1476: Tears for Fears

[da_ticklah]

nobody should see a baby coming out of a Vagina they care about, go see some random poon get destroyed

[Bokonon]

Are we okay with date rape now? Is rape now okay as long as the woman... moans? REALLY? I heard the clip again a couple of times trying to figure out if I missed a joke, or if everyone were being fecitious or... something. I don't know. I hope I'm missing something. I hope this post is retarded and unnecessary because of course everyone knows that if a girl says no and you put your dick inside her you're a rapist. That that's what rape is, whether you're in an ally or a bedroom, and weather or not the girl "accepts it" in retrospect.

Pat Dixon: "In Straw Dust there's a rape scene, there's a women and she's with a guy and he's in the house, he didn't like storm in... he's kind of an acquaintance or whatever and he kind of coerces her into having sex with a lot of force but eventually she's like laying there enjoying it. That's the way it winds up. So then he holds her down while the other guy fucks her now that's when it kind of becomes rape... I really don't look at it as a rape scene but as a woman who wants to get fucked scene, but she's not... like, ready to admit that she wants to get fucked".

It was not rape when he was "coercing her using a lot of force" into having sex with her. That was just sex, you know. The type of sex where the woman didn't want to have the sex. That's fine. That just happens. Rape happens in alleys. What happened here was that a woman wanted to get fucked, you see. Some guys can just tell when a woman wants a good fuck no matter how much she denies it.

Wikipedia:
Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent.

Note - CONSENT. In order for sex to not be rape it requires consent. If you have to use force in order to get your dick into a lady you don't have her consent. If your dick gets inside her despite that, you're a rapist. And you should know that.

Now, let's play WHAT IF.

Pat Dixon : "What if that happens what if like at first you're like 'no, whatever, stop' and the guy is persistent and then he gets it in and she's like ohh yeahh..."

step 1: Guy tries having sex
step 2: Girl resists, asks guy to stop
step 3: Guy puts his penis inside girls vagina

Yeah that's rape. Whether step 4 is "girl starts crying hysterically" or "girl has seven consecutive orgasms" is irrelevant, because she said no and the guy had sex with her anyway. Besides, at the time of "step 3" one can't know what step 4 will be. I'm glad everyone are just happy to bet that a specific girl actually wants sex despite denying it because, following your logic, if it turns out your judgment was incorrect and she really did not want to have sex (unimaginable, I know. A girl saying she doesn't want sex actually not wanting sex) than you're a rapist. You're taking a huge chance on raping a girl and that's using YOUR none sense logic.

When a girl says no and you "get it in" she has to decide within basically half a second if she has to frame this event in her head as a rape and a trauma or go a long DESPITE NOT WANTING TO FUCK YOU. Deciding that someone you trust and maybe even love is a currently raping you is fucking tough, and usually not worth it emotionally. What the girl has to decide when you start fucking her isn't if she wants to have sex with you, it's weather she'd rather "have sex" or "be raped". You change the choice she has, you see. You take away the "not having sex" option. That's called rape.

Every single person who pushed their dick inside a girl by force (or without consent) is a rapist. Every single one of them. And fuck you all.

I'm sorry this is so long, I'm, like... I don't even know, man. This should be sex-ed 1-0-1. But I guess we should keep telling girls to keep their skirts long instead of teaching boys what "no means no" means. Jesus Christ.

[Blitzgal]

That scene has been a controversial scene since the movie came out, and Pat told one interpretation of it. The original American release of the film cut out the second rape scene, leaving only the first scene which people interpreted as ambiguous. But the uncut version of the film makes it clear that she's being raped. The character also suffers from traumatic flashbacks of her attack. I don't know which version of the film Pat saw.

[Keith]

And then what did Chemda and I say?

