Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Penny Arcade, T. Hunt, and Rape Jokes

I want to preface this post by saying everyone messes up.  We all say things without thinking.  We say things that are hurtful, offensive, or just plain stupid.  To me, what’s important is what happens next.  Do we try to listen and understand and decide whether or not to be more mindful in the future?  Do we get defensive?  Do we go on the attack?

Last week, Tarol Hunt (creator of the Goblins webcomic) posted on Twitter:

I’ve gotten laid before, but I’ve never gotten laid using only the power of hypnosis. But one day I will. Oh yes, I will.

As most anyone could have predicted, there was backlash to the idea — even in jest – that gosh, wouldn’t it be nice to have sex without having to worry about that silly old consent business?  Because a disgusting number of people genuinely believe consent is nothing but an obstacle to be overcome by any means necessary.

Hunt followed up by explaining how it was just a joke, and you can’t really hypnotize someone to force them to have sex against their will.  Also, “…hypnosis + sex = rape. This is true in the same way that killing NPCs in WoW = murder.

My clueless.  Let me show you it.

The thing is, pretty much everyone got that this was meant as a joke.  I don’t think anyone believed Hunt was seriously planning to become a hypnorapist.  The fact that it’s a joke isn’t the point.

From what I can tell, he did start listening and trying to understand.  He apologized to anyone he offended in a blog post a few days later, and acknowledged that he was being insensitive.  But he also kept up the defensive “no person on the planet has ever been forced into sex via hypnosis” bit, and brought up questions like why his hypnosis joke was triggering but not the rapist character from his comic?  (Answer: the rapist character doesn’t make rape into a joke, or feed into the attitude that consent is an irksome obstacle to be overcome.)

His second blog post suggests, to me, that he’s working on it.  He’s still stumbling, but I think he’s trying to listen and understand.

Penny Arcade posted a comic last August in which they referenced slaves “being raped to sleep by Dickwolves.”  Once again, there was backlash.  Once again, the immediate response was, “It’s just a joke,” with an added helping of “You’re stupid to be offended” as seen in their follow-up comic: It’s possible you read our cartoon and became a rapist as a direct result…

They didn’t get it.  Unlike Hunt, Penny Arcade had zero interest in understanding why people were upset.  Instead, they promptly turned around and began selling Dickwolves T-shirts and pennants.  Essentially, they declared open season on those who felt offended by humor about rape, and their supporters gleefully jumped into the fray.

Folks like TeamRape on Twitter were upset that the mean people were trying to censor Penny Arcade’s Freedom of Speech.  (A PA blog post notes that this is bullshit.  “[S]he is not censoring us, she has not stripped away our freedom of speech.”)  DickWolvington (account now deleted) attacked rape survivors, demanding proof they were really raped.  PA continued to make a joke of it all, on Twitter and elsewhere.  There’s more.  Timeline here if you’re interested.

I don’t believe PA intended to offend or hurt anyone with the original comic.  But once people began saying, “Hey, this isn’t cool,” PA’s response was a big old “Fuck you.”  Having been told that people were upset by the comic, PA deliberately set out to do it again.

Everyone messes up.  Everyone, sooner or later, says something that offends another person.  When that happens, you have choices.  You can assume that person is an idiot who just likes being offended, and mock them for it.  Or you can try to listen and understand why this person took offense.  Maybe you’ll agree with them, maybe you won’t.

Personally, I find Hunt’s “joke” more distasteful than PA’s original comic.  But PA’s response has been despicable, ignorant, and deliberately hurtful.

If you’re talking about rape, even as a joke, and someone confronts you about it, you might consider:

To Penny Arcade, I say no, your comic did not magically transform readers into rapists.  But your actions did encourage people to mock and disbelieve rape survivors.  You encouraged people to joke about rape, about the concerns of people who have been raped and people fighting to end it.  You belittled people who are damn tired of rape being treated as nothing but a joke.

Thanks for making things that much harder for rape survivors, and for those of us doing our damnedest to try to put an end to rape.

Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.



Feb. 21st, 2011 04:29 pm (UTC)
curiosity, not contradiction, and probably NSFW/TMI
Does "I'd hit that" fall in with the rest of it, though? Yeah, it objectifies; yeah, the particular phrasing can imply violence; still, at least in my head, "hit" in context is closely related to "tap that ass" which is just about the mechanics of pelvic thrusting. But, at least in the context where I hear people using it, it's got about the same emotional implication as "I wouldn't kick so-and-so out of bed for eating crackers" or "So-and-so can leave their shoes under my bed any time they like."

The rest of it feels a lot more diminishing of women's value and agency than the unadorned appreciation of erotic attractiveness I perceive when I hear someone saying "I'd hit that."
Feb. 21st, 2011 04:47 pm (UTC)
Re: curiosity, not contradiction, and probably NSFW/TMI
I do see what you're saying, but (for me) "I'd hit that" is more along the lines of "I'd ride him like a pony", but with added possible violent imagery. So, to me, it isn't just an "unadorned appreciation of erotic attractiveness", it's a more possessive statement of how the speaker would use the person being talked about in pursuit of sexual gratification.

"I wouldn't kick so-and-so out of bed" is (again, for me) more obvious in its conditional nature. If so-and so were to join me, mere crumbs in awkward places wouldn't be enough for me to say no.

Apparently the phrase isn't problem-free to Kate Harding, either, or she wouldn't have put it in. I can't speak for her as to what she personally finds problematic about it, though.
Feb. 21st, 2011 04:53 pm (UTC)
Re: curiosity, not contradiction, and probably NSFW/TMI
Yeah. I could certainly imagine hearing the phrase said in tones that would make me cringe; when I hear it from my friends, I'm already working from my knowledge of their character from the rest of their lives, and so I impute the conditionals that aren't made explicit by the phrase itself, except in the very nitpicky grammar sense of "would" in the contraction. Smart analysis!
Feb. 21st, 2011 06:15 pm (UTC)
Re: curiosity, not contradiction, and probably NSFW/TMI
I think "I'd tap that" is actually part of the same dynamic. It limits a woman's value to her sexual appeal and erases her agency, as she becomes a dehumanized object ('that') in the situation.

Now, if they were saying "I would invite her back to my place any time", it at least suggests that she has something to do with the whole matter. The original implies that whether or not to have sex is really a question of whether or not the guy deems a woman a worthy object of his sexual attentions. That's problematic.
Feb. 21st, 2011 06:34 pm (UTC)
Re: curiosity, not contradiction, and probably NSFW/TMI
Well, I did say it was objectifying. Granted.

I'm just thinking of the context of my social circle, where 1) "I'd hit/tap that" is used by and about all genders, and 2) I have sufficient confidence in my friends that I hear the conditional (subjunctive?) nature of "would" as including "assuming the object of my interest reciprocated it enthusiastically."

So, in my own context, I find "I'd hit that" far less disturbing than the other stuff, which explicitly positions women as less-than. If I were hearing it from guys who were ALSO saying all the other stuff, I'd find it a lot creepier.
Feb. 22nd, 2011 03:57 am (UTC)
Re: curiosity, not contradiction, and probably NSFW/TMI
My immediate reaction is to say that "I wouldn't kick him/her out of bed for eating crackers" implies a level of mutual consent that "I'd hit that" doesn't; same for the "shoes under the bed" line.

And thank you for providing the comparison -- I knew the phrase "I'd hit that" made me uneasy, but I'd never really thought about why before, and now I have.


Jim C. Hines


Latest Month

November 2019
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow