You know, I knew that Courtney's Friday Feminist Fuck You would draw out the assholes and rape apologists. But this just pisses me off to no end.
Wired has a post on us "furious feminists" and Courtney's video, writing that we have a problem with Observe and Report's "shocking sex scene." Shocking sex scene? No, assholes - that's called rape. It's unbelievable to me that people are arguing whether or not this scene depicts a rape, not only because of the obvious inability for Anna Faris' character to give consent - but also because Faris herself calls it rape.
So please, you fucking idiots, stop calling it sex.
It's also worth pointing out that the comments at Wired (and hundreds at the YouTube video that I moderated) trying to argue that the scene isn't rape are of the "no one would want to rape you anyway you stupid cunt" variety. So yeah. I swear, it's stuff like this that makes me want to give up on humanity.
Please give the folks at Wired a piece of your mind - or any one else who wants to argue that you just don't get the hilarious genius humor behind a dude raping an unconscious woman.
abyss2hope, Majikthise, Jezebel, Tiger Beatdown and nshay1031 at the Community Blog have more.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Hey Wired: Rape isn't "shocking sex".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13023
Yeah. I was too mad to comment on that. I particularly liked the "oh look a lesbian" comment. I mean, first of all, I love that all feminists have to be lesbians. Even if Courtney were a lesbian, how would that change the actual content of the article?
Blegh. It's absolutley ridiculous. People have such tiny, tiny brains.
"Shocking sex scene"? Please. Some people are just vile. No (relatively sober) consent = RAPE, end of story.
If being unrapeable makes one a stupid cunt, then one day, I hope all women will become stupid cunts.
Naw, movies like this don't reinforce rape culture at all. Just harmless fun...
I just have a question for everyone getting outraged over this scene: have you actually seen the film, or are you basing your opinion on the 2 second clip shown in the trailer?
Why? Is there some sort of context that would make a rape-scene-for-laughs okay?
That depends what you mean by "ok". Sometimes media portrays negative actions to illustrate a negative character. You seem to believe that the portrayal of rape in this movie is a positive one. Why do you think so?
The movie was described to me as a dark comedy, and it would not surprise me if the main character was cast in a very negative light. But then, I may have more to say after I see it (or if you know more than I do, at present).
I actually have seen the film.
And the Seth Rogen character is, in short an "UNlovable loser".
He's an obnoxious, racist, mildly retarded, violent loudmouth security guard who has violent fantasies of becoming a police officer so he can shoot lots and lots and lots of people.
Basically, he's a sociopath - played for laughs in a very dark comedy.
Rogen's character rejects the nice young woman who works at the pizza shop who genuinely likes him (for reasons that the script doesn't bother to explain) and instead goes after the Anna Faris character.
Faris' character is a self absorbed, obnoxious, hard drinking party girl - who Rogen's character stalks and manipulates into going on a date with him.
She shows up 3 hours late (she gets dropped off by a car with three guys in it - the implication is that she was out drinking and, probably, giving oral sex to, the guys in the car) - and she only tolerates Rogen's character because he's willing to take her out drinking - and because he takes really powerful prescription psychotropic drugs, which he is willing to share with her.
Considering the characters we're talking about, it makes sense that Rogen's character ends up getting her drunk and raping her.
His character isn't capable of emotionally connecting with a woman who might actually like him enough to have consensual sex with him, so the only way he can get sex is through using alcohol and drugs to incapacitate women who basically don't like him, but are willing to accept his free liquor and narcotics.
And her character, while outwardly wildly overconfident about her physical appearance, is deep down very insecure - so she dates men who see her as a human sex toy, only good for one thing.
I'm not trying to justify date rape here - I'm just saying that, following the narrative logic of the film, it makes sense for Rogen's character to be an acquaintance rapist.
The only thing that doesn't make sense is the minor character who works in the pizza shop, who is actually attracted to Rogen - despite the fact that he is a prizewinning asshole.
Faris' character's open disdain and unveiled contempt for Rogen's character (but willingness to take free booze and pills from him) actually does make sense.
Well, that's not "the only thing that doesn't make sense" in the wider context of this debate -- if it makes so much sense for Seth Rogan's character to be an acquaintance rapist, it's interesting to me that so many commenters over at Wired are defending it as not at all rape, and maybe even funny as if it were sort of physical humor, as if Faris' character had slipped on a banana or something.
Very few people at wired either denied it was rape or in any way condoned of rape or date rape and I wish people would quit posting as though all wired comments had the same opinion. Please don't lump everyone into your cartoonish portrayal of society.
What if I thought all feminists were exactly like SarahMC below, whose posts starts with, "For most men, nothing is as important or sacred as the "right" to get their dicks wet." Is it really very helpful to think that every man is sexist rapist? That every feminist is a constantly outraged lesbian? This type of attitude is polarizing and supremely unhelpful.
Having seen the movie, I don't think it portrayed date rape in even a remotely positive light. Rogen's character is clearly a nasty person who any reasonable person wouldn't want to emulate. You could say the same about Faris' character, actually. I can't imagine anyone watching that scene and thinking, "hey, I want to end up like that guy/girl." To be perfectly clear: this movie didn't present date rape in a neutral manner, let alone a positive manner.
Get a grip folks. You seem a bit unhinged.
I mean, I really am looking at the Wired comments right now and am pretty actively engaged in the debate over there, and a whole lot of them are explicitly arguing that it wasn't rape. Not all of them, for sure, but a whole lot of them. I suppose I can provide quotes or a list or something for you if you like?
To be sure, there are a number of insufferable sexist assholes posting over there. But then, this is the interweb. Nearly every message board or forum is infested with insufferable assholes of one variety or the other.
I guess I would just caution against drawing broad conclusions from that fact. I have seen boards where trolls would post unbelievable things that they clearly didn't even mean just to get people mad. The impersonality of the internet really brings out the nastiness of some folks, an unfortunate aspect of the wired age.
I mean, I don't think it's necessarily indicative of what Wired readers are like nearly as much as it's indicative of what sorts of terrible attitudes are floating around out there in society at large. That is still a problem, though, and possibly a more serious one than if this were just something characteristic of Wired readers.
I am really surprised you would react this way. If you haven't even seen the movie, you shouldn't be commenting on what you think you know about it.
Not to mention, they've produced a trailer that MANY more people will see than see the movie - and chosen the rape scene for that trailer. That it itself makes it important.
Who is "They"? Because the people who splice together trailers are not the same people who produce the theatrical cut of a film. Scenes are completely without context, and may, as in this case, be presented in a manner completely contrary to the purpose they have in the movie.
Um, yea, like movie trailers are written by people who have no connection with the making of the film.
In the original thread on this most people have admitted that they haven't seen the movie (who would want to, after that trailer?) but that they have read some articles that describe the scenes leading up to it and afterwards.
Um, sometimes, you don't actually have to see an entire movie before you can tell whether or not something bad happens in it.
The preview makes 2 things obvious.
1.) Anna Faris gets really really drunk.
2.) Seth Rogen has sex with Anna Faris while she is drunk enough to not have the energy to move or speak normally.
Last time I checked, having sex with someone who was that drunk was rape, even according to the law (at least in my state.)
And like Jessica said, even if the scene is actually not rape at all or Seth Rogen comes to a realization that was wrong and apologizes to her, they still chose to show that little clip in the preview.
The preview is actually something I can see getting mad about. The ad wizards took a complex situation which took place in a very specific context and used it as a gag to sell their movie. Not only did they portray the rape scene in a flippant and inappropriate way, it didn't capture the mood of the movie in the least.
To be quite honest, I get pissed about "artistic license" used in trailers in general. I've been sold so many movies on false pretenses that I no longer trust previews in the least.
I can get behind this outrage, but the original vlog and the general critique of the movie is just uninformed. The movie, and Seth Rogen, did not portray date rape in a positive light.
The trailer is an enormous problem on its own. We are able to make choices about which movies we see and do not see based on what the trailer portrays the movie as. We do not, however, control which trailers we see and what they show us.
Maybe you're right and the movie does not portray date rape in a positive light, I don't know. But the trailer does, and this will be seen by millions more people than will actually see the movie.
