. Many times they were pressured into the sex industry at a young age, only know that line of work, were abused as children themselves, face economic and educational deficiencies that would make it difficult to leave, etc. Not excusing them in any way, but there is more to their situation than meets the eye and they have more in common with the women they pimp out than they know. And when I said abusive but loving, I mean that often the women in those situations genuinely love the man who abuses them and pimps them out. They call him their boyfriend, never pimp. He calls her his girlfriend or wife and the other girls are "wives in law". The same man that tortured and nearly killed her the night before might paint her toenails and make her breakfast in bed the next morning. But the most significant thing is that no matter what she does to please him, the abuse doesn't stop. This is a constant in these situations (though I will have to research and see if there are ever any rare exceptions. So far I have never encountered any) I am utterly failing at doing justice to the complexities of that kind of situation, but maybe I'm giving you an idea of what Dany and Drogo would have looked like in the show if they truly had represented a Stockholm syndrome situation. Yes, there could have been moments of genuine emotion on both sides, but the abuse would have continued. Dany's moment of empowerment would have come from leaving Drogo, not changing him. Not that this is what I wanted to see in the show. I wanted them to stay true to the book, lol.

Also to be clear, I'm not saying that an abuser is always an abuser. I believe there are some who reform. But the abusive relationship itself will not change, and if the abuser reforms it will be once they are isolated from that relationship. If any of this is intriguing, I really do suggest the book Girls Like Us by Rachel Lloyd, based on stories of survivors of child sex trafficking collected by a survivor turned activist herself. It's a riveting yet quick read (and hardly as morbid as it seems, focusing on the humor and strength of many survivors), and offers truly valuable insight that I have found extremely applicable to the world of literature.

Maybe that's all true, athough a more direct comparison would be historical examples of warlords (like Genghis Khan or whatnot).

The show "Empress Ki" has a similar scenario, except the Mongol King(?) is gentle all throughout (from what I know) - it's based on real history, not sure how accurate or sanitized.
So that might be something to look into.

I've no idea how realistic the Drogo scenario is - however, the key factor here is that he didn't view what he was doing as "abuse"; just the standard default thing to do. So in this case it's more of a question whether he'd realistically give up such an established practice with no relapse ever, rather than whether he'd "stop being abusive".


 

Quote

Also Captain America: Winter Soldier (the second Cap movie) is the best MCU film by far. It's a gritty, modern political thriller with amazing action. Highly recommend. 

I'll get to all those at some point, sure.

[Pink Fat Rast]

1 hour ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Which has never been the case in wartime, Westerosi or ever? During wartime, the civilians provision while the soldiers fight. It's how a warlike race like us function. In a crapsack world like Westeros, assuming the civilians are fucking pampered is such a moronic assumption that it's almost like DnD never read aFfC, a book that makes it clear just how taxing and destructive civilian life is during a war, both in terms of forced labour and rape/destruction of homes.

But, I know, PFR. Themes are for eighth-grade book reports. You wouldn't want to think about that, the show's just automatically the best thing ever to you.

That all may be true; if I rewatch the scene and find some relevant details in the dialogue, I'll post here again.

[Beardy the Wildling]

15 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

a) The perpetuation can be counteracted - by non-fictional educational means, or with alternative fiction that says "that other thing was just fantasy, but here's the real thing with the proper values".

Implying that A Song of Ice and Fire never had any meaningful takeaways, or that fantasies themselves can't have realistic characterisation or takeaways?

Seriously, how cynical and jaded/desperate to justify the show are you?

[Beardy the Wildling]

17 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Fact is, even if all those producers, writers and directors were moral paragons, they'd still be making scenes like this - and worse (like erotic cannibal movies and whatnot). Just like they'd still be making sympathetic mob movies even without being paid off by the mob or even belonging to it (not that such a thing has been revealed yet).

You ever seen a Woody Alan movie? You know, where an ugly, witty guy basically negs a beautiful young woman into sleeping with him? Literally every one of his 'romantic comedies' are the same.

Who knew this was the same man who groomed and married his adoptive daughter, eh? Creator attitudes are just never reflected on-screen, are they?

[Pink Fat Rast]

1 hour ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

What's utterly bizarre is they pulled Sansa out of an arc where she was going to learn how to be savvy just to be raped as a plot device for another person's plot development. One of the biggest strengths of Theon's arc in the books is that Jeyne Poole really is no-one to him. He's not saving Sansa because he 'owes the Starks one', he's not doing it to redeem himself, he's doing it because he and Jeyne are both suffering under Ramsay, and he wants both of their suffering to stop.

It's about him finding raw, empathetic humanity underneath his tortured, broken exterior. Not 'making it up to the Starks'

And how does Sansa's rape affect her arc? Well, she gets to be Jon's sidekick and participate in a tired rape revenge plot. Oh goodie, such emmy-winning writing.

