• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Scifi with aggressive sexuality

Let's try that again...

Re armor: Three words: chest plate boobs.

Imagine falling off your horse and landing face down on that shit. Bye bye sternum.

So, did @The Borgified Corpse give up, not going to reply to my post? Boo.

Momentarily the conversation turned to sexual assault as comedy in the media, and I think that's an important topic to cover. It's one that I see affecting both men and women pretty equally, with male rape actually played more often for comedy, and other forms of sexual assault, like verbal assault that is directed at women played for laughs. @Joel_Kirk, it's horrible you were harassed, and it's even worse that in our society sexual harassment of men is nothing more than a joke.

It's so normalized that I didn't even recognize it until I was an adult. I think the first scene in a movie I really remember seeing and going, "Wait, that's not actually cool," was in Bruce Almighty (of all things), where Jim Carey uses his God powers to blow wind up a woman's skirt on the street, revealing her thong. lol. But, if I was walking down the street and a random guy lifted up my skirt to reveal my thong...

I remember having an internal battle: Am I becoming one of those "'humorless 'feminists'"? I'm not, it was just that by the time that movie came out I'd had enough men actually try to grab my skirt in public that it stopped being a laugh. Those kinds of little jokes are littered throughout comedies, and other genres, and we usually don't even give them a second thought. It's not to say that jokes about bodies and sex can't be funny, either. To contrast, I can't remember the movie, I was so young when I saw it, but there was a heist movie (from the 60s or 70s I think) in which the characters had to lie on their backs to slide under a laser motion detector. The woman on the crack heist team got stuck in an awkward moment when she realized halfway through the process that her boobs were too big to go under the laser, especially in her pointy 60s bra -- picturing that scene still makes me giggle.

It's hard to think of many examples where male sexual assault is more than an outright joke, though there are a few out there. I can think of two from sci-fi/fantasy off the bat:
There was a scene in Buffy between Faith and Xander that truly surprised me when I first saw it. I thought "They actually went there?": up until the point where Faith decides to try to kill Xander rather than assault him, it was written and played as a classic rape scene, but with the gender roles reversed. I think the combination of being so immersed in the universe and accepting Faith's super-strength, and just the oddity of seeng a woman sexually assaulting a man on screen (which had been done before, but rarely) made it take a moment to sink in -- but that was an intense scene, and refreshingly, it was taken seriously. I'm sure some Buffy Studies major has done a dissertation on that scene!
The other I can think of is Supernatural, which never depicted rape or stated outright that the characters had been raped (though that one vampire was pretty sexually aggressive towards Dean), but implied subtly that Dean had been raped in the events between seasons three and four, and implied that Sam had between five and six, finally making it pretty damn clear in season eleven that it was true at least in Sam's case. Again, refreshingly taken seriously.

Pages back someone (@RJDiogenes maybe?) said something along the lines of media not being that important in the grand scheme anyway. But I think it's hugely important. From the Rat Pack demonstrating the absurdity of racism with their humor onstage and their anti-racist behavior offstage (like refusing to stay in hotels where Sammy Davis Jr wasn't also able to stay), to Uhura as a trailblazer for both women and POC, to the integration of gay characters in mass media in the 90s, to the integration of trans characters today -- TV and movies have always been at the forefront of social change. And why shouldn't they be? They're our stories, and we are going to model at least a portion of our real-life narratives after them. The more we see something depicted as normal, the more we accept it as normal. This is a bad thing when women are being objectified, when sexual violence against women is normalized, when sexual violence against men is made out to be something we laugh at. But it's a great thing when we see more representation, when we examples of complex female characters (sexual or not) with their own agency, when we see male characters allowed to freely express emotion, when we see examples like those I gave of male characters dealing with sexual assault that are not jokes.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
@thestrangequark

To my knowledge, the most famous example in film, played straight and horrifying, of a man getting raped is in Deliverance. In it, Ned Beatty's character is raped by another man.

It's really a very famous scene that has unfortunately also been made fun of a lot. "Squeal like a pig" is now a catch-phrase that is almost exclusively used as material for jokes and jocularity. Interestingly, the rape scene itself in the film incorporated the dichotomy between humor and horror.