[Junkenstein]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

That scene has been a controversial scene since the movie came out, and Pat told one interpretation of it. The original American release of the film cut out the second rape scene, leaving only the first scene which people interpreted as ambiguous. But the uncut version of the film makes it clear that she's being raped. The character also suffers from traumatic flashbacks of her attack. I don't know which version of the film Pat saw.

the same version as i did. the scene is a rape, but it does clearly push for Pat's take. It's not a The Accused rape where its horribly revolting right away, it fucks around a bit and makes Susan George not exactly a 100% passive victim.

that whole movie is controversial on purpose (in the sense that peckinpah never makes black vs white movies, especially when it comes to points on violence)

Also, the remake seems to have changed that (i wont watch it, and its for sure a steaming pile of shit. if only cause it looks like a glossy movie), but in the original, David (the husband) is played as seriosuly detached from the wife and almost indifferent to the rape. He snaps when they attack HIS HOUSE and enter HIS PROPERTY. and even then, he is not exactly protective towards her. more of a territorial animal.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

That scene has been a controversial scene since the movie came out, and Pat told one interpretation of it.

This isn't really about the movie. The second quote is just as bad.

And then what did Chemda and I say?

Keith:"Right, well... Don't gotta see that"
Chemda:"It's weird to decide what rape is. It just felt weird, especially in sarcasm tones. A little bizarre, like 'I can see where she thought it were rape but I think she was mistaken until three minutes in then if you held her down that was rape...'"

That's in reaction to the first claim about the movie. Mostly it's just about how this is a weird thing to say all of the sudden (which, by the way, it REALLY is) and less about, um, no you're wrong if force is used without consent it's rape. You seemed really uncomfortable with what is going on, naturally.

Then this happened:

Pat Dixon : "What if that happens what if like at first you're like 'no, whatever, stop' and the guy is persistent and then he gets it in and she's like ohh yeahh..."

Chemda: "I understand what you're saying. I remember this. Oh yeah... I'm not arguing the point with you it just felt odd".

Keith: "But, uh, Pat, just so you're clear - stop when they say no."

[Laughter. End of discussion.]

That's... problematic. The last thing Chemda said was that she's not arguing with him, so at least he has a point. You're statement wasn't as... strong as I think this type of thing warrants. This is how shit like this becomes normative. Pat sounded fucking PERPLEXED that you weren't both on board.

I'm sorry if I made it seem like I think you're okay with date rape in phrasing my post, I don't think that's true at all. I should have made that clearer. Trying to figure out how to respond to that live on air has to be a nightmare and Pat is your friend and I get all of that.

I was just really taken aback by how little traction that statement got. I was fully expecting a 10+ pages thread on the forums about WTF WAS THAT ABOUT.
One "Pat, you should stop when they say no" (followed by laughter) after a whole speech about how sometimes it's okay to have none-consensual sex if you strongly suspect the girl "actually wants to get fucked" is... kind of a weak response.

You didn't really argue the point that "Yes of course it is rape, what you just described is rape" and that's the take-away point from this. That's what a teenager listening to KATG needs to know (both male and female). I don't think that came across very well, and I think it's really important.

[Junkenstein]

did you think for a second that Pat was just pushign a controversial button and you toally fell for it? have you ever listened to his comedy?

he basically has a full album where he does what he just did to you inbetween jokes. cmon. chill. its a comedy talk show.

Unless you were raped, i understand you rapées have no humour about those things.

[Junkenstein]

not that it fits the discussion but when i think of powerfully controversial lines on rape, i always think of this scene.

"consuelo? What is rape?"

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

did you think for a second that Pat was just pushign a controversial button and you toally fell for it? have you ever listened to his comedy?

he basically has a full album where he does what he just did to you inbetween jokes. cmon. chill. its a comedy talk show.

Unless you were raped, i understand you rapées have no humour about those things.

I mentioned that in the first paragraph of my first post. That's the best case scenario, but it doesn't really sound like it. Pat sounded sincere and both Keith and Chemda sounded super uncomfortable.

[Blitzgal]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

He snaps when they attack HIS HOUSE and enter HIS PROPERTY. and even then, he is not exactly protective towards her. more of a territorial animal.

That falls in line with Peckinpath's explanation that the husband is the villain.

Pat did make me cringe.