Well, first you claim it wasn't done for her arc and only Theons, and then you grudginly have to admit it was done for her arc too - what do emmys have to do with any of this lol?

in a tired rape revenge plot

I don't remember any tiredness - it might feel "tired" to someone who's already seen lots of rape revenge movies, but to my knowledge the kind of movies that go under that category typically don't involve huge armies so it technically should've been a novelty.

Or, well, vengeance against an evil tyrant who invades your lands is very typical, but it's not called rape revenge even when there's a revenge for a rape


And Sansa takes lots of initiative in the campaign - starts it while Jon was planning to retire; and tries to talk reason into him which ultimately fails when he commits all those istakes on the battlefield.
Didn't have all the agency, but it's a shared storyline to begin with.

Her personality and character are also strongly affected, just like Theon's - in a way that's what a "character arc" is, or one its main components anyhow.



And Theon didn't just do it "to make up to the Starks", it was still raw loyalty and compassion for Sansa primarily - didn't look like he was looking that far into the future at that point.
Why did you have to phrase it that way again?

 

So, essentially you've got an incomplete, broken arc with a confused point to it, and you feel the need to exaggerate and claim how:
-she had none and it was all for Theon's
-deny all her agency and character development, even though there's still quite a bit of that in the show
-try to diminish Theon's arc as well, by implying he was only trying to restore his good name or something while the book version had all the raw compassion


You're an unreasonable, inaccurate critic, and it's no wonder why any disagreement appears like "the show can do no wrong is the best thing ever" to you - typical zealous mindset.
I already told you my main thing was adding nuance and accuracy to the show criticism where it was sorely lacking - and you're still claiming I consider it flawless?

Thought you'd calmed down a bit during your hiatus, but oh well.

[Pink Fat Rast]

22 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Implying that A Song of Ice and Fire never had any meaningful takeaways, or that fantasies themselves can't have realistic characterisation or takeaways?

Seriously, how cynical and jaded/desperate to justify the show are you?

We were talking about Spiderman 1 lmao

[Pink Fat Rast]

21 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

You ever seen a Woody Alan movie? You know, where an ugly, witty guy basically negs a beautiful young woman into sleeping with him? Literally every one of his 'romantic comedies' are the same.

Who knew this was the same man who groomed and married his adoptive daughter, eh? Creator attitudes are just never reflected on-screen, are they?

So how in seven hells are you reading the phrase "even if the creators were moral paragons they'd still be filming scenes like this" and then manage to read it as "creators are always moral paragons and never reflect their scummy ways on screen"?


 

Quote

a) The perpetuation can be counteracted - by non-fictional educational means, or with alternative fiction that says "that other thing was just fantasy, but here's the real thing with the proper values".

b ) What is "reflected", can either be reality (as studied or perceived by the writer, and subsequently included as a "real element), or pure imagination - or a mixture.

What is depicted, can either be the creator's real value - or fake, escapist values that go against what the writer really thinks.

 

Quote

Creator attitudes are just never reflected on-screen, are they?

 

Quote

What is depicted, can either be the creator's real value - or fake, escapist values that go against what the writer really thinks.

 

Quote

Creator attitudes are just never reflected on-screen, are they?

Take a break and calm down - you're reeeeaaally abysmally bad at this right now.

[Pink Fat Rast]

1 hour ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

The worst part is, this argument is a zombie argument. You kill it, but it just keeps coming back, again and again.

I'm still not seeing where it's coming back.

Although I'm sure it keeps coming back SOMEWHERE out there - can you name a single argument that doesn't come back after being "killed" repeatedly? Provided a certain spread and notability of course.


 

1 hour ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

This is the line of reasoning that keeps fantasy in its genre ghetto.

Ghetto is such a nasty word - if all those fans are so eager to go see that schlock and make the movies successful, wouldn't it be more like a raelly prosperous city district, rather than a rundown ghetto? I dunno... 

1 hour ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Fantasy fans tend to be uncritical, willing to take in whatever schlock bad writers throw at them as long as there are cool dragons, hot damsels to save, and lots of cool magical violence.

Well, appreciating all those cool things is definitely more reasonable than not to.

1 hour ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Game of Thrones in its early stages, and naturally A Song of Ice and Fire, managed to start a push away from the ghetto and perhaps allow fantasy readers to get a higher set of standards, but now that the popularity is high but the standards for the writing have dropped,

They may have dropped, but in your current state you're evidently unable to assess the degree to which it did - see above post.

