(Spoilers) So like "Steve" and Diana in WW84.... are we gonna talk about it?

[Alpha]

The apartment of his which Steve did not recognize and which Diana did not ask for clearly say yes.



Avengers #200 was called out for having rape that wasn't acknowledged back in the 1980s, the same period in which this movie takes place in. Zeus's use of disguises and magic that don't exist in real life have been called out as rape including on this very board.

What happened with Zeus was that he disguised himself as an animal and to get close to women and then had sex with them. Or he used magic to convince womwn to have sex with him. Diana didn't choose for Steve to enter another man's body. And the reason why Steve had sex with Diana was because he felt like it was his body at that point. That other guy, he wasn't there. He wasn't anywhere. He no longer existed. Steve was the only person in that body. And while Zeus can be a metaphor for manipulation, I don't see how reincarnation can be a good metaphor for anything.

[brettc1]

The apartment of his which Steve did not recognize and which Diana did not ask for clearly say yes.



Avengers #200 was called out for having rape that wasn't acknowledged back in the 1980s, the same period in which this movie takes place in. Zeus's use of disguises and magic that don't exist in real life have been called out as rape including on this very board.

Yes, but these things have real world equivalents. Using magic or mind altering machines to alter a persons ability to give informed consent is no different to doing it with a drug.

There is NO real work equivalent to putting one person’s mind in another person’s body. That is total fantasy.

[Steel Inquisitor]

That's a very stupid metaphor. The point of a metaphor is that it maintains the emotion behind an event. When you have sex with an unconscious body the body doesn't have a soul in it making it kiss you, whisper to you, look at you and touch you. In every single way, this was Steve's body and he initiated the act.

Focusing on emotion and whether it being stupid should overrule actual facts we saw in the movie, as if that is all is required to make what they did acceptable. Consent is about getting permission, wheee in the movie did the original owner give them permission to have sex with his body? It wasn't in the movie I saw. Steve's body died in WW1, and we saw the original owner hd no knowledge about how their body was used. Once again examples for fiction about metaphors is ignored as though Dracula isn't a thing. Steve being a man in the body in no way makes what he did right.

You do know Steve died in the original film? He's not a native to 1984, he's a ghost.

And when you turn something someone else wrote and YOU turn THEIR story into a rape metaphor, you are clearly forcing meaning that wasn't there. You are the one doing it. In a sense, you are the rapist who turns this into a rape. Shame on you. Not all metaphors are automatically good. And this one is clearly a corrupt one considering how you are the one that twisted the situation.

This is a straw man. Weaponising an acknowledgement of circumstances as being the point of being wrong, this is worrying close to when racists being more worried about being called out being racists than addressing racism. Take all the attention of the story and onto the messenger, because if the massager is wrong surely their argument can't be right.

Oh yeah that's problematic, but just to make sure, do they know that another man existed before Steve took over, or that they only think it's a new body and home given by gods or whatever, and Diana only found out at the end... oh ****... that's another guy's body I slept with?

They stay in the man's apartment and the movie is clear that Steve is possessing the body, he checks it out in a mirror for a gag. The latter part is the problem, they have all th evidence that what they're doing is wrong and when Diana meets the man she must smiles and doesn't say a word about what happened to him. It was a wish by Diana, not a direct action by the gods. The god who created the dreamstone never appears in the story, only mentioned in passing.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Yes, but these things have real world equivalents. Using magic or mind altering machines to alter a persons ability to give informed consent is no different to doing it with a drug.

There is NO real work equivalent to putting one person’s mind in another person’s body. That is total fantasy.

The real life equivalent to the man's body is him being into a coma, his body's there but his mind isn't. Ergo, problem with consent.

[Restingvoice]

They stay in the man's apartment and the movie is clear that Steve is possessing the body, he checks it out in a mirror for a gag. The latter part is the problem, they have all th evidence that what they're doing is wrong and when Diana meets the man she must smiles and doesn't say a word about what happened to him. It was a wish by Diana, not a direct action by the gods. The god who created the dreamstone never appears in the story, only mentioned in passing.

Alright. Thank you. That's clear enough.

Both Steve and Diana are taking advantage of the situation, and a body that's not theirs to use. I get it, you miss each other, but it's still not your body to use.

Court is adjourned. I'm done. Voice out. Up up and nyoom away.

[Astroman]

This is a straw man. Weaponising an acknowledgement of circumstances as being the point of being wrong, this is worrying close to when racists being more worried about being called out being racists than addressing racism. Take all the attention of the story and onto the messenger, because if the massager is wrong surely their argument can't be right.

There's a lot of strawmanning and ad hominem attacks in this thread ("Someone I don't like says the sky is blue... therefore I refuse to acknowledge the sky is blue!")

Meanwhile, more complaints, from diverse people keep coming in about it...

https://epicstream.com/news/BriConst...ult-and-Racism

https://cosmicbook.news/gal-gadot-wonder-woman-rapist

https://www.thewrap.com/lets-talk-ab...uy-chris-pine/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nky-ALKmNk

[Gaelforce]

Regardless of various opinions, I'm going to have to go with Patty on this one:

https://comicbook.com/movies/news/wo...MBadtW_YFOMB8Y

It's an 80s trope that is supposed to be problematic and that was the entire intention of the writer/director.

[Awonder]

The real life equivalent to the man's body is him being into a coma, his body's there but his mind isn't. Ergo, problem with consent.

Except that there is an active, conscious mind/soul in the body in question.