(Obligatory remark of Deliverance being Ronny Cox's film debut.)
 
@CorporalCaptain Oh, I definitely know of that scene. And I knew of it from people making fun of it long before I saw the actual movie. I was just trying to keep it within sci-fi/fantasy.
And here's a list SciFi+Male-rape
http://www.imdb.com/search/keyword?...e=detail&page=1&ref_=kw_ref_gnr&genres=Sci-Fi
And Fantasy+Male-rape
http://www.imdb.com/search/keyword?...=detail&page=1&ref_=kw_ref_gnr&genres=Fantasy
Edit: Sometimes horror is considered a sub-genre of fantasy
http://www.imdb.com/search/keyword?...e=detail&page=1&ref_=kw_ref_gnr&genres=Horror
 
Last edited:
Stuff like that is generated by people who simply haven't grown up and had real world experiences. Unfortunately, the internet gives them an unlimited platform for that kind of non-sense.
*sigh* I haven't had much real world experience, but I'm a logic-minded person, and if I made a video game I would actually want to inject realism into it.

I mean seriously, in what world does it make sense for a female fighter to go into combat with her long hair exposed and huge amounts of her skin showing? That's expecting idiocy to overtake suspension of disbelief. Or else just riding on sexist traditions to make money.
 
Last edited:
^ I believe that the biggest offenders are the fantasy games.

And then there is her.

It's some kinda fucked up joke that an actual, practical uniform for her is one of the last things you get to unlock in the game. (Great game otherwise, but goddammit, Kojima!)

Regarding the topic of humor in @thestrangequark 's post, I've come to use one simple rule as a guide: punch up, not down. If your joke is punching down--that is, reinforcing existing stereotypes, making fun of disprivileged or oppressed people, or otherwise pissing on people who have it worse than you in general--it's a bad joke. It's not edgy, it's not clever, it's just nasty. Racist jokes are racist. Sexist jokes are sexist.

Jokes that punch up at the powerful, at the privileged, at the insensitive, at the out-of-touch--perfectly fair game! And funny as hell.
 
@Enterprise1701, just for a moment a levity, and because theoretically this is a thread about SciFi and sexuality and, well, considering your avatar ;), please explain to me why this is a heroic MALE autobot:
latest

and this is her female counterpart..? I mean, why a robot has high heels???
300px-ArceeG1-2010storypage.jpg
Because, as Guy Gardner said, these two characters were created in the 1980s when their corporate owners were dominated by people with the mindset of "boys toys for boys". To my knowledge the female percentage of Transformers fans has significantly grown by this year, but Transformers are still mainly marketed as toys for boys. And in any case, Transformers are robotic beings modeled on how humans perceive themselves, and society seems to have decided that heels are needed to make a being female (I think heels are stupid but that idea doesn't seem to have much traction).

http://tfwiki.net/wiki/The_Transformers:_Till_All_Are_One

Now things have gotten better. This recently launched ongoing comic series features multiple fembots as main protagonists.
 
Regarding the topic of humor in @thestrangequark 's post, I've come to use one simple rule as a guide: punch up, not down. If your joke is punching down--that is, reinforcing existing stereotypes, making fun of disprivileged or oppressed people, or otherwise pissing on people who have it worse than you in general--it's a bad joke. It's not edgy, it's not clever, it's just nasty. Racist jokes are racist. Sexist jokes are sexist.

Jokes that punch up at the powerful, at the privileged, at the insensitive, at the out-of-touch--perfectly fair game! And funny as hell.
Indeed. even rape can be funny.
 
The thing that finally killed my interest in Family Guy was the episode where Peter was in a rodeo and he was raped by the bull. The whole thing was just tasteless, and they even had a scene where the bull called him on the phone later and harrassed him. I know tasteless, offensive humor is one of Family Guy's trademarks, but that just took things to far for me.

With the impractical costumes, I've actually been pretty impressed with how well comics companies like Marvel, DC and Dynamite have been improving their women character's costumes.
 
And have something legitimately interesting intimacy to offer someone else - and, here's the thing: intimacy isn't just physical. It's intellectual. It's emotional. It's creative. It's spiritual.

It isn't the only kind of intimacy but it is a kind of intimacy, no less legitimate than any of the others. So why is it considered so much lower than the others? Why is it considered immoral to pursue that kind of intimacy first?

If you're really "trying to think through this issue logically," you just fell at the first hurdle. God, even just think of it as a man: would you really be expecting sex to come out of randomly hollering at someone on the street?

I never said it was a good idea or recommended or even had a snowball's chance in hell of success. I was just speculating on their motives. I'll leave it with Jerry Seinfeld because he said it so much better than I could...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

[...] I can pretty much guarantee you that's not what guys on the street are thinking.

Because mostly, they're not thinking.

So, you're saying it's an instinctual reaction? That makes sense. You may well be right. But instincts have to come from somewhere.

I never said that they had fully thought this through logically. I'm just trying to logically deconstruct it after the fact. It's difficult to change anybody's behavior if you don't understand it.

I mean, apparently you think it's affront to masculinity that men have to actually do anything to merit sexual attention, [...]

I just wanted to quote this part because this is the first time in this entire thread that someone has given enough thought energy to one of my posts to be able to roughly paraphrase one of my general ideas. (Bravo!)

Although, I would quibble with the word "affront." I don't think it's an affront but I do think it's an interesting difference between how men & women are treated in society. Men are generally expected to do something to merit sexual attraction. On the other hand, there seem to be a lot of women who have more sexual attention--both wanted and, unfortunately, unwanted--heaped upon them than they know what to do with. Why is this? Where did this difference come from? And which is better, to receive too much sexual attention to the point where you feel overwhelmed or even threatened or to receive so little that you feel starved & unloved?

Money can have quite a bit to do with sex, depending on your circumstances. How do you think Donald Trump ever reproduced? Why do you think his brides tend to be women from economically-desperate circumstances?

Still, you're not really talking about sex. You're talking about an exchange that leads to sex. Presumably, these women are going to bed with him because they hope he will provide them with some money or security, not that they're saying, "Man, this guy's really rich. I'll bet that means that having sex with him, in and of itself, would be a sexually satisfying experience."

Though I hesitate to counsel you to pick up an issue of Maxim because you seem like exactly the kind of person the "PUA" scam racket chooses as a mark.

I don't know you. I'm not making any assumptions about you or your life. I would ask that you don't make any assumptions about mine.

Had a lot more to post but I've only had time to wade through a couple of the extra pages since I left. I'll try to get to the rest of it later if time permits.

But, one last thing. A lot of people here have suggested that I'm not listening to what other people are posting. I assure you I am. A lot of people have suggested that I'm trying to defend the behavior that I've talked about. I'm not. I'm trying to examine it and examine the larger gender-political framework around it.

I'm fully capable of examining a position and empathizing with it without necessarily approving of it or 100% agreeing with it. I'm disappointed that it seems some of you are not. I'm also surprised. (Though heaven knows why I should be. Critical thinking skills seem all but extinct in the world today. Why examine the world & other people's perspectives when you can just embrace a social narrative that already conforms to what you want to think?)
 
Well. I see I was mistaken in hoping that you'd taken the hint from some of the responses your content has gotten here. That's disappointing but not, I suppose, surprising.

Yes, I have paid enough attention to what you're saying to be able to paraphrase your ideas. It should give you considerable pause that as someone who has done so, they evidently repulse me enough to respond to you the way I did. It should make you wonder if there are certain basic things you should trouble yourself to learn before trying to engage in certain conversations, and whether having failed or neglected to do so -- or having refused to listen to some of the extremely voluminous replies you've elicited detailing the flaws in your views -- you maybe shouldn't persist in habits that get, quite frankly, creepier with each and every tone-deaf repetition.

To wit (or perhaps I should say, to half-wit):

Men are generally expected to do something to merit sexual attraction. On the other hand, there seem to be a lot of women who have more sexual attention--both wanted and, unfortunately, unwanted--heaped upon them than they know what to do with.