The point is not how rape was portrayed in the movie, the point is that a comedy (dark or not) in which there is a supposedly humorous scene about rape is being marketed to young men, the majority of which are likely not as intelligent or informed on women's issues as those reading this blog. Will those young men really understand that the scene is dark, and thus somehow satirical? Probably not.
Not to distract from your point, but I think your arguments would be more seriously considered if you didn't place it under the label "Feminist Fuck You". With a title like that did you expect a different response other than the kneejerk from all the 14-18 year highschool kids?
The point is, we have to stop worrying about what others think. Men haven't been going around commenting on this movie worried about what feminists or women in general think of them, for the same reason, we shouldn't have to restrain our potty mouths.
I get the whole, hey, c'mon, shoot for good PR here--and when I'm dealing with general liberal causes I agree, but when it comes to feminism the reason we have to be all nicey-nice is that we're supposed to be worried about what men think. Fuck that noise. We're half the population, and if us talking amongst ourselves gets them all butt-hurt, too damn bad.
I'm sure you could be a perfectly nice person, I just disagree with your message.
I don't think it has to do with censoring anything. The idea is: intelligent, educated people with serious things to talk about don't open their discourse with "Fuck you" or use that kind of language when explaining their position. It doesn't have anything to do with men except to distinguish how much better you are from the people who do use that language. Wouldn't it be much more constructive to get people to listen to your thoughts about this seriously and objectively?
Profanity expresses a depth of rage that other expressions do not. It ain't all ivory towers.
It's more than that. Arguing over style and language is just a passive-aggressive way of refusing to engage with the actual things that are being said. Freaking out over the word "fuck" is just a way to establish plausible deniability for one's inability to respond to the content of the argument.
Pretty much a classic red herring, really.
Disagreeing about words is more than arguing about red herrings.
If that were the case no one would be upset at being called a bastard, cunt, fucker, bitch, asshole, cocksucker, faggot, dick, cock, whore or slut.
Seriously... There is a big difference in saying "Why don't you get it" and "Why don't you fucking get it" and "why don't you fucking get it, you dumb as bricks dumb ass cocksucker (et cetera, so forth and so on)"
Uh, no. Simply calling someone a name isn't an argument. It's just an insult. There's no herring there at all, much less a red one. Calling someone a bitch isn't even close to being the same thing as using the word "fuck" in the course of making an argument.
Using the mere presence of the word "fuck" as an excuse to avoid engaging the actual arguments that are being made in the FFFY videos is textbook ad hominem.
I think CS has got a point here. Courtney's Youtube post was thoughtful and measured. The only thing that stuck out as jarring with the rest of the message was the "fuck you" part.
And the most reasonable resonse to a "fuck you" is a "fuck you" usually with some sort of intensifier (in the ass, until you [redacted], skull-fuck you, so forth and so on).
Further that... We're half the population, and if us talking amongst ourselves gets them all butt-hurt, too damn bad.
Posting something on YouTube (which the FFFU was) is definitely not talking amongst yourselves, that is thowing something into the stream of the public discourse Neither is addressing a post to someone not in your inclusive group and telling them fuck you...
...Just say'n is all.
Could someone please make a rule that no one is allowed to ever again write "just sayin" upon pain of banishment from cyberspace? I can't frigging take it anymore. Just sayin!
You might make a couple of good points, however, if one were to read the comments under that wired piece "fuck you cunts I wouldn't rape your skank asses anyway" "who would rape them it's not worth the shit you'd have to put up with afterwards", one sees that it's really not the tone of the message that was the problem. If it were, then they could have given the kind of response you just gave, no? Did you start screaming about how you the fucking cunts weren't good enough to rape anyway? So I think we can see where the actual problem lies here.
I mean, for Christ Sakes. I wonder, do any of these animals have sisters? Mothers?
Friggin? Is that still a word?
But on a more serious note, I don't think that many of the commenter on the thread even listened to the f3u, they just read a article at where someone said 'fuck you' so they came out swinging.
There was not anything that was going to keep the conversation out of the muck once that fuck you was thrown in there. There is a chance it might have gone in there anyway but it was certainly doomed the way it began.
Well, that's your take on it. After reading the comments, my take is that they came out swinging as soon as they saw the word "feminist".
And I think there's a lot more evidence in those comments to back up my take.
I don't think that boiling it down to a single issue or factor that causes the response is the right way to go.
You do have those that will respond to the term "feminist" with a string of hateful comments. You also have those that will respond hatefully to being told fuck you.
The two may have synergistic affects on one another, and without the fuck you then you may not get the same level of negative response.
Right now you don't know how much of the response is hateful and how much is a reaction to the fuck you. Maybe that is important, maybe not.
But if when people are hateful and carry yourself with dignity you convince those on the fence, which are the people you want to reach.
And for those on the fence, saying fuck you will not get the response you want.
They will not address the real important thrust of the post:
That is an outstanding question, and one that I think should be mulled over, but its lost in the noise.
If someone said "fuck you, apologize, and fuck you again" what is your first response, your gut reaction?
She said fuck you, Seth Rogan.
Unless you are Seth Rogan, she did not tell you to fuck yourself. Capiche?
Unless people are identifying with Seth Rogan's character so much that they take a "Fuck You" directed towards him as one directed towards themselves, in which case I'd say it's entirely appropriate anyway...
Point of order, it was Rogan and the whole cast and crew, IIRC.
Further that, I have not been saying you cant say fuck you... I have been saying don't be surprised that any goal other than venting your anger is achieved.
Don't be surprised if your other goals are further away.
Don't be surprised if you don't get your apology, you don't questions answered, or people think you don't have the same moral high ground you could have otherwise.
Courtney's moral high ground is determined by the strength of her arguments. I know you don't realize this, but what you're saying is in some ways just a softer, gentler version of "Yeah, dress like a whore if you wan't, but don't be surprised if you get raped, because that's the natural response, blah blah blah" Newsflash: Some people DESERVE a fuck you.
Sometimes no one will even notice or listen to you unless you use strong language like FUCK YOU, because no one will realize how strongly you feel about it unless you make it known.
One of the whole points of feminism is that women's thoughts/actions should be judged on their merits, not on superficial things like their looks, their manner, if they use the word "fuck" etc. If it was a man, half of the people would probably think it was cool that he was saying "fuck you" because it shows he's not afraid of the person he's challenging.
So yeah, you are distracting from the purpose of this thread.
I really do keep forgetting how everything can be reduced to rape.
A short while ago a Feministing community member posted that she was interested at looking researching the current drug situation in Mexico. She inexorably ended up looking at violent pornography.
I am trying to get a point across that the message you send to your in-group will not work with a wider audience. You could hear the same from a persuasive writing instructor or a debate coach.
But here, on feministing, saying that different audiences respond to the same message differently, or that people don't respond well to a hearty 'fuck you' is the same as blaming a rape victim.
Man, you are just determined to let The Point go whizzing by overhead, aren't you?
"The idea is: intelligent, educated people with serious things to talk about don't open their discourse with "Fuck you" or use that kind of language when explaining their position."
I take exception to that. I am ridiculously well educated. Fucking educated, if you will. All I do is hang around people with postgraduate degrees. The majority of us have potty mouths. Wheeeeee!
Also, only my mommy gets to critique my usage of vulgar idioms, thank you. Even she gets to do that only because I particularly respect her and becuase she's usually just requesting that I'd be a little less dark. Mom would never cram that "ladylike" shit down my throat. Thanks, Mom. Others can genteelly autocopulate.
I totally know what you mean, I am one of the fucking smartest fucking people I know, but people still be givin me shit ove stipid thingsd like spellin, tpyos, using the wronge "where" and my use of invectives.
Iam all like fuck, you now what I was trying to say and all that.
And its not just my mom. WHen I be all like "fuck you" to the waigher and shit they not be improveing their service. My boss don;t be cool with that eiter. Buts I gess sometimes ya have to do things a certain way or pple will jump yo shit.
My, aren't we passive-aggressive today?
Steven, it's childish, petty and, in a real way, very very very stupid to critique style, grammar, usage and word choice when you're REAL problem is with the person's ideas!
Why not just gut up, step up to the plate, and object to Jessica's IDEAS?
