Tactical Question - Haley

[Aard_Rinn]

Oppyu: Aw, no worries! *Hugs* I get where you're coming from, I guess - and I definitely agree about Haley, upon rereading the original strips. Buddies?

Edit: Wait. Am confuzzled. IGNORE ME (Until I get screennames straightened out.)

Edit II: Wait, still confuzzled. Why are you apologizing, Oppyu? I was talking about Kish's post... I do not think you are self-righteous, condescending, or a prat! You seem like a wonderful person!

[oppyu]

Oppyu: Aw, no worries! *Hugs* I get where you're coming from, I guess - and I definitely agree about Haley, upon rereading the original strips. Buddies?

Edit: Wait. Am confuzzled. IGNORE ME (Until I get screennames straightened out.)

Edit II: Wait, still confuzzled. Why are you apologizing, Oppyu? I was talking about Kish's post... I do not think you are self-righteous, condescending, or a prat! You seem like a wonderful person!

Oh, I thought you meant the 'no accounting for taste' comment... well I'm sorry regardless, I sounded like someone's elder and extremely judgmental relative. But yeah, buddies!

[ShinyRocks]

So. Many. Thinks.


It's distressing how often in fiction I find myself screaming 'Just because you make them think they want it, doesn't mean it's not rape'. I find love potions/love spells/basically every episode of Torchwood problematic for that reason.

I think it's extremely charitable to assume that the original joke in this thread/sexist or racist etc jokes in general are, by default, intended to mock that stance and people who hold it, rather than, you know, be sexist or racist or whatever. That certainly *happens*, but I don't think it's possible to assume it's always the case. It was problematic for two reasons: the idea that someone enjoying sex is a bad thing at all, rather than just a thing; and the fact that Laurin is a woman and therefore is a slut, because that's literally her only common factor with Sabine et al. She's got a daughter, so she must have had sex (in before 'maybe she's adopted'). I don't think for a moment that the OP intended all those implications, but they're there for the reading. It behooves us all to think about what we say.

It's just a joke isn't a defense. It's hard, because nobody wants to be told that they're a sexist/racist/etc (well, a few people don't care, obviously). But you can easily perform a sexist [etc] act/say a sexist thing without being sexist. And no matter how good your intentions, and now matter how clean your conscience, if you upset someone, then you're beholden to at least think 'Oh, I hadn't looked at it like that', rather than get defensive.

When you're in the position of power, you don't get to say what the 'weaker' party's experience is. You just don't. I'm an educated gay white man who works in media: my privilege card is pretty full. But in the same way I can get upset if I see, say, straight comedians making jokes about gay people (even if their *intent* is to mock the stereotype, not to mock gay people), I'm on very risky ground if I make a racist joke with the intention of mocking racism. It's possible, it can work, it can even be quite powerful and provocative, but it is far from straightforward.

Finally, men do suffer, of course. Individual men can have financial problems, lose loved ones, get sick, etc etc etc. I don't think anybody is denying that. And there are problems that men deal with as a result of 'society' - the expectation of stoicism, unwillingness to express emotion, the idea of 'real' men being strong and rugged etc etc etc. Those are not good. But men are still, in broad strokes, inordinately better off than women. So if a woman calls a man a ... pig, I guess? that's not the same as a man calling a woman a slut, because the woman isn't doing so from a position of centuries-old power. Same as when I hear white people complaining that a black person called them 'honky', and that's racist and how come black people can say the N-word but we can't? Because. It's. Not. The. Same.

Sprawling. Discussing real world stuff. Probably not entirely brilliantly composed. But things I felt like saying.

[AKA_Bait]

And, you know, it's a funny thing. If I actually look at those old strips, it looks like she's constantly annoyed with Tarquin.

That's how I always saw it too. Like she's one of your friends whose helping you move but doesn't really want to be there.

[Carl]

@Shinyrocks: I'll copy my PM to your PM box too :), just got back in so give me a bit, want to check new posts ;).