You're persisting in twisting dynamics here in ways that paint "men" as the victims of some kind of unfair equation in a way that is not remotely excusable given the incredibly, painstakingly detailed explanations you've received at this point, from @Emilia and @thestrangequark and many others, for why disparate dynamics regarding male and female sexuality exist. It's at the point where this framing is either flagrantly dismissive and unengaged with the replies you've received or flagrantly dishonest or just deliberately faux-ignorant, and I don't know which of those it is and I don't care. This either deliberate or passively-ingrained dismissiveness and obtuseness is not working for you.

And I'm sorry if you don't like that it tends to reflect on you as a person, and for what it's worth I don't want to make assumptions about you in that regard. But you haven't bracketed or contextualized claims and framing like this with any context of thought experiment or disinterested investigation, at least not until you got blowback and then tried to walk it back and assume a posture of superior "logic," and that isn't convincing. Crossing certain lines eventually encourages people to react to your behaviour at a visceral level, it's unavoidable. Perhaps you should concern yourself with "deconstructing*" why that is.

* You're misusing that word, incidentally, but I'm not going to go into it now.

I had resolved not to spend more time on you in this thread, and after this post I'm going to stick to that resolve. But really, the problem with what you're doing here is that you manage to pack so many bizarre and offensive things into so small a space that people just have a hard time dealing with you without losing their tempers. Take that short passage above, there. It contains the assumptions:

1) Men are generally expected to do something to merit sexual attraction. Actually a very telling misreading of what I said to you. I didn't say men are "expected" to do something -- though they should be -- I said that masculine privilege allows men to have both sexuality and agency, and even allows their agency to determine the parameters of good and evil within which those things are judged. Those are not remotely the same claim, and your reductionism was revealing.

2) On the other hand, there seem to be a lot of women who have more sexual attention . . . heaped upon them than they know what to do with Contains the tacit assumptions that

2.1) "Sexual attention" and "objectification" are necessarily the same thing (which honestly is not very different from assuming "sex" and "rape" are the same thing),
2.2) That women do not have to "do" anything to merit the former rather than the latter (apparently in your world women coded as "sexually attractive" in the mainstream sense don't spend oceans of time, money and energy on fitness, dieting, beauty products and general body image angst, and you're so fragging clueless that you actually need it pointed out to you how loony this assumption is),
2.3) that being subjected to the latter is the same as the former, and
2.4) generally contains or at least strongly hints at the overall and quite offensive assumption -- the perfunctory "wanted or unwanted" throat-clearing notwithstanding -- that this whole tangle is in some sense a net benefit.

This snarl of offensive cluelessness is in a portion of one paragraph of your post. Is it any wonder to you that people don't want to engage with you? Is it any wonder that they recoil from you the more of this bilge you produce?

STOP. LISTEN. LEARN. Try really reading one of tsq's posts instead of defensively reacting to it. I promise you that you'll get a far better reaction if you do that than if you persist in refusing to do it.

Now I'm really out. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Oh. Dear. God.

"And which is better, to receive too much sexual attention to the point where you feel overwhelmed or even threatened or to receive so little that you feel starved & unloved?"

Really? Really???

That behaviour that demeans and threatens a woman's sense of safety is belittled like this shouldn't shake me at this point, but it does.

Newsflash: it is not up to anyone else to make you feel good about yourself. That job lies solely with you. If an individual does not have self esteem or a feeling of value that does not rely on others for validation, that is something the individual in question needs to work on. There are a lot of support groups and therapists that can help people learn to like themselves. It is only when people like themselves that others will like them.

Nobody owes anyone attention. Attention is earned through behaviour and consideration of others.
 
@BigJake is my favorite person today. Your message in that thread was on-point. It will be ignored, just as everyone who has begged, pleaded, cajoled, rationalized, *cough*screamed*cough* with him has been ignored. Still, well done, sir.

Also, @thestrangequark, Lindy West is a comedy superhero all her own. She speaks like an old soul, but she's 2 years younger than me, which is weird, but in a good way.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top