In this case, that would mean critiquing her criticism of the rape scene in "Observe and Report".
Don't worry - I'll bring my stepladder to help you get down off your high horse, so you can come down with the rest of us and participate in the discussion!
This whole sub discussion is attempting to address that there are several ways to transmit a message, but there are many things that will stop the receiver of that message from getting the message.
Sometimes the problem is with the sender, or the receiver, or the medium of transmission.
It seems to me that you did not like the way I was trying to get my message across... and you responded with predictable results.
The trap was laid, baited and sprung.
Thanks for proving my point. And so quickly too.
Actually, Steven - you ARE being passive aggressive.
So, really, you proved my point.
Why not talk about the ISSUE AT HAND - not your personal problems with women using swear words.
Why not talk about the ISSUE AT HAND - not your personal problems with women using swear words.
I think the lens that you view the world isn't really working for you.
I am not saying at all that women can't/shouldn't swear.
I am saying that people that are trying get their message across should not be confused why they get into problems when they start telling the recipient of that message fuck you, or calling them fucking idiots, asshats, or any of that other stuff.
The OP mentioned that she knew the FFFU was going to bring out the assholes... is it wrong to point that calling people fucking idiots, and telling them fuck you, is by it nature, going to engender that response?
All of the asshats, and fuck you's, fucking idiots, and all that is great if you want to look bad-ass in front of your in-group, but it is not going to buy you many converts, your cause is going to have problems, and in this specific case you are going to be stuck asking "Why don't more people call themselves feminist?"
Really, as far as I'm concerned, the thing is that the "Friday Feminist Fuck You" is a regular feature on this site that started as sort of a fun and confrontational way to call out instances of sexism. We should be able to have regular features like that and we should be able to feature whatever we want on it without having to sit here and wring our hands over how e.g. Wired readers might react to our using the phrase "fuck you" in a blog post. I mean, come on now. If people are taking issue with the occasional expletive being used for a specific, considered effect in a regular feature on a blog, I think I'm comfortable with leaving that as their problem, not mine.
Sometimes, intelligent people get angry.
And angry people curse.
If somebody tried to pick my pocket on the subway, I wouldn't get into a reasoned intellectual discussion of why robbery is morally wrong.
I'd call them ten different kinds of motherfucker and tell them to get the fuck out of my pockets!
And I'd be perfectly justified to do so.
Jessica is very offended by the portrayal of date rape in this movie - so angry that she wants the director, star and writers of the movie to go to hell.
So she cursed them out.
It's called GETTING ANGRY - and women (even the "educated" ones) are allowed to be angry too!
"We're half the population, and if us talking amongst ourselves gets them all butt-hurt, too damn bad."
While we're all hangin' around critiquing language, are there not homophobic implications to the term "butt-hurt"? I have to say I've been rather disturbed by its increasing popularity.
I may be rather dim, but I cannot see the homophobic implications. I could see how the expression might be tied to a particular sex act, but I actually don't think that makes any sense.
I couldn't disagree more. The date rape scene (and really, the whole film) more than deserved a *huge* Fuck You. We shouldn't censor ourselves.
Not only that, but Courtney's video was not simply dismissive. She called Seth Rogen to critically examine his own work and produce better things through a thoughtful deconstruction. She was a lot calmer in her arguments than I would have been.
Uhh.. doesn't a rape scene kind of imply a huge "fuck you"? No, wait. Scratch the "imply"; I'd say rape is a pretty literal "fuck you".
I have to say that comments thread on the Wired post is so disgusting as to be difficult to read, which explains why I pretty much stick to Feministing and its linked sites when perusing the blogosphere. Seriously, though, when the majority of your argument is that feminists are hairy, homosexual, uptight, unattractive or anything else that is completely, childishly, banally, crassly unrelated to the issue at hand, you just look pathetic.
The comments are horrendous. Especially this one:
F*cking feminist morons, here, chew on this a bit:
Q: What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?
A: Nothing, you've told her twice already!
Q: Why do woman have smaller feet than men?
A: It's one of those "evolutionary things" that allows them to stand closer to the sink!
How do you know when a woman is going to say something smart?
A: When she starts her sentence with "A man once told me...."
Cheers!
www.eZee.se/funnies/
Hilarious!
Gosh, I have never heard such stunning wit before! My entire world view has been altered by the force of this brilliant man's incisive humor!
It was very difficult to read. And I thought the commenters at the Huffpo were sexist. Well, they are. But I suppose that they are constrained by not being able to use words like cunt, whore, and fuck.
You read the comment sections on the internet, and you can't stop thinking of, or at least I can't, Germaine Greer, who once said: Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.
Yeah, I really did have very little idea. Sometimes I really wish I still didn't know.
"You read the comment sections on the internet, and you can't stop thinking of, or at least I can't, Germaine Greer, who once said: Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.
Yeah, I really did have very little idea. Sometimes I really wish I still didn't know."
That's so true and so sad...
It makes me want to live alone in a cave. :|
Thankfully not all men are like that.
read a good idea on another blog. Some feminists are planning to go to the theatre and watch another film (preferable another one opening on the same day or week) when this film opens. It will bring the numbers for rogen's rape apologia down without giving attention to it as other strategies might. I know nothing about pop culture, so it could already have opened. But I think they collect numbers for the whole weekend if it was this weekend.
Just a thought.
That's a great idea. I will have to try to keep posted on it. Can you let us know where you saw it so I can keep an eye on it for details?
I'd never even heard of this film, but after all the fuss I watched the trailer from this site. I have to say the rest of it looks absolutely hilarious - the "my dick is brown, you dumb motherfucker" line in the trailer had me in stitches.
Can't comment on the rape scene since I haven't seen the movie yet and I don't like judging scenes out of context, but I'm definitely going with some friends next weekend. My turn to pick, and this looks better than Adventureland.
To get to the point, all this site is doing is promoting the movie (Streisand effect or something?) It's the same thing that happened with Tropic Thunder, and now "full retard" is firmly embedded in our collective vocabulary.
...I have no idea what "full retard" is?
It's from a scene in Tropic Thunder. Advocates for the mentally handicapped protested the use of the word "retard", and it helped drum up publicity for the movie. Now the phrase "full retard" that the movie coined has 80,000+ results in Google, and there are T-shirts with it.
Boycotting movies rarely works. For every person that cares enough to not go, there will be three that are curious enough to go. This is an R comedy, so it will probably not do that well, unless people hear all about the "shocking sex scene" and decide to check it out.
It bombed.
46% Hannah Montana The Movie $34.0M
26% Fast & Furious $28.8M
73% Monsters vs. Aliens $22.6M
50% Observe and Report $11.1M
34% Knowing $6.7M
Eek -- I don't really want to engage this too much, because honestly, I'm bored with Seth Rogen and any and all hubbub surrounding him. But here's a couple of thoughts:
1) They get to "furious feminists who have launched an internet offensive" over just that one post? Hmm.
2) Pretty much everyone at Wired and perhaps even some people here don't seem to "get" that it's not like we're offended over the very fact that there was any portrayal of date rape. We're annoyed about this portrayal: that committing date rape is just kind of a bad choice, one of many made by our local loveable tragi-comic fuckup. And, like, maybe it's kind of okay-ish, since the girl was a fuckup too, and even a kind of stuck-up one at that, so isn't it ha-ha-funny that she's such a fuckup that she gets herself into these situations where fuckup guys might do something screwy but sort of endearingly dumb? Hardy har har, guys.
Or, you know, maybe rape is incredibly fucked up, the not-funny-at-all kind of fucked up, and maybe no girl deserves that, no matter whether we respect her as a person or not.
Did you see the movie? I ask because I don't get your characterization of Seth Rogen in this movie. He didn't portray a lovable loser. He portrayed a sick, sick person and any reasonable person would not chose to emulate him.
I do agree that the TRAILER for the movie was irresponsible not just in its portrayal of rape but also in its characterization of the movie and its content. This was a very black comedy exploring some pretty despicable people not a lighthearted "bromance."
Blame the ad wizards and the studio folks that approved the ad, not Seth Rogen.