Furthermore, there are other variables to consider here, such as the questions fong03 raised:

... What are the implications of your soul being permanently trapped within someone else's body? Who is the one whom is alive? What should Steve do? Are any of his actions acceptable? I never said that "you cannot draw a close match." I simply said that more thought needs to be put in before you do and I had not seen that done.

Simply comparing this to a coma patient is inadequate at best.

[Awonder]

The apartment of his which Steve did not recognize and which Diana did not ask for clearly say yes.

I don't see it so clearly. Max, with the power of the stone, created new nukes, right? The stone couldn't have created an apartment for Steve's new body?

What do we truly know, not just assume, about Handsome Man before Diana's wish?

[Alpha]

Focusing on emotion and whether it being stupid should overrule actual facts we saw in the movie, as if that is all is required to make what they did acceptable.

Are you kidding me? What do you think a metaphor is? A metaphor is literally taking away the specific circumstances and creating a setting with similar emotions to express an idea. And this isn't a metaphor for drug rape becaus the emotion behind it resembles it in no way. And you are ignoring the fact that, once again, NONE OF THIS MATTERS BECAUSE IT ISN'T REAL RAPE. With something as specific as rape the whole point is that you have to understand the specific circumstances. The difference between consent and no consent is specific words and gestures. The more abstract you make it the more you miss how people fall into believing that they had consent but in fact didn't. So NO, WE CAN'T TREAT IT AS A METAPHOR because it misses the whole point of how we educate people on being respectful during sex. If you are using a metaphor to explain, or demonstrate consent, then you are doing it very wrong. Complain about the action in the movie all you want. Complain about the CGI all you want. Complain about the dialogue all you want. DON'T PRETEND THAT WW84 IS A MOVIE ABOUT RAPE.

[Astroman]

Here's what The Mary Sue has to say about Jenkins, jokey, "response" to the controversy. I particularly found this to be pertinent:

Male sexual assault was a part of two big discourses over the recent holiday week, due to Wonder Woman 1984 and Netflix’s Bridgerton. Both illustrate a lack of understanding about the fact that men can be sexually assaulted, and that just because the positions are switched does not invalidate the fact that someone is not fully consenting. It is assault. Whoever this man was, putting his body into the narrative that focuses on sexuality is inherently problematic because his body is part of a sexual story without his consent. It is disappointing that rather than just admit this was an oversight, Jenkins retweeted something that just says “the rape is okay because it was undone-ish and also the ’80s did it.”

https://www.themarysue.com/patty-jen...wap-criticism/

I'd be happy with a, "We really didn't intend that part of the story to come off that way, but considering how many of you that did get offended by it, we deeply apologize and promise to be more thoughtful in the future." The "Hahaha. Exactly!" response just dismisses the criticisms as absurd or laughable.

[Alpha]

Here's what The Mary Sue has to say about Jenkins, jokey, "response" to the controversy. I particularly found this to be pertinent:



https://www.themarysue.com/patty-jen...wap-criticism/

I'd be happy with a, "We really didn't intend that part of the story to come off that way, but considering how many of you that did get offended by it, we deeply apologize and promise to be more thoughtful in the future." The "Hahaha. Exactly!" response just dismisses the criticisms as absurd or laughable.

I do think the critiscism is laughable. But I agree that her response is very poor. The plotline is convuluted and unnecessary, but the film and the scene don't normalize actual rape.

[Astroman]

I do think the critiscism is laughable. But I agree that her response is very poor. The plotline is convuluted and unnecessary, but the film and the scene don't normalize actual rape.

What it does normalize is the disregard for the criticisms. I'm not talking about any over-the-top outrage and trolling but the growing number of diverse voices (from multiple genders, ethnicities, demographics, etc.) that are saying, "This was icky." or "I was uncomfortable" or "Why did they do it this way?"

Considering how many people, especially from the progressive left, have a sliding scale of problems with this aspect of the film, my point, from my first post in this thread, has been: "This is a great opportunity for the filmmakers and the public to discuss the implications of this." instead of Jenkins and co. just hoping the short-attention span of the internet and/or audience will move on to other things in short order.

[LordUltimus]

I also don't get the purpose of doing a "send-up" to all the 80's tropes while deliberately including things that are problematic.

Are they trying to do a "send-up" of problematic things? Are they saying consent is a joke? Does this mean that the next Indiana Jones movie should have racist caricatures because those 30's adventure serials had them and said racism should be "send-up"?

[LordUltimus]

Are you kidding me? What do you think a metaphor is? A metaphor is literally taking away the specific circumstances and creating a setting with similar emotions to express an idea. And this isn't a metaphor for drug rape becaus the emotion behind it resembles it in no way. And you are ignoring the fact that, once again, NONE OF THIS MATTERS BECAUSE IT ISN'T REAL RAPE. With something as specific as rape the whole point is that you have to understand the specific circumstances. The difference between consent and no consent is specific words and gestures. The more abstract you make it the more you miss how people fall into believing that they had consent but in fact didn't. So NO, WE CAN'T TREAT IT AS A METAPHOR because it misses the whole point of how we educate people on being respectful during sex. If you are using a metaphor to explain, or demonstrate consent, then you are doing it very wrong. Complain about the action in the movie all you want. Complain about the CGI all you want. Complain about the dialogue all you want. DON'T PRETEND THAT WW84 IS A MOVIE ABOUT RAPE.

WW84 asks us to imagine a world where putting a man in a body without consent is possible.

WW84 therefore asks us to think about the implications of the action. If it didn't, then it wouldn't be asking us to get invested.

Are you saying we shouldn't be invested in WW84?