The Gaming Den

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 4:15 pm**

Lets give pulsewidth his own thread to talk about his unique definition of rape.

He doesn't believe the alien movies are about rape because the hosts genes are not a part of the offspring, and its more about parasites. Or something.

Pulsewidth wrote: Some consistent positions you could support:
1: Ovipositors are sexual organs. Inserting a sexual organ into an open wound is rape. Botflys are rapists. The xenomorph is a rapist.
2: Ovipositors are sexual organs. Inserting a sexual organ into an open wound is not rape, because an open wound is not one of the FBI's three specified orifices. Botflys are not rapists unless they manage to lay their eggs inside a mouth, which I'm not sure is possible. The xenomorph is a rapist because of the special properties of the mouth.
3: Ovipositors are not sexual organs. Botflys are not rapists. The xenomorph is not a rapist.
4: Ovipositors are not sexual organs, but the xenomorph does not have an ordinary ovipositor. It has something more analogous to a penis, as suggested in Alien 3. Botflys are still not rapists but the xenomorph is a rapist.

I insist that inserting a sexual organ into an open wound is rape, despite this being a broader definition of rape than the FBI's definition. I suggest that they only omitted it because they hadn't watched Crash and hadn't thought of it. I don't think this is controversial.

I insist that botflys are not rapists. I don't think this is controversial either.

I am aware of no evidence that the xenomorph's ovipositor as depicted in Alien 1 is anything other than an ordinary insect-like ovipositor.

From those premises I am forced to conclude that the xenomorph as depicted in Alien 1 is not a rapist, and the movie is in fact about parasitism. This the clear and obvious meaning that I saw when I watched the movie. I acknowledge that there is a hidden metaphorical meaning, but metaphors are not reality. You cannot be convicted of metaphorical rape, and if you accuse somebody of rape when in fact they only did something which is a metaphor for rape then you are committing libel. If you disagree with any of these premises then please make it clear which.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 4:21 pm**

"Didn't even buy me dinner."

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 4:26 pm**

He was demonstrated to be wrong on simple definitions when he claimed that ovipositors weren't sexual organs. Everything after that was him just throwing a temper tantrum. For fuck's sake, let's go to the god damn encyclopedia:

Ovipositor wrote:Ovipositor: the external sexual organ in the females of many insects and some fish (for example, Rhodeus) by means of which eggs are laid.

What the fuck man? His 3rd axiom is that A is not A.

-Username17

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2013 1:04 am**

I don't see any way to resolve this with a reasonable sounding conclusion, but reality is under no obligation to seem reasonable. You have forced me to accept that botflys do indeed commit rape, and Alien 1 is a movie about rape even though they do a good job of tricking people into thinking it's about parasitism.

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:19 am**

No. The term "rape" carries psychological and emotional implications that go well beyond the actual mechanics of it.

The bot flies and xenomorphs are not rapists because they are't seeking any sort of physical or emotional gratification from the act. Nor does the implantation inflict the same sorts of emotional and physical trauma that actual rape does.

Also, the facehugger, is arguably just a self-motile organ with limited sentience and thus can't be a rapist any more than a robot dildo can be.

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:24 am**

With respect, I think rape is in the eye of the rape victim. The sense of violation combined with procreation is as good an analogy of dark rape fantasy as you're likely to get. You can't look at rape from the perspective of the perpetrator, because you're (hopefully) never going to find anybody that identifies with a fucking facehugger; you have to identify with the victim and their perspective of it.

Posted: **Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:31 am**

Again:

"I will point out that Lambert was literally raped in Alien. The xenomorph drones were originally drawn up with torso length phalluses (I can only imagine the reason for the removal was one part ratings board shitting their collective pants, one part the ridiculousness of such an image). While the onscreen portrayal of the act was removed or never shot, the act is implied to happen off screen, with the xenomorph's tail trailing up Lambert's leg before a cut away, and when the camera returns to the scene Lambert's bloody bare leg hangs down. Lambert's actress has said in interviews that the character was in fact raped. The entire theme of rape was always intentional, and it wasn't just supposed to be metaphorical or just in overtones. From Ash trying to suffocate Ripley with a rolled up porn mag because he doesn't have his own penis being an android (spoilers!), to the oral rape of facehuggers depositing their eggs. Further, the xenomorph always took on attributes of the host it hatched from, Scott has even discussed that the xenomorph took on the desires of Kane and commented that the alien looked like "a man in a suit, but then it would be, wouldn't it? It takes on elements of the host – in this case, a man." "

The rape in Alien was always intended to be actual in addition to metaphorical.