I haven't seen the movie, but I've heard a lot about it, and it was my impression that the Seth Rogan character was supposed to be kind of a fucked up anti-hero type character. But direct "emulation" of his character isn't what the problem is, really. The problem is more like what's described here, from the review that cgo5787 posted earlier:
Mr. Hill says his movie was inspired by “Taxi Driver,” a self-flattering comparison. Like those of Travis Bickle, Ronnie’s delusions of grandeur do end in a paroxysm of blood. Yet while Martin Scorsese might be overly fond of screen violence, part of what makes that film profound and memorable is how the thrill of violence, its seduction, is always in play with a palpable moral revulsion. No such dialectic informs “Observe and Report,” which exploits Ronnie and his brutality for laughs. This lack of critique might make the movie seem daring. But it’s hard to see what is so bold about a film that, much like the world outside the theater, turns the pain and humiliation of other people into a consumable spectacle.
How drunk does a person have to be for their verbal or implied consent to not count?
Because, hey, I've fucked people who weren't as drunk as I was at the time. I don't see a problem with it and I think my consent at the time was valid. I don't see why it should be automatically categorized as rape.
Were you not safe to drive? Were you drifting in and out of consciousness, unable to walk, unable to wake or understand what was happening to you? Anything of that magnitude would be deeply problematic, and particularly so with a new partner.
Which is why idiolect's comment regarding "don't have sex with someone who might be drunk if you haven't already established with them that it is okay."
Let me put it this way--a drunk, non-protesting but not particularly engaged partner is way different than a sober, non-protesting but not particularly engaged partner. I think that anyone with any sexual ethics would be troubled by either situation, but the drunk/intoxicated partner is in less of a position to look out for him/herself.
Once or twice I've been drunk enough to throw-up and black-out (oh college...), but I was still able to walk, talk, use a camera, AND be sexually aggressive and engaged. Whatever I consented to or initiated in that state is, I think, valid. I might regret it later, sure, but I wasn't raped. Honestly, I'd prefer that regret to some guy saying no in an attempt to protect me from myself or some such paternalistic bullshit.
I'm not too upset with the two second clip I saw, to be honest. Maybe she did give consent prior to drinking. Maybe she was engaged before passing out. Once she was passed out, he stopped. Once she became engaged again by telling him to continue, he continued.
Hey, argolis. I do not mean to invalidate your experience. Please bear in mind that for some of us here, the scene depicts something less hypothetical and more personal. It is close enough to experiences I have had and women close to me have had that the scene literally make my guts churn. Those maybes are sounding not very reassuring. We should not have to speculate about her consent.
Thanks for the comment. I have had similar experiences to you in college where I got drunk and initiated sex (even after puking) and if the man I was with would have turned me down "for my own good" I would have been angry and likely not seen him again. I think there is a point when someone can be too drunk to give consent (like when they don't know what is going on) and that targeting women who you know would not have sober sex with you if they are drinking is wrong but I can't tell from a clip exactly what is going on in this film. If Anna was passed out when he started having sex with her or so out of it she did not know where she was, who he was, or what he wanted to do (so she did not/could not give consent) then it would be rape. However, I tend to agree with the interpretation that she gave consent and he stops when he realizes she has passed out until she orders him to continue (which implies she knows what is going on and wants to have sex).
In this scene, Brandi isn't just drunk-- she is unconcsious with vomit on her face. I'm not sure that I can state where the line should be drawn for every person in every situation but I think its pretty clear that the line has been crossed in this scene.
From what I recall of the clip, she passes out while he's on top of her. Once he realizes this, he stops. She was conscience when they started fucking.
Yeah, he's not going to win any Gentleman of the Year Award or anything, but I don't think his behavior was criminal.
From what I recall of the clip, she passes out while he's on top of her. Once he realizes this, he stops. She was conscious when they started fucking.
Yeah, he's not going to win any Gentleman of the Year Award or anything, but I don't think his behavior was criminal.
Thank you for adding a different perspective to this topic and raising good questions.
This is not true. She was passed out for the entire scene, other than her line. The scene starts exactly like it does in the preview, there's no conversation or implied consent or anything, it just her stumbling around drunk on the lawn, vomiting, him kissing her, and then cut to the date rape.
OK, I need to go back and rewatch the trailer, but the fact that he stopped when he saw that she was passed out implies that she wasn't when they started out.
Can a passed-out person give consent?
Obviously, a passed out person can't give consent. I was referring to lesser degrees of intoxication.
Man, I don't know why people are so confused by this. Don't have sex with someone who might be drunk if you haven't already established with them that it is okay. This generally means not having sex with people you haven't been involved with before if they're drunk, which is really honestly seriously not all that hard.
P.S. Commenting at wired as "becca," for what it's worth.
"This generally means not having sex with people you haven't been involved with before if they're drunk, which is really honestly seriously not all that hard."
What about people you have been involved with before who are drunk? Just want to clear that up, because that is a no-no as well.
Heh, good on you for calling me out I guess -- I was sort of trying to avoid a more complicated discussion that isn't relevant to the immediate issue at hand (since the scene in the movie takes place between people who haven't been together before). Anyway, you're totally right, but I do think that there are circumstances in which it's okay for couples to have drunk sex if they already know that the other party is generally in favor of it, without having to obtain the Antioch-esque explicitly spoken consent before this particular deed. That isn't to say that anyone has a right to sex at any point ever at all (and of course this still excludes circumstances where someone is unresponsive -- in that case, call a f'ing ambulance! Jeez), and of course sex should always involve a whole lot of attentiveness to whether your partner is really enjoying it or not and so on.
But, I mean, to be honest I really do think that whether or not your partner is into what's going on is something that should be blindingly obvious -- but asking these sorts of "But where do you draw the hard and fast line?" questions presumes that it's not blindingly obvious. I don't have a whole lot of patience for these questions, and I think any answer to these questions is probably doomed to fail, precisely because the very asking of these questions means you're already going down the wrong road anyway.
I think a question like that is perfect valid and it's not really fair to devalue that question. Yes rape is rape no matter what, if someone says no at anytime no matter what, or is visibly incapable of making any decisions or even worse unconscious it is rape. But I think this person was bringing up a valid point. When it comes to sex it is different, I am framing this in the context of my personal experiences where I have been drunk, but still in control of my own actions have hooked up for the first time with people less drunk than me but always maintained control of the situation. I also don't feel that it was poor decision on their part to choose to sleep with me. And what about when both parties are equally drunk? People have random drunk hook ups all the time that is why it is important to address questions like this to establish boundaries.
You know, no one is getting brought up on rape charges unless someone makes a complaint. So, this law is not really meant to tell you, as someone who has been the intoxicated one, that every time you had drunk sex you were actually raped, or something -- the law exists explicitly to give people who really were too drunk to consent and who really didn't want it to happen some legal recourse. The only reason to ask for more explication of exactly where that line is is if you're the non-drunk one trying to figure out if you can get away with something. And like I said before, at that point you're already going down the wrong road anyway.
Yes I very much understand the law. But I still believe it is important to bring up questions like that one. You said that no one is being brought up on rape charges unless a complaint is made, but whether or not a complaint is made does not mean that rape did not occur. I'm sure you can agree with me on that. And that is why this question is incredibly valuable because of the greater social context that it is placed in. I don't think it is heading down the wrong path or someone trying to get out of what they did. Yes it can be used that way which is horrible, but not always. The discussion helps create boundaries and give people the resources they need to make their decisions.
The main argument over this movie is that Anna Faris' character was unconscious so yes that was date rape, but then she wakes up and says "why did you stop?" and with her saying that statement is why this question is so important. Some say well there you go she gave her consent most say no she is too drunk to consent and I am aware that he may have started having sex with her before any consent was given I don't I haven't seen the movie. The fact that people even question that this may not be a date rape scene is why this question needs to be addressed.
Agrolis comments also brought up some good points over this argument especially in the second comment. This is a complex topic with grey areas, so completely throwing out a discussion that can help make what is right and wrong easier to understand can be just as damaging as well. Stopping a discussion over inebriation, consent, rape, sex, and responsibility by saying it is only so that someone can get out of the consequences of their actions is what I feel is heading down the wrong path.
Fine, I'll make a hard and fast rule for you then: If you are looking at a situation and wondering "Is this rape or is this not rape?" and it takes more than a few moments for you to figure this out, then it is rape and you're just trying to come up with excuses for some perpetrator that, for whatever reason, you feel some amount of sympathy for.
But for everyone else, quit worrying about where the hard and fast line is and start worrying about how sure you are that you're on the right side of it. If you're not sure, back away from it until you are. Not that hard.
Ok first of all for you to say that to me I feel is way out of line. You have no idea what I have been through, and yes I have been through a sexual assault situation myself and guess what when you go and file complaint everyone will attack you not the other person, and to even think that I would make up excuses for my attacker is so fucked up in so many ways I can't even express. So I hope you never have to go through that and if you have a am so sorry and maybe we can relate on something. So don't worry just sit there and speak about it from simply your perspective and devalue any other arguments, and trust me I never sat there and though "shit was that wrong? I don't not sure." I knew ok. I also want to make it clear that my argument was NEVER to say rape is somehow ok or that we should side with attackers. No I was saying that most people in society don't take this seriously and will continue to argue about consent and drunkness, so how about we address it and an open fashion discuss it like adults and try to create a change in society. And yes this is a complicated topic. We can have differences of opinions and speak about it without attacking someone. For me I feel that it was worse to read that comment and have those assumptions made about me than how I will feel watching that scene in the movie. So thanks I came to this website cause I thought it was a great place to have discussions like this not attack each other.
How is this really any different from all those idiots from Wired coming up with horrible assumptions and comments towards you guys? Bringing the argument down to a simple you just don't get it and what you say is wrong.
Whoa whoa whoa. I didn't personally attack you, I just said that I think trying to find a hard and fast rule (and I'm speaking to everyone here) is something that really only helps out people who are trying to push the line already, otherwise it would be obvious that it was okay. I'm not calling you names or attacking you or anything, I just disagree with you, that's all. So I disagree with you, people can disagree and it can be okay. Jeez.
(Also, I really don't think it is any of your business right now what I have "been through." I can talk about it if you really need to hear it, but I really don't think what I'm saying needs to be backed up by personal horror stories, it should be clear enough on its own).
I am basically saying the same thing. That we disagree and of course that's ok. I wrote that. So I say the same thing as you, people can disagree it's ok. Jeez. It's good lets disagree and discuss our differences. But I'm sorry, but it did seem very much like you were attacking me when you start your comment with ok I'll have a deadfast rule for YOU and speak about a perpetrator I would have sympathy for. It just seemed like the same your wrong I'm right argument. And of course it is none of my business what you have been through, I have just framing it in the context of my argument saying that sometimes when people go through certain things they have different perspectives. I'll just leave it with you have valid points, and I have valid points that's the great thing about debating to see different perspectives and to strengthen your own arguments as long as no one disregards the other person's argument because they disagree with it. We both have something of value to add to this topic.
For most men, nothing is as important or sacred as the "right" to get their dicks wet. Women's consent, consciousness, and/or enjoyment to not enter the picture. Anything that stands in the way of their pursuit to get their dicks wet must be destroyed (i.e. feminists). Critiques of this movie threaten men's "right" to get their dicks wet via rape, therefore the woman-hating brigade is out in full force defending this piece of shit and the pieces of
shit who get a kick out of it.
PLEASE, don't make generalizations like this about "most men." I find it incredibly offensive. There are so many men in my life that I love and I like to think of feminism as a struggle for equality of ALL people. I absolutely do not condone you stereotyping and belittling an entire half of the population of the world. Maybe "a lot of men" or "many men" would be okay, but not "most men" please.
What about gay men?
Why are you so heteronormative, you hateful homophobe?!
"Most" men are straight, so my comment took account of the gay male population.
If you don't hate women, I say: don't tell me. Tell the pornographers. Tell the pimps. Tell the warmakers. Tell the rape apologists and the rape celebrationists and the pro-rape ideologues. Tell the novelists who think that rape is wonderful. Tell Larry Flynt. Tell Hugh Hefner. There's no point in telling me. I'm only a woman. There's nothing I can do about it. These men presume to speak for you. They are in the public arena saying that they represent you. If they don't, then you had better let them know.
Please attribute your quote appropriately, otherwise its plagiarism.
Jesus Christ, I just realized the italics didn't take and I cut off the attribution to Andrea Dworkin. You're a real jem of a contributor to this site.
I do try and bring some original synthesis to all this. It can be hard, but I try non the less
Thanks!
Hate to bring it up, but Larry Flynt has done a lot more for free speech in this country than Andrea Dworkin ever has. Flynt will always be remembered for free speech, Dworkin for censorship.
You're part of the problem. You're a public relations nightmare. When the vblogger is painfully spelling out how she's not one of the old "uptight" feminists, who do you think she is trying to distance herself from?
Dworkin. You.
Oh, we're talking about "free speech" now? Why am I, a mere woman writing on a blog, a public relations nightmare? Why must I censor MYSELF in order to be accepted and treated as a full human being (you know, like a man)? Why must I mold myself to be more palatable to the menfolk, who treat women like shit no matter how they look or speak?
Why are you HERE, policing ME and MY speech, instead of protesting the depiction not only of women, but of MEN, in the media? You are part of the problem. I do hate men; I hate men like you who'd rather scold feminists than fight for gender equity and against rape. You've made it clear whose side you're on.
You disagree with the quote then? I don't necessarily consider myself an "old-school" type feminist at all, but I think that quote is pretty great. I think you've probably missed the point if you're focusing in on Larry Flynt as a character and not recognizing that she's just using him as a timely example (perhaps now the Girls Gone Wild guy would be more contemporary) of what the voices that purport to represent men's interest in the public discourse about sex/rape/etc are like.
Larry Flynt did a lot for free speech? You mean for the right to put naked women in dog collars down on all fours with a man holding her leash on newstands?
Go fuck yourself scumbag. You don't know what free speech is. May you have five daughters.
Excuse me, a bad statement in a moment of anger. Of course you should not have five daughters. They would grow up to be self-hating tools who would no doubt end up on the cover of Hustler with dildos up their ass for the entertainemnt of your bald, fat, old buddies who would scratch their ass with one hand, and have their two inch peckers in their other one while jerking off to it.
May YOU end up on the cover of a hopefully soon-to-come male Hustler in a dog chain with a dildo up your ass.
Larry Flint has in fact done alot for free speech. That is the whole point of free speech to be able to say and depict what you want. His case has done a great deal to advance free speech in this country. As for putting women in dog collars I never understood this argument against women in pornography. In the end, they are choosing to do that and it is their right to do so. I believe many women in the porn industry see themselves as feminists, and if not that fact that they have the right to choose what they want and do what they want is great! My point is they are making their decisions, as long as no one is forcing them and this is something they feel comfortable with then I see nothing wrong with it. Free speech and freedom of choice that is the what we should strive for. And that is what feminism should be where women can make any choice they want free of criticism for it.
wow, way to dispel that "man hating feminist myth". Don't make sweeping generalizations about men.
When the "good men" stand up to the "bad men" and let it be known - not just to us - that they do not speak for them, I will retract my statement.
The way to continue to make progress in the feminist fight is not to alienate an entire half of the population. I know men who support feminism and I have been able to at least in part enlighten the mindset of some others, but would never have done that if I would have told them I hated them and all they cared about was getting their dicks wet. Your attitude is not helpful or conducive to the kind of conversation and attitude change that we need to happen.
Wow. I used to feel that you were an insightful commentator with valid things to say, even if I didn't always agree with your particular viewpoint.
Aw, what changed?
Jeez, what do you think?
Seriously, way to be both hateful and dismissive of male attempts to change rape culture.
And I meant what I said; I really did always view you as someone with insightful, valuable things to say - but it is very hard to reconcile that with your above comment.
What male attempts to dismantle rape culture? Almost all the male comments here are from men sitting on the sidelines directing us women how to conduct ourselves, threatening us with social irrelevance if we don't beg for patriarchy's scraps in the sweetest way possible.
How about instead of bossing us around, those men who are TRULY invested in dismantling rape culture go out and give a stern talking-to to OTHER MEN? Like the ones celebrating rape and misogyny on basically every other website on the Internet?
Like Dworkin said, if you aren't a woman-hater, don't tell us. We aren't the ones who need to know.