[Sir_Leorik]

Again, just like Lord Tyrinar the Responsible (except that he probably didn't eat humans--though I wouldn't put it past Tarquin to serve him grilled lizardfolk, and everyone who eats at one of Tarquin's feasts eats sapients). Maybe you would classify Lord Tyrinar as evil just as readily, but there's still less than no indication of "adult," none of "partially responsible for the atrocities of the Empire of Blood," and the phrasing "at least" indicates that it's theoretically possible she's completely responsible for them, which it really, really isn't. Kilkil does what Tarquin tells him, including sending people to a horrible death for annoying Tarquin, and almost certainly eats sapients whenever Tarquin holds a feast; he's officially Lawful Neutral.

I saw Lord Tyrinar the Bloody as a patsy Tarquin put on the throne. He struck me as rather True Neutral; he wasn't really into the whole dictatorship thing, but he was willing to go along with it for a little while. By contrast, Kilkil is Lawful Neutral because he's part of the machinery that makes Tarquin's Evil Empire run. Kilkil never actually does anything Evil, per se (unlike Tarquin, Malack or the rest of their gang) but he makes sure that the soldiers are paid, the dinosaur fodder is ordered, he hires the chefs who cut the livers out of Phoenixes, and he bought flowers for Penelope. What keeps Kilkil from sliding over the line to Lawful Evil is that he is the go-between, not the master or the soldier or torturer carrying out the orders. If the Empire ever falls, and Kilkil were placed on trial (with a thick glass shield to protect him from assassins) he'd probably be sentenced to a lifetime of heavy labor, rather than given the death penalty.

(Also, as Sir Leorik noted a while ago, William Shakespeare got a lot of mileage out of characters who were both terrible people and tragic figures, from Richard III to Macbeth to whatshisname in King Lear--not Lear himself, though he arguably qualifies, the official villain, Edmund or something. The Empress of Blood isn't quite like them, because they were all brilliant; at least some of the tragedy in question related to wasted potential. But being evil doesn't automatically exclude her from being a tragic figure.)

There are a few stupid or thuggish characters, like Laertes, who die in tragic ways that could have been avoided if they'd been less willing to listen to villains like Claudius. Laertes may have felt justified in dueling Hamlet due to the deaths of Polonius and Ophelia, but he agreed to a dishonorable tactic like poison only because of Claudius' scheming. Claudius couldn't take a chance that Hamlet would beat Laertes, and Laertes bought into Claudius' plan. Then Laertes is disarmed during the duel, and he gets hoist by his poisoned petard.

The EoB is a thuggish and stupid character, just like Crystal. The difference is that Bozzok doesn't try to trick Crystal into doing stupid things, he tries to keep her on a tight leash so her stupidity doesn't get either of them killed. Tarquin doesn't care about the EoB, except so far as she's a pawn to be manipulated. If she eats someone now and then, so long as it doesn't interfere with Tarquin's plans, good for her. As for her diet, I really think Tarquin put the seeds into her mind.

As for what's passing for the topic at the moment, I actually had assumed that the Empress not being able to cast spells meant that she was pretty young, too, especially given Tyrinar's age. But it makes more sense for her to just have low charisma, now that I really think about it.

What does Lord Tyrinar's age have to do with the EoB being able to cast Sorcerer spells?

It's distressing how often in fiction I find myself screaming 'Just because you make them think they want it, doesn't mean it's not rape'. I find love potions/love spells/basically every episode of Torchwood problematic for that reason.

One TV show that didn't shy away from this issue (unsurprisingly) was "Buffy: the Vampire Slayer". In a season 6 episode, Warren, Jonathan and Andrew come up with a device that lets them control people. Warren uses it to mind control his ex-girlfriend (who dumped him after she learned about the fem-bot he'd built and then dumped) into being his sex toy. She snaps out of the mind control, and she point blank tells The Trio that what they planned to do was rape. This makes Jonathan and Andrew very uncomfortable, and as the ex-girlfriend tries to make a run for it, Warren flat out murders her, possibly because the truth of her words hit a little too close to home for him as well.

I'm not sure how often the Torchwood gang were using their confiscated alien toys in this way, but I believe the answer is "even one time is too many".

I think it's extremely charitable to assume that the original joke in this thread/sexist or racist etc jokes in general are, by default, intended to mock that stance and people who hold it, rather than, you know, be sexist or racist or whatever. That certainly *happens*, but I don't think it's possible to assume it's always the case. It was problematic for two reasons: the idea that someone enjoying sex is a bad thing at all, rather than just a thing; and the fact that Laurin is a woman and therefore is a slut, because that's literally her only common factor with Sabine et al. She's got a daughter, so she must have had sex (in before 'maybe she's adopted'). I don't think for a moment that the OP intended all those implications, but they're there for the reading. It behooves us all to think about what we say.

And this part of the problem. Laurin dresses very modestly, is very stoic (with some exceptions), and she acts like a mother trying to protect her daughter, not a "cougar". The only line that indicates her sexual history, is a running gag about Julio Scoundrel, and even then the implication is that she had a poster of him on her wall when she was a teen. The joke is really about Julio, not about Laurin. Nevertheless there are lots of posters whose WMG are that the favor Laurin wants involves sex. Even though there's no evidence at all, that's the first concusion they leap to.

As for Sabine, she's a pretty complex character, despite being a Succubus. She's as much a warrior as a temptress, as shown by her going several rounds mano a mano with Roy. Sabine's story isn't over yet.

[Shale]

The only line she's had that implies her sexual history is that we assume she slept with Hannah's father at least once. It's possible to have a poster on your wall without using it as a masturbation aid.

[Kish]

Hannah could easily be adopted, for that matter. (I doubt Tarquin would take adoption seriously--but I doubt he'd ever really grant that anyone else's children were particularly important except in that person's deluded-but-maybe-necessary-to-cater-to mind, either.)

[Sir_Leorik]

The only line she's had that implies her sexual history is that we assume she slept with Hannah's father at least once. It's possible to have a poster on your wall without using it as a masturbation aid.

Maybe I should clarify my earlier comment. A running gag about Julio Scoundrel is that while he was considered the object of many women's fancy when he was younger, he's aged since, albeit quite gracefully. Laurin has obviously matured, but she remembers that as a teenager she put a poster of Julio on her bedroom wall. Since she never finished her line, I do not presume anything more than that. The joke is aimed at Julio's expense, not Laurin's. But some people will assume otherwise.

[Dragonus45]

But in a world where 50 Shades of Grey is considered a hot romantic story, "porn for the 40's set", can you honestly tell me there aren't women who are attracted to guys like that, or don't find the concept appealing, even if they might not actually get with a guy like that?

My problem with 50 Shades of Grey really can be summed up in one chapter. It's the chapter I could not read past, anyone who has read it knows the chapter I mean. It's a rape fantasy story. It shoots past dominance and BDSM so fast they didn't even have time to wave. Yet somehow its still one of the most popular books of all time, amongst women. Somehow I'm getting cognitive dissonance from that.

[allenw]

The only line she's had that implies her sexual history is that we assume she slept with Hannah's father at least once. It's possible to have a poster on your wall without using it as a masturbation aid.

Really? No accounting for taste, I guess. (Safe for work).

Regarding "Fifty Shades of Grey": Never read it, won't see the movie... but I loved this SNL ad. (Kinda not-safe-for-work, or at least as NSFW as something from Saturday Night Live could be).

[Aard_Rinn]

My problem with 50 Shades of Grey really can be summed up in one chapter. It's the chapter I could not read past, anyone who has read it knows the chapter I mean. It's a rape fantasy story. It shoots past dominance and BDSM so fast they didn't even have time to wave. Yet somehow its still one of the most popular books of all time, amongst women. Somehow I'm getting cognitive dissonance from that.

See, I think there are two things to consider here.

First, there is a real, widely-accepted stigma in society against people who are sexually submissive. People forget that the 'sub' in a consensual Dom-Sub partnership isn't there because they're weaker or in some way victimized - they're there because they enjoy submission. Yet many people, including primarily certain strains of feminist, act like a woman submitting is something to be ashamed of. So women who are interested in that sort of lifestyle repress it, because people around them tell them that they can't be socially independent, successful, and still sexually submissive.

The second problem I have with 50 Shades is this: There is nothing inherently wrong with BDSM. There is nothing inherently wrong with rape fantasy. However, that book portrays what is clearly a rape, and a rape fantasy, as a BDSM relationship - that's not accurate. It's dangerous because it portrays Dorian Grey's gaslighting and rape of a young woman as an acceptable thing, without ever making it clear that no, this is wrong - if this is happening in real life, it is wrong. And in doing so, it puts women in danger - of entering the BDSM subculture and thinking that that sort of behavior is okay, and of being dismissed if they seek help. There's no use of SSC in 50S, no safewords, threats, bondage without concern for the physical and emotional safety of the submissive - practices totally unacceptable within any respectable BDSM community, but with an influx of inexperienced newbies, there's always the risk of introduction. And if a 'dominating, forceful' man like Dorian becomes idealized, complaints about partners that are too forceful become all too easy to ignore...

It's a pretty disturbing book, tbh.

[Scow2]

See, I think there are two things to consider here.

First, there is a real, widely-accepted stigma in society against people who are sexually submissive. People forget that the 'sub' in a consensual Dom-Sub partnership isn't there because they're weaker or in some way victimized - they're there because they enjoy submission. Yet many people, including primarily certain strains of feminist, act like a woman submitting is something to be ashamed of. So women who are interested in that sort of lifestyle repress it, because people around them tell them that they can't be socially independent, successful, and still sexually submissive.

The second problem I have with 50 Shades is this: There is nothing inherently wrong with BDSM. There is nothing inherently wrong with rape fantasy. However, that book portrays what is clearly a rape, and a rape fantasy, as a BDSM relationship - that's not accurate. It's dangerous because it portrays Dorian Grey's gaslighting and rape of a young woman as an acceptable thing, without ever making it clear that no, this is wrong - if this is happening in real life, it is wrong. And in doing so, it puts women in danger - of entering the BDSM subculture and thinking that that sort of behavior is okay, and of being dismissed if they seek help. There's no use of SSC in 50S, no safewords, threats, bondage without concern for the physical and emotional safety of the submissive - practices totally unacceptable within any respectable BDSM community, but with an influx of inexperienced newbies, there's always the risk of introduction. And if a 'dominating, forceful' man like Dorian becomes idealized, complaints about partners that are too forceful become all too easy to ignore...

It's a pretty disturbing book, tbh.

Does it really? I don't know much of BDSM culture (And I've not read the book in question), but from what I've gathered from what I've seen on both sides, pre-established protections like Safewords are roughly comparable to a stuntman's safety harness/net at a Movie Shoot, or foam swords at a LARP - Stuff that's important to protect the people in real life, but breaks the 'immersion' of the scene when it's invoked.

If it were in real life, it would be wrong. But it's a fantasy and a story. The "safeties" are put in place by the author and narrativium - There's no need to draw or pre-establish an explicit line because the Author will make sure that line's never crossed. The characters of a story give full consent to everything that happens to them by being featured in that story.

I'm not really sure how valid the comments about new people being unable to distinguish the elements of the fantasy from the elements of the real act are, though.

[Aard_Rinn]

Oh yeah, in the book there's no issue with that - like I said, the book is a rape fantasy. The problem is that everyone treats it like a BDSM story and it's not.

Even beyond that, though - even ignoring the lack of simple safety measures, which isn't uncommon in BDSM stories, although good, immersive stories can and often do include them - it clearly shows him brainwashing and raping a young woman. That's not BDSM. That's okay as a story, but what's not okay is the fact that the author is selling this as a BDSM story, and people are treating it as an honest depiction of the lifestyle.

[The Giant]

Hey guys? Let's not talk about BDSM on this message board, OK?

[Aard_Rinn]

Fair enough!

[Math_Mage]

And yeah, I didn't remember the exact line he used on Haley. I'll give you that one, sure; he was way to blunt, although in light of her relationship with his son, I can see that being a mysogynstic joke rather than an actual attempt to seduce her. But in a world where 50 Shades of Grey is considered a hot romantic story, "porn for the 40's set", can you honestly tell me there aren't women who are attracted to guys like that, or don't find the concept appealing, even if they might not actually get with a guy like that?

I can honestly tell you I find it highly unlikely that the story was written to respect that possibility, which is the salient point. You're blurring the lines between "what can be found in the real world" and "what we can reasonably expect to find in the narrative."

[Scow2]

I can honestly tell you I find it highly unlikely that the story was written to respect that possibility, which is the salient point. You're blurring the lines between "what can be found in the real world" and "what we can reasonably expect to find in the narrative."

The narrative tends to contain things that are extremely common in the real world, unless you go for making the narrative deliberately idealized and conscious of purging the way real people act around others from it.

[Reddish Mage]

And this part of the problem. Laurin dresses very modestly, is very stoic (with some exceptions), and she acts like a mother trying to protect her daughter, not a "cougar". The only line that indicates her sexual history, is a running gag about Julio Scoundrel, and even then the implication is that she had a poster of him on her wall when she was a teen. The joke is really about Julio, not about Laurin. Nevertheless there are lots of posters whose WMG are that the favor Laurin wants involves sex. Even though there's no evidence at all, that's the first concusion they leap to.

As for Sabine, she's a pretty complex character, despite being a Succubus. She's as much a warrior as a temptress, as shown by her going several rounds mano a mano with Roy. Sabine's story isn't over yet.

Yes, Laurin's lack of sexualization is quite apparent, however what is interesting is Sabine isn't all that much of a temptress. We've only seen her try to tempt Roy and Miko (really bad choice of targets!) and both reacted by attacking her! She also has what appears to be in a close relationship with Nale, who she is very much in love with. Sabine seems to swoon a bit by Elan's aggressive kiss, and both Nale and Sabine are even positively jealous of each other!

Sabine's expressions of unrestrained sexuality are strictly off-camera and references to it are alternatively so humdrum or experimental that it hardly allows us to imagine a Sabine that would act in the manner of an expert temptress and "incarnation of illicit sex."

[Ramien]

Yes, Laurin's lack of sexualization is quite apparent, however what is interesting is Sabine isn't all that much of a temptress. We've only seen her try to tempt Roy and Miko (really bad choice of targets!) and both reacted by attacking her! She also has what appears to be in a close relationship with Nale, who she is very much in love with. Sabine seems to swoon a bit by Elan's aggressive kiss, and both Nale and Sabine are even positively jealous of each other!

Sabime expressions of unrestrained sexuality are strictly off-camera and references to it are alternatively so humdrum or experimental that it hardly allows us to imagine a Sabine that would act in the manner of an expert temptress and "incarnation of illicit sex."

I think a lot of that is due to the nature of her mission and her relationship with Nale. She's not out to try and seduce the masses; her mission was to work with and support Nale, and the relationship he developed with her, both personal and professional, would be damaged if he saw her trying to seduce anyone that looked like a good target.

[Math_Mage]

The narrative tends to contain things that are extremely common in the real world, unless you go for making the narrative deliberately idealized and conscious of purging the way real people act around others from it.

My claim is that the stated sentiment is uncommon at best in the real world and even less likely to be found in the narrative than in the real world, due both to the fact that reality is stranger than fiction, and to the attitude of this particular narrative's author, not to mention what is actually found in the narrative itself. I don't think that is in conflict with what you wrote.

[David Argall]

* I understand why loose sexual behavior was *originally* classed as a moral issue. It was all about damage to the man that the woman belonged to, and simply being thought to be sexually "loose" was damaging to a man

Actually it is the reverse. We boys are thrilled by the idea of loose women and want them around, at least for the moment. But it is the ownership of the man by a "decent" woman that is threatened by our slut.
Note here it is Haley who makes the claim of sexual misbehavior. She sees Samantha and the other shanks as threats to her claim to Elan. This is normal female behavior, to call other female all varieties of sexually immoral.
It is the style to blame males for everything, but it is other women who condemn the available lass as criminal.