Posted: **Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:14 pm**

It's not rape in any literal sense, because rape requires a sentient, competent actor. Talking about the facehugger or a botfly committing "rape" is like talking about a dog committing assault and battery.

At the same time, Alien was also clearly meant to be highly evocative of rape, and perhaps even about it. That can be true even if there is no literal rape, in the same way that Animal Farm is about more than the daily lives of a bunch of talking farm animals.

Really, if you don't want weird, non-consensual sex to be part of your movie, don't hire Giger to do design work. He pretty much only draws bondage and dicks. The facehugger was explicitly designed to be a dick-hand. It holds a guy down, shoves the dick part into the first orifice it finds, and impregnates him. If you include shit like that, whether or not it technically constitutes "rape" is irrelevant: your movie is now about rape.

Can we be done now?

Posted: **Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:29 pm**

If a dog humps your teddy bear, then has the teddy bear been violated?

Posted: **Mon Aug 12, 2013 11:29 pm**

hyzmarca wrote:Also, the facehugger, is arguably just a self-motile organ with limited sentience and thus can't be a rapist any more than a robot dildo can be.

fectin wrote:It's not rape in any literal sense, because rape requires a sentient, competent actor. Talking about the facehugger or a botfly committing "rape" is like talking about a dog committing assault and battery.

Pointing out that we're never going to bother charging 'rape' machines or 'rape' monsters for rape in a court of law isn't particularly interesting. We also wouldn't charge a malfunctioning AI machine gun platform or a bear with murder no matter how much killing they do. The law is for resolving disputes between members of society. But the concepts aren't. I mean, you can say that being held down and being raped by a bear isn't really rape because rape is a word for describing instances of sexual violation which would be prosecuted in a court of law or whatever, but that's rather missing the point for the uninteresting technicality that the law was built to handle problems society has actually had to deal with.

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:15 am**

Sure. If you read the second half of my post also, I address exactly that point.

But since the ongoing argument has been nothing but outrage that pulsewidth would dare to try and pin down a sane definition for what technically does or does not constitute rape, I'm pretty happy with all the points I made before.

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:00 am**

No. The rest of your post was not about that. The rest of your post was that "alien doesn't contain rape, but it walks like a duck and talks like a duck because it is pretending to be a duck." It had nothing to do with the possibility that rape, as a concept, exists independently of the courts and the courts' approach to rape is an effort to match society's needs for dealing with it (which is exactly what it is, and what I was saying). It is meaningful to talk about rape in a broader context than what the law defines it as. Especially when some of those laws fail to include things people would obviously want prosecuted as rape because that is what they are (did you see the FBI definition? There are holes you could drive a truck through).

But also, bullshit. Pulsewidth did not try and pin down a sane definition of rape. Not only because his efforts were obviously loaded and he just wanted a definition that would let him say alien wasn't rape, but also because none of his definitions were anything approaching sane. Most of his attempts excluded any and all rape that wasn't reproductively viable. Do I really need to fucking explain to you why people might find "men can't rape other men" offensive? Outrage at him is completely justified. If not because he is a terrible person, then because he has yet to apologize for making an obviously and deeply offensive mistake.

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:02 am**

I'm not talking about the facehugger. The drone literally rapes Lambert offscreen because it inherited Kane's sexual desires.

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:01 am**

DSMatticus wrote:No. The rest of your post was not about that. The rest of your post was that "alien doesn't contain rape, but it walks like a duck and talks like a duck because it is pretending to be a duck."

Please, continue explaining how Animal Farm is literally about the USSR, not just metaphorically.