Your message didn't really seem to be addressed to "most male comments" here. It seemed a little more broad and encompassing than that. If I misunderstood your comment as being directed at men in general, then I apologize.
I don't really want to argue with you either. I do however want to note that I genuinely want to be an ally (a look at my post history will give insight into what I'm doing to be an ally). Hurtful comments like yours make it more difficult.
No, I don't want a cookie. No, I don't want to be lauded for simply being a decent human being. Yes, I would like to see less sweeping statements about how awful my gender is.
My comments are directed at men on and off the Internet. I'm angry at them AND I'm angry at men who visit feminist websites to give us helpful hints about gaining first-class status in the world. Do you understand why I'm angry? When "art" reinforcing male dominance is defended as exempt from criticism, and any women who protests such filth is threatened with rape or called a cunt or just to STFU all together. I'm sorry; it's not personal. But I am really fucking angry and it hurts to be reminded EVERYWHERE I LOOK that so many men hate women so damn much.
To be fair, some of the women are saying the same thing... is it wrong to agree with them?
Some women are saying the same thing, and plenty of us are arguing with them too. But they don't have as much social power as you. It sucks when other women apologize for rape but I can almost understand it in terms of mental self-preservation. I still speak out against it but as a man you have more power to end rape culture than we women do.
I might trust you if you spent as much time criticizing the rapists and rape apologists and pornographers and pimps as you do scolding those of us fighting that sort of thing. Are you making your views known on the Wired thread? Do you speak up when you see/hear hoardes of men making rape jokes and dismissing feminist voices by calling us fat cunts?
Yes, there are always women willing to become collaborators in order to gain male approval. And there are always men who will then point to them and say "I'm just agreeing with her." You see this a lot too with white male conservative racists, who in order to cover up the racism inherent in their policies, love them nothing more than a black man willing to agree with them. Thus their constant quoting of an Armstrong Williams.
We're well aware. Did you have some point of which you thought we weren't aware?
Nice. Women who disagree with you are trying to gain male attention. Those who agree with you are the "real" feminists. Way to set it up so that women have to fall in line and can't think about anything critically and for their own opinions.
Maybe my response was overly sensitive. I don't discount your anger, nor do I deny its validity; I just wish that I wasn't lumped in with it by virtue of gender. While you may say it isn't personal, it really feels like it is.
Does it feel personal when the magazine publishers, movie producers and advertisers characterize men as selflish, inconsiderate misogynists only interested in getting their dicks wet? I get that you're offended by my comment, but the same sentiment appears in almost every form of media, and among your fellow men. Tell them. xpd accused me of being bad PR for feminism. Well, as a man, you are getting bad PR too, on the big and small screen, in Maxim and on Wired, and in the comments made by your brothers. Tell them.
You make a valid point that I am undoubtedly not doing enough to address the roots of the problem. However, I don't think that that fact invalidates my dislike of the way that you phrased your comment.
And yes, I do take it personally when media and advertisements portray all men as bumbling buffoons who care only for sex.
Then again, I don't self identify as a "media and advertising ally," and I do identify as a "feminist ally."
Word.
you have problems if you anger is solely focused on men. coming to so called feminist sites to rant isn't going to help
Hah! More policing from jaja. How are YOU helping?
You know what, any woman who can read those comments at wired and NOT feel anger, isn't a woman I want to know. So why don't you take your concern for her blood pressure over to the wild eyes maniacs screaming for the cunts' blood? Okay? Or, you know, you can stick it in your ass. Whichever feels better for you.
you're clearly unwell, so i'll try to explain it in a way you may understand.
if the same supposedly offensive opinions are voiced by women, why is the anger only directed out men. you shit here whining about society treating you unfairly when you espouse the same bigotry you supposedly decry. folks see through it dismiss you for the hypocrite you are
FWIW, if any of you guys want to be helpful in an extremely easy and immediate way, you could help me out in the comments section over on the Wired blog. It's a mess, and it's not very important in the grand scheme of things, but every little bit helps.
Will do.
How about thinking of us as a focus group to determine an effective way of getting your message across?
You might be able to gain useful insights, like this rhetoric that works really to whip up people that already agree with me is shite when used to intorduce people to my point of view...be they male and female.
Or.... people don't respond well to verbal abuse, even as mild as 'fuck you' or being called 'fucking idiots' 'asshats' or any of that.
Or if you say 'fuck you' to someone they will respond with 'Fuck You" then you say "FUCK YOU" and then they say "FUCK YOU".
Its almost like there is a cycle of... something going on here...
This is our own space! We should not be running theoretical market tests for how to speak in our own space. Please.
Something posted onto YouTube is not really anybodies space, its a public forum.
And when Jessica wrote "So please, you fucking idiots, stop calling it sex. I assume that was also suppose to be a message to those outside of this discussion board.
Further that, one stated purpose of Feministing is "...to further feminist dialogue in a progressive manner (from the sites FAQ).
I really don't think all the invectives and pejoratives advances feminist dialog in a progressive manner, and I think my saying so falls within the scope of the discussion and guidance provided in the FAQ.
I also think I have followed the comment policy:
Fuck you? Sorry, am tired, apparently jokes are all I'm capable of. But yeah, I still think that's kind of crap, and I think the FFFY feature is both fun and also important and worthwhile, and as I've already said, we shouldn't have to sit around wringing our hands over how so-and-so might react, especially since that plays right into really annoying gender prescriptions of women having to be hedging and diplomatic and "nice" all the time. Sometimes you really do just have to say Fuck Off You Fucking Fuckhead, and that's okay.
I am really suprised to see this comment from you. Its not about alienating men, its about alienating women who think that patriarchy is fucked up but still have loving and respectful relationships with tons of men. I guess I just feel like there is a huge logical fallacy in justifying the statement "to most men...really horrible characterization," by pointing out that those who claim to be better often don't do enough to fight the bad men. Men should be doing more to stop rape culture. But the fact that most aren't as active as they should be does not mean that most think consent is irrelevent. A lot of men pick their battles the same way female feminists do, speaking up when they think it will make a difference and letting things slide when the potential to make a difference seems limited. Others are unaware of the extent of the problem, a grounds which absolutely makes it reasonable for criticizing them for not seeing outisde of their privilege, but hardly makes them the same as men who find consent irrelevant.
I guess I am just wondering, do you really think its fair to group someone as one of the "most men who think consent and female enjoyment are irrelvent," if they would never touch a woman without her consent, but just have not stepped outside of their privilege zone for long enough to see how much it happens? I mean both are bad, but to me they are not at all the same...
The same thing has happened to me were I have slept with people who were not as drunk as me and it was with someone I had not been involved with before and I do feel that my consent was completely valid.
Although I feel that the argument raised about this film is a very valid one, I still think it has to be framed around the context of the entire film and not just a clip from the trailer. I do think whether you guys saw the film or not is important because from what I gather is that Seth Rogen's character is not suppose to be a good guy and that the audience is not suppose to condone his actions. I have not seen the film, but plan on it because of all the controversy over it and the fact that I believe that I cannot make a complete argument over it till I see it.
If anything at least this movie has started a new dialogue over date rape and consent among many people that may not have necessarily talk about this before.
Yeah, but if I go see the movie, he gets his chunk of my $12 regardless of whether the scene is OK. And judging from the trailer and Seth Rogan's past movies, I'm going to make an educated guess that it is very much not OK. I see where you're coming from, but the box office doesn't count why people bought their tickets, just that they did, you know?
I completely agree with you. I was having this issue myself. I didn't even want to see the movie at all because it just looked bad, but after all of this I feel like I should.
Yes the filmmakers and the film company in the end will only care about revenue, but like I stated before at least this is creating a dialogue for this subject. We can't censor the film nor should we try, but we can dissent and voice our opinions against it. Now it is just about where to go from there, and I don't think it should be centered around a fuck you Seth Rogen you suck argument, but instead around an argument about what date rape is, how society views it, how there should be no gray area when it comes to rape, and how we can change things so that in all cases this is seen as a serious crime.
That's why I want to see the movie cause I feel like I will be able to speak with more grounding about it.