[Math_Mage]

I'm pretty sure condemnation of loose women comes from both genders, for different but related reasons, and did not somehow originate with one gender. Just sayin'.

[jere7my]

Actually it is the reverse. We boys are thrilled by the idea of loose women and want them around, at least for the moment. But it is the ownership of the man by a "decent" woman that is threatened by our slut.
Note here it is Haley who makes the claim of sexual misbehavior. She sees Samantha and the other shanks as threats to her claim to Elan. This is normal female behavior, to call other female all varieties of sexually immoral.
It is the style to blame males for everything, but it is other women who condemn the available lass as criminal.

Oh, David David David. This is false, both historically and contemporarily. Yes, women do condemn other women for their sexual activity, but they are, and were, by no means the only ones to do so. And since women hold, and held, proportionally less societal power than men their disapprobation is proportionally less significant.

Many men like a "loose woman" until she decides she's not quite loose enough to sleep with a particular man, or they find out that their new sweetie has had a varied and enthusiastic sexual history; then the woman suddenly becomes a slut. And that's assuming the man believes in casual sexual contact; there are millions in the US alone who think any woman who has premarital sex is a slut (though they're happy to turn a blind eye to a man doing the same, because "boys will be boys"). This reputation, in addition to the social stigma it carries, can get a woman fired, or beaten, or any number of other consequences. If you want to leave our cozy borders, there are countries where a woman (and not a man) can be executed for adultery, or for being raped. (Yes, really.)

Moving back in time, of course, a woman was a daughter until she was a wife, and at no point in that process was her value (as defined by father and husband) increased by multiple sexual partners.

I'm painting with a broad brush here—there are plenty of men who believe women should be free to sleep with whomever they want without being judged, and if you're among them I salute you. But that, alas, isn't the norm in our society, and young women who choose to have multiple partners can suffer real consequences from the men they encounter, both socially and professionally.

[Angel Bob]

Dammit Argall, you do not speak for all males. Stop dragging me and so many other decent people under the rancid umbrella of your royal 'we'. Getting seriously fed up here with your poison's ability to slip through my Ignore list.

[mhsmith]

First, I'm impressed that this topic went so far off topic that it ended up back at The Order of the Stick.

Second, I don't know where anyone is getting the idea that the Empress is young. I guess because the default red dragon gets spells as a juvenile? But she's an adult. Just an abnormally stupid adult, probably with too low a Charisma to cast sorcerer spells.

And third, she's not a non-sapient animal, so she doesn't get a pass on Evil actions due to low Intelligence. She kills people when they bore her or get in her way; she's Evil. The fact that she then eats them is neither here nor there.

Not everyone agrees :)

[Ward.]

you're among them I salute you. But that, alas, isn't the norm in our society, and young women who choose to have multiple partners can suffer real consequences from the men they encounter, both socially and professionally.

That's false, you can't be fired for having an active sex life outside of the working enviroment and the legal system is heavilly slanted towards the women in those cases.



In regards to the Op, I think the confusion regarding its nature as a joke stems from it not being a very good joke. In terms of set up, delivery and leangth for subject matter.

[Kish]

That's false, you can't be fired for having an active sex life outside of the working enviroment and the legal system is heavilly slanted towards the women in those cases.

So...it doesn't happen but when it does the legal system is heavily slanted toward the woman?

[Shale]

Also there are professional consequences other than getting fired.

(Which is not to say that there have not been instances of women being fired for, e.g., being "distractingly" attractive)

[jere7my]

That's false, you can't be fired for having an active sex life outside of the working enviroment and the legal system is heavilly slanted towards the women in those cases

Tell that to Melanie Martinez, who was fired as host of a TV show on Sprout because she'd appeared in slightly risqué safe sex parody videos some years before. Tell it to the many women who lost their jobs because intimate photos were put up on revenge websites by their ex-boyfriends, or creeps who hacked their accounts. Tell it to the teachers I know who have to hide their sex lives, and sometimes their sexual orientations, if they want to continue working.

Even in cases where it's illegal to fire someone for having a sex life, a sufficiently motivated creep in a position of power can trump up an excuse.