rape culture/victim culture

I think there's a kind of implied consent any time two adults are in an ongoing sexual relationship.For instance if some guy grabbed my wife's rear in a bar without asking, that would be sexual assault. If I do it at home without asking, it's not, unless she literally has told me not to. (Up to that point it's just a misunderstanding.)Obviously a person has a right to be free of unwanted sexual contact from anyone they choose, including a spouse. But when it comes to one's regular sexual partner the onus to make that choice clear is somewhat greater. I don't think the penalties or the interest of the police should be different; but there's obviously a need for subsequent counseling when you and your spouse come to blows, less so when its you and your neighbor, or some biker at a bar. The procedures for abuse/assault within a relationship, instead of between strangers, need to reflect that added context.

No, it's totally true.Crashfrog

I might have my decades mixed up, but I'm already thinking of:Pam Grier as Foxy BrownCarrie Fischer as Princess LeiaWonder Woman? Was that the right decade?

I considered Ripley, but I've never seen Alien, and Aliens came out in the 80's. Also Alien is a little more straight-survival-horror, and strong female figures in horror movies aren't particularly remarkable; it's a feature of the genre.But yeah those are some other good picks.

Alien may have been the first horror movie that didn't "punish" characters who acted in a sexually liberated way, but it wasn't, by any means, the first horror film to display a strong female role. I don't really see how it started a trend in that regard. The alien reproduces by the forced implantation of material into other beings. How can you see that as ungendered? It's so hypermasculine that it emasculates the male victims by comparison; and then is defeated by the feminine. It's very gendered. That's enormously common in horror, and that's what I was referring to. It was so common, that's why the Evil Dead movies are unique - it's the virtuous, dopey male lead that is the sole survivor.

You need to stop thinking like a biologist. The biological reality that the creature is unsexed is irrelevant. I'm not saying the alien is male, I'm saying that it's masculine. The intentions of the producers are irrelevant.The creature reproduces by raping humans with a phallus and then abandoning them to bear its offspring. You couldn't get more masculine than that if it wore flannel and watched NASCAR. It's a stand-in for the worst aspects of masculinity as envisioned by feminism - sexual violence and abandonment of child-rearing to the child-bearer.

This is it.

I didn't say the alien was sexed, I said it was gendered. The alien isn't male, it's masculine.You're arguing against a straw man, here. Of course. The people that made Alien and the people that watch it live in pretty much the same culture; in that culture, something that reproduces by fucking you and leaving you to bear the consequences is gendered masculine.But I would have thought it would go without saying that an interpretation of the movie would be informed by cultural notions of gender. That's what gender is - the cultural baggage that goes along with a sex. We're not talking about the real biology of the creature, because its a fictional creature. It doesn't exist. Thus, pointing out that it lays eggs like a female wasp is totally irrelevant. Culturally, the female pompilidae wasp is gendered masculine. So too is the alien. Not really sure. I'm not much of a horror fan, myself. Like I said I've never even seen Alien.

Look, if you're going to ignore my arguments and simply repeat assertions, we're done here. I've made my case. You're free to disagree. It would be nice if you could disagree in a way that showed respect for the argument I laid out, but apparently you're not interested in that. Cya!

Look, fanboy, I'm sorry I made fun of your holy movie. But your inability to distinguish between the concepts of sex and gender make this discussion fruitless, just as your discussion with the feminism prof was fruitless.I'm sure you two talked right past each other, just like I'm talking right past you, now. My bad. I guess I had no idea that the only cultural influences we could talk about around here were the ones that were incessantly, immaturely, and unrealistically positive.