You could also watch it on the internet after it comes out. Not sure where, but I don't doubt there's a place that will be streaming it. No money to the film.
ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! =(
If the TR Bob dude over at the Wired commenting section says one more thing about how no one cares when women get brutally murdered, I am going to lose it. I am posting this here instead of at Wired because I think if I post there, I will go apeshit on him.
ARRRGGHH.
Heh. Don't pay him much mind -- I'm really starting to wonder whether he has some kind of disorder that somehow makes him both obsessive and incoherent at the same time.
Seth Rogen sucks at life to begin with. I would like to share my favorite gem from the comments section:
"Fuck this feminist bullshit. Nobody will rape you guys because you're not even worth the amount of bullshit men will have to deql with after the deed."
Too bad I'm just not huggably, rapeably pretty. Guess I'll go purge now.
On a somewhat lighter note, this comment from the ever-bizarre "TR Bob" hit me as especially funny:
the person is stating some "facts" about the movie that may not be overly true.
Not overly true? Only the appropriate level of true? "Truthiness" level of true? Quick, apply the truth-o-meter!
I love how it's a compliment to be "rape-able".
I actually felt ill after watching the trailer (not good after the amount of chocolate I have had!)
I cant read the comments section because the stupidity and level of absurdity and hatred for women who dare speak out against something thats meant to be funny is to much for me.
Anna Faris even said when she filmed it, she didn't think that scene would even make it to the final cut. I'm not toooo sure I believe how genuine her... shock.. is about that scene, but at least she recognizes it as something to raise an eyebrow to.
BTW, What movie opens on that same day so I can redirect my friends and I to see so we can hurt the box office for that craptastic movie?
If anyone wants to read a much more appropriate and poignant review of the movie I would suggest Manohla Dargis' review in the New York Times. http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/movies/10obse.html?ref=movies
And to Christina, the Hannah Montana Movie also comes out this weekend. I would bet money this does better at the box office than Observe and Report.
I don't think anything is coming out this weekend besides the rape movie, Hannah Montana, and Dragonball: Evolution. At least not in wide release.
I bet this movie will make A LOT of money, because there really isn't much out there right now.
I'm seeing Hannah Montana! haha...
http://www.feministing.com/archives/014755.html#comment-243472
The attack on Seth Rogen epitomizes everything wrong with discussions of date rape. Emotion takes over any rational thought.
Like is Seth really more to blame than I don't know, the writers, director, producers, or even the actress?
Secondly, instead of just saying this is date rape and therefore bad why not try and formulate your arguments a little better. Yes you may feel this is not a grey area, for whatever reason, but obviously many do not. Why not address this and try and come up with a response to your critics? Like what if Seth's character were drunk and out of it too, would it still be rape? Or any of the other thousand questions people are unsure of.
Perhaps your critics, I mean rape-apologists, are prejudiced assholes who don't believe date rape exists. It is possible though that many (most) of them really just hate ambiguous and unarticulated arguments.
I'm going to forward this link to my husband and hope that he never picks up a Wired magazine again.
Seth is the one who is willingly acting the date rape out. Which is problematic because a lot of young men idolize Seth Rogen and everything he does is suddenly hilarious and copyable for laughs.
wait, so is the actress being sexually assaulted in real life? is she unwilling being dry humped by seth? she and everyone involved in that film willingly participated, so why focus on just Seth.
what evidence do you have that everything seth does is copyable for laughs any more so than the actions of the actress?
I gotta agree that the actress is just as responsible for agreeing to be in that scene as Seth Rogan is. But I think the rage is mostly being focused on Seth Rogan because he is more well known, and in the context of the way this movie and his other movies are promoted, he seems to be mostly the face of all of these movies.
In reality there's a long list of people who are responsible: the writer, actors, director, producers, the studio that allowed it, whoever put together that trailer, etc etc. But it does seem that out of all of them, Seth Rogan is the most well known person. I don't know if I would have chosen to focus only on him, but it doesn't seem that unreasonable.
Anna Faris has already condemned the scene, Seth Rogan has not. Also, Seth Rogan is more famous than Anna Faris, so focusing on him gets more publicity, and if he were to apologize, since men listen more to other men about matters of sexual morality than they do to women (in general) him coming out and saying something about it would be more helpful.
As someone who has been raped AND found the movie entertaining (if offensive), I feel the need to speak up. I find the entire argument slightly ludicrous on several points;
A: Media is a product of culture, not the other way around. Someone pointed this out in the Wired comments. It would be more productive to condemn and try to work toward improving culture than getting offended by a single scene in a single film.
B: The whole movie revolved around the amoral and reprehensible actions of the protagonist. He was an asshole, plain and simple. It was a black comedy about someone who was a vile human being. If you're identifying with his choices, you have a lot more wrong with you than just laughing at inappropriate humor.
C: What is gained by taking everything so seriously that you can't laugh about awful situations? I'm not condoning rape or anything like it, especially after experiencing the horror of such things firsthand, but I don't see how being unable to make light of the worst of things will help anyone. In fact, if I couldn't laugh about what happened to me, I might never have been able to recover.
A: Yes, because us silly women can't do BOTH!
B: If it's something that genuinely makes more sense in the context of the film, DO NOT USE IT OUT OF CONTEXT TO ADVERTISE THE MOVIE.
C: I would really rather not have the jokes made by people who HAVEN'T been raped, thank you.
Concerning point A, I meant more that it was wasted effort that could be better used improving and educating an ignorant society.
As for B, the advertising team ought to be fired, the film is being portrayed as something it very clearly isn't. I do think that the ad team owes us all an apology for misrepresenting the film. It's not "feel-good" laughs, it's uncomfortable laughs, like most black comedy.
And C, I can understand and respect that. Making light of things you're ignorant of ought to be avoided, simply as a matter of tact.
Unfortunately I have been in this situation multiple times, with people I trusted (and it has totally fucked with my brain)- I appear to be passed out but am still semi-conscious, they begin to grope and assault me, I get out of the situation.
These were men that appeared to be trustworthy, even feminist, and to believe sexual assault is wrong. However, it is very common for all kinds of men to think moving in on drunk/passed out woman as a gray area, not AS wrong, (and now possibly funny!) and this is why this movie concerns me intellectually and emotionally. My experiences are hardly unique.
As far as the idea that culture makes media and not the other way around... i am pretty surprised at such a bold statement. It is clearly a feedback loop. Media IS our culture.
I take issue with A. Media is a product of culture, but culture is also a product of media. Let's take slogans. They're designed to be repeated and repeated and rolled up into our colloquial lexicon.
I thought this was interesting:
Faris says:
So when we were shooting it, even the date-rape scene—or as I refer to it, “The Tender Love-Making Scene”—I just thought, “We’ll shoot it, but it’s not gonna be in the movie. I don’t have to worry about that one.” And yet there it is.
So, what might have been "awful" enough to have to remove from a studio movie didn't include rape.
Not only is it considered funny by the viewers (would the rape of a black woman be considered funny, or is sexism "cool" but racism is not?), but it's acceptable enough, enough of a non-issue, to get by the studio execs?
*shudder*
"Would the rape of a black woman be considered funny...?"
Why don't you ask the Duke Lacrosse team about that...
Congratulation! You just won the Oppression Olympics.
I think you missed (intentionally?) the point.
Pretty much a classic red herring, really.
Which is another good reason not to use the language.
What I'm saying is: Youtube is a public place. Titling it with "Fuck you" doesn't help when explaining why your argument is important and why people should take it (and you) seriously. The audience on youtube is everyone who can use a computer and an internet browser probably ages 7-90.
We should not always be having to defend why people should take us seriously. Sometimes it's necessary to just make your point, without all this hemming and hawing and theoretical market-testing. Especially for something like this, where we are generally in a position of making complaints on behalf of an oppressed group -- it looks pretty suspicious when all of the responsibility for how socially acceptable the voices of that oppressed group are is made to lie on the oppressed group itself, as if sexists' ignorance itself is women's fault and duty to amend.
You know, the nice thing about the title is by it, anyone thinking of watching to Courtney's vlog knows it uses profanity.
The rape and sexual assault survivors didn't get any warning that they would be looking at something like that.
