Messages

If we had an election, I think the U.S.'s representatives would be one of the following: Jack Kirby, Carl Barks, Will Eisner, Charles Schulz, Bill Watterson. But this requires an all-day think. In the meantime, I'm really looking forward to discovering new artists via this thread.

it wouldn't be my *fault*...partially caused by my behaviour.

"The rape of women is partially caused by the way they've chosen to dress." Is that not what you meant to say? Because it's what you said. What percentage of cause do you attribute to the provocatively dressed woman in this situation, and what to the rapist?

EDIT: I note on the previous page your distinction between "blame" and "cause." I don't think there is such a distinction in the case of rape, so likely we'll not see eye-to-eye on this ever.

Also, any stance to the contrary is tacitly implying that women can do nothing about rape which disempowers women and is misogynist at its core. Now who's fucking up the object/subject dichotomy?

I don't think it's me. Jared prescribed four risk avoidance measures. I responded to one of them. Nowhere did I say that education of men will lead to fewer instances of rape. I think massive cultural changes might. Nowhere did I say women had no course of action to take in protecting themselves. I took issue with, again, one oft-prescribed measure because I felt there was more to the suggestion than the surface would suggest.

It's true that most rapes are committed by someone the woman knows but it's also true that 90% of rapists are recidivists.

I don't know exactly how that's misleading. I'm not exactly sure how this clarification affects the metaphor at hand or the situation in general. Do you know that I've stolen watches before and still choose to wear yours in front of me, so it's more your fault that I steal yours?

Tl;dr - we agreed all along. I think

Perhaps so. It was the "and yes" part of your statement, and the way you set it apart that made me read your words in a tone you likely didn't intend. I grew up in the Bible Belt of the U.S. where I imagine similar surveys would reveal the same, if not worse, opinions to those above, and so I'm used to hearing sermons against "loose" women. In your "and yes," I was reading, "perhaps it's time to take a little responsibility for yourselves, women," and not, "and, unfortunately, it might help if."

Part of the reason I took issue is what you say here:

single biggest factor in sexual assaults is guys being dickheads but there's no simple solution for that.

There's not a simple solution for that. But I think in proposing simple...not solutions per se, but deterrents, like not showing any skin...it's easier to defer the larger cultural conversations that we need to have and the shifts that we need to take place to actually solve the problem. It's much more than guys being dickheads. It's men viewing women as objects that they should be able to possess and control without consequence. As I noted above, I think this has very little to do with the assailant seeking sexual pleasure.

Highlighting provocative clothing prolongs a number of problematic narratives. For instance, you say that wearing such clothing provokes "sexual attention," which in your descriptions seems to encompass stares, groping, and rape. It's easy to read into this that women who dress to attract any attention to themselves at all need to know that groping and rape are now on the table. How provocative does the clothing need to be before that 6% will start to justify assault?

I would also anticipate that many, if not most, cases of rape did not involve so-called provocative clothing at all. I can't find stats to either confirm or refute this, except references to an Ohio State study that said only 4% of assailants could remember what their victim was wearing. The rape victims I know were not in situations where they were being sexually enticing. They were in situations where their assailant was seeking to assert power over them.

These are complex issues though, and, as usual, as I'm debating on an internet forum, I feel it's not the best medium for it.

One of the stars of TRON was in Winter Kills (not very good) with the star of this one.

And was an agent of the OSS during WWII!

FYI: The writer of this film was a victim of the HUAC blacklist.

If I walked into a dangerous neighborhood wearing an expensive watch and sunglasses and carrying £500 in cash and I was mugged it wouldn't be my *fault* because I hadn't done anything wrong but It might've been partially caused by my behaviour.

First: So not your fault, but actually your fault. You were asking for it. But I think there's a difference in the metaphor in that no mugger would rob a person and justify his actions to others by saying, "His wearing of an expensive watch communicated to me that he wanted me to rob him. His expensive watch implied consent despite the fact that I used force to get it."

Second: A statistically significant portion of rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows. So in this case, your metaphor works better if we are co-workers, and you wore your expensive watch around me, so I stole it and said you were asking for it by always wearing a nice watch around me knowing that I would covet it. My watch now.

Third: Neither of these defenses would fly in the courtroom, but the idea that the victim provoked the assailant into attacking by being too sexual is often asserted in the courtroom, or even that women who have a past history of having sexual partners have somehow lost the right to turn down their attacker. And studies have shown that people believe this: if you were dressed too sexy, you were asking for it. Amnesty International did a survey in the UK a few years back, and the blue bar here is the percentage of people that think the victim is partially responsible, and the red how many people think they are totally responsible for their own rape:



Sure, there are things you can do to be safer. But I think clothes have less to do with it (and actually sex has less to do with it too) than issues of power and entitlement, and I still stand by the statement that no article of clothing or lack thereof ever communicates "I am sexually available to you, regardless of whether I give consent."

Oh c'mon. Now you're just tempting me to hog the game. This is my favorite American western.

It was only just my turn! I don't want to hog the game!

4) Carefully considering what your choice of attire communicates

The problem with this POV is that, no matter how much we'd like to shift responsibility to the victim, there's not a single article of clothing or lack thereof, not even full nudity, that communicates "Anybody who wants to fuck me gets to fuck me, no consent required."

I had an impossible dream where I learned the answer to this one.

It is indeed Fathom. Enjoy that link. Your go, Miguel!

is it that spy movie she did?

It is, indeed. If only it had a name...!

Several templates exist that do most of the legwork for you. Search the forums for BASS (Beneath a Steel Sky) or ALARCOST (no idea).

It is, so far, none of these. But I hope you're actually talking about The Jugger with Rutger Hauer.

One good screen deserves another!

Well damn, I can't guess two times in a row. That would be outlandish.

That's not Silent Running, is it?

I'm not going to imdb this since I'm probably wrong, but wasn't there a short-lived David Lynch TV show called something like Radioland Murders and in that same visual style?

On the Air. Wasn't as good as you might expect.

If I ever meet Brad Pitt, I'm telling him Ben X confused him for Joey Lawrence.