Which is exactly why we know it's a social construct. Those aren't the direct opposites; the reason that those recieve the same interpretation is because they're the same situation. That's not obvious to you?Sex isn't gender. And it's your view that this never happens, then?

sigh... which is why we know it's a social construct.Sex is not a social construct. The sex of an organism can be determined via objective methodology. Gender, on the other hand, is the space of subjective biases that each individual in a culture inflects on the concept of sex. It's obviously culturally constructed.Why do you think it is that languages like French or Spanish have gendered words? Now, an inanimate object like a book or a table obviously can have no sex, but speakers of that language will certainly correct you if you fail to inflect those words with the proper gender. Why do you suppose that is? Nobody's "accusing" society of anything, so your turnabout accusation is meaningless. No, the same gender. Different sexes. Woman is a sex, and my personal sex is male. You're free to descibe me as feminine, however, if that's the impression you recieve. What does that have to do with it? Who said this happens all the time? Stop tearing down these strawmen for a second and listen to what I'm saying to you.Let me try one more time to put it as plainly as I can.1) When I say that the creature has a masculine gender, I'm not saying that the creature is of the male sex.
2) When I say that certain characteristics are masculine in our culture, I'm saying neither that all men do them, or that no women do.
3) When I say that the creature exhibits masculine qualities, I'm not saying that it exhibits no feminine ones.Now, with all that in mind, would you like one more try to actually address my argument? Who called you one? Jesus, get over yourself.

Oh my god. What else would it be? Ok, look. I don't want to have a battle over what words mean with you, ok? We'll call it "fblx", if you prefer, and one fblx is called "amix", and the other is called "bibnar." You maintain that the alien has no fblx whatsoever; this is obviously false, as it has significant bibnaral characteristics. Which is not to say that it doesn't possess amixal characteristics, either. It's demonstratably right. Being a sexual aggressor is definately considered "male", it's certainly not considered "ladylike." Ask your mom. Or ask two bisexual or lesbian women; ask them if they consider the sexually aggressive role "masculine" or "feminine." No. Unlike you, apparently, I don't have a big chip on my shoulder about gender roles and my sexual identity. No. A sexist generalization would be "all men are pigs." Saying "some men love em and leave em" is a simple fact.Look, Arach, we're done here. You've refused to do anything but argue against a straw man version of my argument. It's insulting and demeaning, and disappointing as I've often come to expect better of you. You're apparently incapable of addressing my argument on its own merits and instead, you have to contradict me about my own position before you knock down the straw man of your own invention. It's a waste of my time. But I guess we're all creationists about something.

quote:

---

2) When I say that certain characteristics are masculine in our culture, I'm saying neither that all men do them, or that no women do.

---

Still waiting for that to sink in, I guess. Also, when I say that certain characteristics are masculine, I'm not saying that "masculine" consists of only those characteristics, or that that which is masculine must always display those characteristics. Not really. I'm well-aquainted, via the subsequent movies, with the creature's life cycle. And that's the only thing I'm referring to in my argument. Unless the subsequent movies depart significantly from the original, then I have everything I need to make the argument I'm making, which is:The creature reproduces by aggressive sexual violation and subsequent abandonment; this is a behavior that most in my culture would consider masculine more than feminine.

No, of course I'm not making that claim.I don't understand why when I use the word "masculine" around Arach, it has to mean only the positive, happy-happy, feel-good things, when, as it is actually used in practice by people in our culture, it means all those things in addition to characteristics that are not so positive. In the original, does the face-hugger not grab your face and deposit an organism in you that grows and then eventually lunges out of your chest? Since that's the only aspect I'm talking about, that's the only relevant thing. I know that the hive stuff wasn't in the first one; but I wasn't talking about any of the hive stuff.I know about the rest of the changes, but they're not relevant. If they don't have the face-huggers in the first movie then a whole lot of what I know about Alien is totally wrong, including the novelization I read and still images I've seen in books. Is that the case? If the face-hugger doesn't exist in the first movie, or doesn't grab your face and implant stuff in your chest that bursts out later, then I will grant that this is the case.But if what I've described happens in the first movie, and it would appear it does because you've just described it happening in the first movie, then none of the changes Arach refers to are relevant to my point, which is, and I repeat, that the reproduction cycle of the organism, which is obviously meant to invoke a grotesque imitation of the process of sexual congress, pregnancy, and birth, puts the creature in the masculine role and the victim in the feminine role.I don't know how I can make my argument any clearer than that.