If you're really that opposed to profanity, I guess you won't be watching the movie either, because it contains profanity. Or you're full of . . . I won't say it to spare your delicate ears/eyes.
In my local paper, they called it 'seduction'. If that's the writer's idea of seduction, all I can say is that I feel sorry for his significant other!
And please, stop getting caught up in the language issue, CS. All it does is ignore the REAL issue, which is date rape--in case you forgot.
We're ANGRY about this, and deserve to be able to express that anger as we see fit, without worrying what the pearl-clutchers will think.
Please stop telling us how to speak. It comes off as unbelievably condescending, papa (or mama) knows best. We REALLY hate that, so that approach is not the best way to make your point.
When you write your own protest against this film, you can be as polite as you like. However, you should be respectful of the fact that others might not wish to restrain themselves in such a way. You need to understand this.
In other words, fucking deal with it!
I have to agree with CS. It has, in my personal experience, been much easier to convince people of my arguments when not using "fuck" and its kin. The point is getting our argument, that date-rape is wrong, across to people. Once someone is put on the defensive with a "fuck you," messages no longer get through. Talking about the use of language is not ignoring the issue at hand, it is an attempt to figure out how to best communicate it. Which is, after all, what we want to do.
This is not to say that there aren't times when cursing is completely appropriate. God knows, I do it often enough when I'm pissed off. However, I usually don't expect people to take my arguments very seriously when I do.
I love how this was just tackled in the Derailing for Dummies article, as well.
The idea is obviously just that the onus is always put on those being threatened by a particular event to remain calm and collected while gibbering idiots scream and froth at the mouth about how they are out of control feminists.
You know, it's funny. Implicit in the suggestion that you 'control yourself' is the idea of modulating how you express your mood for diplomatic purposes: i.e., being a good utilitarian and pretending not to be angry in case anger could interfere with your 'results.' However, when you have *everyone* just pointing out how 'no one will listen to you if you sound angry,' in effect they're giving you instructions for how to speak to a fictional audience, since there doesn't seem to be anyone there who would fail to understand that the 'proper' mode of arguing is to decouple your actual feelings from your response.
So it is thought to be a reasonable recourse in argument to dismiss someone's claims because of how the way they are stated might affect a hypothetical audience who wouldn't understand what everyone in the discussion understands.
WORD. That is all.
Were the claims dismissed?
Word. Wordywordword!
In my local paper, they called it 'seduction'. If that's the writer's idea of seduction, all I can say is that I feel sorry for his significant other!
And please, stop getting caught up in the language issue, CS. All it does is ignore the REAL issue, which is date rape--in case you forgot.
We're ANGRY about this, and deserve to be able to express that anger as we see fit, without worrying what the pearl-clutchers will think.
Please stop telling us how to speak. It comes off as unbelievably condescending, papa (or mama) knows best. We REALLY hate that, so that approach is not the best way to make your point.
When you write your own protest against this film, you can be as polite as you like. However, you should be respectful of the fact that others might not wish to restrain themselves in such a way. You need to understand this.
In other words, fucking deal with it!
In my local paper, they called it 'seduction'. If that's the writer's idea of seduction, all I can say is that I feel sorry for his significant other!
And please, stop getting caught up in the language issue, CS. All it does is ignore the REAL issue, which is date rape--in case you forgot.
We're ANGRY about this, and deserve to be able to express that anger as we see fit, without worrying what the pearl-clutchers will think.
Please stop telling us how to speak. It comes off as unbelievably condescending, papa (or mama) knows best. We REALLY hate that, so that approach is not the best way to make your point.
When you write your own protest against this film, you can be as polite as you like. However, you should be respectful of the fact that others might not wish to restrain themselves in such a way. You need to understand this.
In other words, fucking deal with it!
CRAP! Sorry, I hit the 'enter' key too many times! Can someone delete the extraneous posts, please?
Hey CS, did you notice how restrained my language was? Can you take me seriously NOW?
Lots of us are behind you and spreading the word to boycott the film. Thanks for putting it out there! Keep up the great work.
Stephen
You are supposed to like Seth Rogen's character. He is a vile, obnoxious, racist, violent loudmouth man. He isn't meant to be scene as a role model. Anyone who sees him as a role model is already too perverted for such a scene to have an effect on him or her.
You aren't supposed to like Seth Rogen's character. He is a vile, obnoxious, racist, violent loudmouth man. He isn't meant to be scene as a role model. Anyone who sees him as a role model is already too perverted for such a scene to have an effect on him or her.
Can I just say that I am really sick of people defending this film without having seen it? And then saying that it's not right to be upset about it, "because we don't know what happens." Except I do, and it was MORE offensive than the trailer leads you to believe, not less.
i'm a little late to the game, but i think that people are focusing on all of the wrong things. the question, in my mind, is not whether or not this was date rape, because it clearly is date rape.
so the questions we should be asking are--
1. is it ever appropriate to use rape humorously?
2. is it appropriate to portray rape even if we are meant to understand the rapist as a bad person?
i do believe that rape, like all aspects of life, has a place in art. whether it is okay to use rape in a comedic setting even if we understand that it is bad is something we can debate.
the problem that i have with this clip in the context of the film is the punchline. without necessarily asking us to identify with seth rogen's character, it reinforces all of the good old stereotypes about date rape that we try so hard to dispel. even though she's unconscious and didn't give consent, she still "wants it" and asks him to keep going. what does that say about date rape in general? to me, it makes a joke out of the idea of consent and implies that when women get really drunk they truly want to have sex even if they can't exactly say it.
These questions are very old. To answer the first, I'll just quote George Carlin:
"Ohhh, some people don't like you to talk like that. Ohh, some people like to shut you up for saying those things.
You know that. Lots of people. Lots of groups in this country want to tell you how to talk.
Tell you what you can't talk about. Well, sometimes they'll say, well you can talk about something but you can't joke about it.
Say you can't joke about something because it's not funny. Comedians run into that shit all the time.
Like rape. They'll say, "you can't joke about rape. Rape's not funny."
I say, "fuck you, I think it's hilarious. How do you like that?"
I can prove to you that rape is funny. Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd. "
George Carlin probably understands more about comedy than anyone on this board. So it's not up to you or me to say what's off limits to a comedian.
As for the second point, have you seen "Deliverance"? It portrays rape, and I don't think it crosses any lines. If you can portray mass murder or genocide, why not rape?
The problem isn't the mere presence of rape on the screen, it's the way in which it was portrayed. Again, as I mentioned elsewhere, from the NYT review:
Mr. Hill says his movie was inspired by “Taxi Driver,” a self-flattering comparison. Like those of Travis Bickle, Ronnie’s delusions of grandeur do end in a paroxysm of blood. Yet while Martin Scorsese might be overly fond of screen violence, part of what makes that film profound and memorable is how the thrill of violence, its seduction, is always in play with a palpable moral revulsion. No such dialectic informs “Observe and Report,” which exploits Ronnie and his brutality for laughs. This lack of critique might make the movie seem daring. But it’s hard to see what is so bold about a film that, much like the world outside the theater, turns the pain and humiliation of other people into a consumable spectacle.
(Also, re: Porky Pig / Elmer -- that's funny? Sounds pretty unfunny to me, in a "just plain gross" kind of way).
it seems unlikely that you actually read my comment because i never said that there should never be any depiction of rape in film. i said that the questions people were getting at were whether it is okay to depict rape, and i don't think that's really the issue at hand.
people have argued over and over why it is okay to show murder in a film but not rape. i'm saying there isn't a general rule. it's all about the presentation of the murder/rape/genocide, what it adds and what implication it carries.
Why does George Carlin keep entering the conversation? Is he the authority on humor and/or culture? I never found him particularly funny, and his rape joke is no exception. I do think it's entirely possible to crack a funny joke about rape (which this movie doesn't accomplish) as well as one that doesn't give rape culture a little boost (which this movie appears to do).
Apparently so! How can this website even exist now that George Carlin is dead!? Who are we to have opinions on anything now that George Carlin is dead?!
George Carlin once said of Michael Jackson: I love Michael Jackson's music, he's a genius. Fuck those little kids"
So, to all of your people screaming about George Carlin and his having the final word on rape, send Michael Jackson your children! Do it now! George Carlin said you should!