DSMatticus wrote:It had nothing to do with the possibility that rape, as a concept, exists independently of the courts and the courts' approach to rape is an effort to match society's needs for dealing with it (which is exactly what it is, and what I was saying). It is meaningful to talk about rape in a broader context than what the law defines it as. Especially when some of those laws fail to include things people would obviously want prosecuted as rape because that is what they are (did you see the FBI definition? There are holes you could drive a truck through).

Really? That's actually what you're arguing? Hokay, let's boil this down: either agree that it takes a competent, sentient entity to be a rapist, or you are completely full of shit. That is really the entire universe of options.

DSMatticus wrote:Do I really need to fucking explain to you why people might find "men can't rape other men" offensive? Outrage at him is completely justified. If not because he is a terrible person, then because he has yet to apologize for making an obviously and deeply offensive mistake.

Quote, please? I missed him saying that men can't rape men.

@Prak: I had forgotten that that was in Alien. It's been a while. Even so, It's rape exactly to the extent that the alien is intelligent.

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:20 am**

Yeah, drone intelligence is never explicitly given in the movies, but they are implied to have a very human-like malevolence

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 4:16 am**

Fectin wrote:Please, continue explaining how Animal Farm is literally about the USSR, not just metaphorically.

I am having trouble finding the source of your confusion. Let's go through this. I pointed out that the concept of rape is independent from its legal definition and application, in response to your "sentient, competent actor" bit, which I assumed had something to do with how rape is used in the legal system. You claimed you addressed that in the second half of your post. But the second half of your post was a rant about how a movie can be about rape metaphorically without being about rape literally. Those are not the same fucking discussion. I described to you what the post you made actually said, because it clearly did not say what you think it did. There was no suggestion that every metaphor is literal. Are you on the same page now?

fectin wrote:Hokay, let's boil this down: either agree that it takes a competent, sentient entity to be a rapist, or you are completely full of shit. That is really the entire universe of options.

If someone is attacked and penetrated by a bear or something ridiculous, I am completely comfortable calling that rape. Why the fuck wouldn't you be? I am not saying that bear should be dragged before a court of law and charged for rape, because it's a bear and it has no rights. It will just be put down for attacking a person. But the part where it holds someone down and violates them in an explicitly sexual manner is rape.

Fectin wrote:Quote, please? I missed him saying that men can't rape men.

Pulsewidth wrote:You could argue that's a type of sexual reproduction... [in the context of establishing the criteria for rape]
...
If the resulting offspring receives genetic information from the host, as in Alien 3, then it is rape.

Pulsewidth originally defined rape in the context of sexual reproduction. Not an act of sex or the use of sex organs - sexual fucking reproduction. He claimed that the face-humping parasite could not be a rapist because it was not reproducing sexually through its face-humping. That immediately excludes homosexual rape. That excludes anal and oral rape. That excludes rape using an inanimate object. He obviously doesn't think that (at least, I certainly hope not). But it is a consequence of the definition he used and the argument he made, and it is incredibly insensitive and falls apart in the face of trivial inspection.

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 4:32 am**

Actually, Pulsewidth DID define it with the use of sex organs. His point was that the parasite wasn't a rapist because its ovipositor wasn't a sex organ because the face-humping wasn't sexual reproduction. Pulsewidth is many awful things, but he didn't advocate the specific definition you're railing against.

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:41 am**

John Magnum wrote:Actually, Pulsewidth DID define it with the use of sex organs. His point was that the parasite wasn't a rapist because its ovipositor wasn't a sex organ because the face-humping wasn't sexual reproduction. Pulsewidth is many awful things, but he didn't advocate the specific definition you're railing against.

No, pulsewidth later said a bunch of different things that were also to varying extents offensive and wrong. But he absolutely started off the conversation talking about acts of sexual reproduction, and how that was specifically the distinguishing factor of whether or not a rape had occurred. Here, just have his first post.

Pulsewidth wrote:It's not until the sequels and crossovers that the form of the new xenomorph somehow resembles the form of the host. You could argue that's a type of sexual reproduction, even if it uses magical space biology instead of DNA. But it doesn't happen in the original, so if the original Alien is about rape then people who get parasitised by botfly larvae are rape victims.

Because clearly, the thing that makes it rape or not rape is if it produces offspring that has some of the victim's DNA. Right? Right. Whatever argument you're thinking of came after this hilariously offensive and terrible start. But his next few posts aren't much better, either.

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:50 am**

DSMatticus wrote:
John Magnum wrote:Actually, Pulsewidth DID define it with the use of sex organs. His point was that the parasite wasn't a rapist because its ovipositor wasn't a sex organ because the face-humping wasn't sexual reproduction. Pulsewidth is many awful things, but he didn't advocate the specific definition you're railing against.
No, pulsewidth later said a bunch of different things that were also to varying extents offensive and wrong. But he absolutely started off the conversation talking about acts of sexual reproduction, and how that was specifically the distinguishing factor of whether or not a rape had occurred. Here, just have his first post.
Pulsewidth wrote:It's not until the sequels and crossovers that the form of the new xenomorph somehow resembles the form of the host. You could argue that's a type of sexual reproduction, even if it uses magical space biology instead of DNA. But it doesn't happen in the original, so if the original Alien is about rape then people who get parasitised by botfly larvae are rape victims.
Because clearly, the thing that makes it rape or not rape is if it produces offspring that has some of the victim's DNA. Right? Right. Whatever argument you're thinking of came after this hilariously offensive and terrible start. But his next few posts aren't much better, either.

Even if you go with that definition, Facehuggers are still rape, even in the first movie, because, while it's not necessarily obvious on film, in the minds of the people making the movie, the drone did take on aspects of Kane.

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:06 am**

wrote:but it walks like a duck and talks like a duck because it is pretending to be a duck.

Well ducks are known to be rapists.

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:10 pm**

ishy wrote:
wrote:but it walks like a duck and talks like a duck because it is pretending to be a duck.
Well ducks are known to be rapists.

You joke, but that's the corner DSMatticus painted himself into. He's left himself three bad alternatives:
A) Rape is sometimes acceptable
B) Duck rape is morally terrible (and thus, we have a deeply stupid imperative to prevent it)
C)

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:36 pm**

"C)" would be "Rape is terrible, and rape in the animal kingdom is terrible too, but preventing it would mean intentionally causing a species to go extinct and it's almost the height of hubris to tell a non-sentient species that it has to abide by human morals"

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:54 pm**

fectin wrote:
ishy wrote:
wrote:but it walks like a duck and talks like a duck because it is pretending to be a duck.
Well ducks are known to be rapists.
You joke, but that's the corner DSMatticus painted himself into. He's left himself three bad alternatives:
A) Rape is sometimes acceptable
B) Duck rape is morally terrible (and thus, we have a deeply stupid imperative to prevent it)
C)

Bahaha, what? You're drunk go home.

Posted: **Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:27 am**

DSMatticus wrote:Because clearly, the thing that makes it rape or not rape is if it produces offspring that has some of the victim's DNA. Right? Right. Whatever argument you're thinking of came after this hilariously offensive and terrible start. But his next few posts aren't much better, either.

I quoted the FBI and WHO definitions on Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:22 pm. I noted the obvious sexual reproduction in Alien 3 on Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:14 pm, which clearly indicates the face-hugger ovipositor is a sexual organ as specified in those definitions. At no point did I claim possibility of offspring was a requirement.

Strong straw-manning you have there.

Posted: **Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:10 am**

DSM, just leave this thread, for the sake of your own sanity. Every time you make a cogent point their response is to accuse you of WABARGL or point out something else and call that a fallacy. Literally, fectin just ignored your post and pretended it was nonsense, and that's because he's crazy. Pulsewidth has stopped actually debating and is just accusing you of misrepresenting the thing he said a while back that no longer has any bearing on the argument.

Like with all the shadzar threads, the only way to win is to let it die.

The Gaming Den

Aliens and Botflies.

Aliens and Botflies.