1 hour ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

people are falling back on the whole 'it's fantasy, it's supposed to be over-the-top and stupid'

Where are they doing that? I'm not seeing anything

1 hour ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Despite the fact critics used to (and in some particularly delusional cases following Season 7, still do) consider the show as 'worthy' of being viewed as a serious, legitimate drama.

What's the definition of "serious legitimate drama"?

In either case (but also depending on the way you answer - to some extent), you probably shouldn't be the one they send to those critics to communicate the truth to them; you'll lose credibility with them within seconds and they'll stop listening.

1 hour ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

One of my workmates was like 'ah, it's just a dark fantasy, it was never meant to be taken seriously'. What kind of revisionist bullshit is that? It's about time people called a spade a spade and just admitted that if your characterisation is as sporadic and inconsistent as Game of Thrones, it's not complex and nuanced, or excusable because 'it's fantasy lol'. It's just fucking bad.

Those 3 bolded things are all distinct from each other, and you're conflating them again.

So as I said

[Beardy the Wildling]

31 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Well, first you claim it wasn't done for her arc and only Theons, and then you grudginly have to admit it was done for her arc too - what do emmys have to do with any of this lol?

Yes, it was done for the shitty replacement arc; instead of the arc her books have (and the end of Season 4 implied) where she learns how to be a clever political manipulator, she instead gets a plot about as inspired as a rapesploitation movie. Which is, of course, emmy-winning writing to people like you.

31 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

but to my knowledge the kind of movies that go under that category typically don't involve huge armies so it technically should've been a novelty.

You... really think that makes it any less tired? Lemme guess, you don't think that Star Wars is a typical heroic fantasy progression because it has spaceships and laser swords instead of horses and steel swords? Are you really so incapable of distilling a plot down to its basic elements and seeing what's been done a million times before?

The issue here is that it implies women can only ever get over rape by getting violent revenge upon the rapist, and, for that matter, that women are weak until they're raped into strength. These tropes, regardless of the big armies that you claim differentiates the tale, are prevalent and have been done to death.

31 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Or, well, vengeance against an evil tyrant who invades your lands is very typical, but it's not called rape revenge even when there's a revenge for a rape

Talking about Sansa's arc, rather than Jon's, then yes, it's a rape revenge arc. They mention Winterfell as home, like, once. However, when it comes to the climax, what's the focus? Jon relents on beating Ramsay to death because 'he's not his to kill', then Sansa empowered-smirks as she tells him about the dogs he starved (which she wasn't even there to hear him brag about) and lets him get torn apart.

Worse is that Sansa didn't even get to claim revenge, even if for some moronic reason you think this is empowering! Jon let her, she didn't get to take it herself, unless one thinks 'asking Littlefinger for help and not telling Jon for no reason leading to countless unnecessary deaths' counts as her contribution.

29 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

We were talking about Spiderman 1 lmao

Yes, but you tarred fantasies over with the same brush; you imply that fantasy world = free reign to shit on anything resembling good characterisation.

25 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

So how in seven hells are you reading the phrase "even if the creators were moral paragons they'd still be filming scenes like this" and then manage to read it as "creators are always moral paragons and never reflect their scummy ways on screen"?

Never said that, just that throughout you've been implying that all the implicit sexism in heroic characters that leads to stuff like 'no just means they're teasing/being coy' tropes and what have you has never been affected by the fact people like Woody Allen and Harvey Weinstein are big names in Hollywood. I don't doubt that good-hearted producers would still film dark scenes, but the difference is they wouldn't portray a rape scene as, well, romantic, like Harrison Ford's scene with the female android in Bladerunner, or necessary for character development, as D&D do.

Given you've used the 'it's not rape if they enjoyed it' excuse multiple times in your other arguments, it's safe to say you've been affected by Hollywood attitudes to relationships as much as the next man. Of course you'd think 'Harvey Weinstein may be sexist, but that'd never affect his works, because I like Hollywood stuff'.

[Pink Fat Rast]

6 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Never said that, just that throughout you've been implying that all the implicit sexism in heroic characters that leads to stuff like 'no just means they're teasing/being coy' tropes and what have you has never been affected by the fact people like Woody Allen and Harvey Weinstein

"Never said that you said thing A, just that throughout you've been implying thing A" wtf is this bullshit??

[Beardy the Wildling]

3 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

"Never said that you said thing A, just that throughout you've been implying thing A" wtf is this bullshit??

Because 'Never said that, just that throughout you've been implying that all the implicit sexism in heroic characters that leads to stuff like 'no just means they're teasing/being coy' tropes and what have you has never been affected by the fact people like Woody Allen and Harvey Weinstein' is not the same as 'I believe filmmakers that are moral paragons would never tackle edgy topics'?

I just believe that they'd be more likely not to depict rape as sympathetic/a means to make someone 'stronger', you know?