Issue 462, Option 2 is quite distasteful

[Behest]

Sorry if this is the wrong board, but:

"A protesting, middle-aged, overweight female resident, sporting an unflattering dress and far too much makeup, demands your attention. 'Do you expect a young, single, and needless I say attractive female like myself to walk the streets IN THE DARK!? Oh how all the unsavory characters across @@NAME@@ would just love that! Stop pandering to this madness and keep the streets lit whatever the cost!'"

Is this actually implying ugly women don't get raped?

[The Sherpa Empire]

It's satire.

[Behest]

It's satire.

On what?

[Verdant Haven]

Behest makes a valid point, I think. While the humor does clearly come from the idea of the egotistical person complimenting herself (self-delusion is an age-old comedy trope), I can also see it being read as implying that a person like her doesn't actually have anything to fear, which is patently untrue. I feel like the joke (self-delusion) can be retained, but clarification can be added by inserting a short extra sentence in there. Something like "Whether you're gorgeous like me, or as ugly as a supermodel, you deserve to be safe! Stop pandering to this..." It retains the humor, but clearly sets down that the actual issue is about safety, not appearance.

[Australian rePublic]

Behest makes a valid point, I think. While the humor does clearly come from the idea of the egotistical person complimenting herself (self-delusion is an age-old comedy trope), I can also see it being read as implying that a person like her doesn't actually have anything to fear, which is patently untrue. I feel like the joke (self-delusion) can be retained, but clarification can be added by inserting a short extra sentence in there. Something like "Whether you're gorgeous like me, or as ugly as a supermodel, you deserve to be safe! Stop pandering to this..." It retains the humor, but clearly sets down that the actual issue is about safety, not appearance.

I would instead add something like "and the ugly could hget mugged" or something like that

[Candlewhisper Archive]

For sure, I see the potential offence there. However, as Verdant Haven says, I think the joke here is the self-delusion, rather than the implication that attractiveness determines vulnerability to sex crimes. In the modern age, anything that could imply victim-blaming in rape is deeply problematic.

Also, of course, what was acceptable in humour once could become unacceptable over time. People don't make mother-in-law jokes any more, or at least, they've ceased to be funny. Nor is it a good taste joke now for a visual joke's punchline to be "surprise, she's ugly" (the classic old fashioned joke being the male protagonist following a woman who looks conventionally sexy, and then she turns around, reveals her face or whatever, and is hideous).

This is also humour that punches down rather than up, and isn't so much satire, but is certainly and clearly presented with the goal of humour.

That in mind, we're not going to shut down this complaint dismissively.

However - and this is the point of judgement - I don't think that this joke is all that offensive. There's no direct mention of sexual assault. Also, we're not saying that she's ugly directly, we're just implying it, and riffing off her self-delusion. If the non-speech text said something like "a middle aged woman who no rapist would be interested in anyway" then that'd be awful, and would need removing. As it is, we've just described some physical features that some might judge unattractive, then presented in character speech implying that she thinks herself beautiful. That might imply a narrative that she's worried when she doesn't need to be, but that opinion is never offered by the option - it's a narrative that the reader must construct themselves.

There's always a danger in watering down comedy for the sake of being as inoffensive as possible, and somewhere along the way becoming unfunny. Sometimes, comedy HAS to take the hit. I was all for the issues that presented offensive transgender and traveller stereotypes being changed, and indeed those issues seem to work fine with the language modernised, even though some might feel they are now less funny.

However here, I think that while offence could be taken (especially if someone had the misfortune of being a victim of sexual assault), the levels of separation from an outright statement of "ugly women don't get raped" offers some protection from offensiveness, as does the fact that it's text within speech presented by a character, rather than "factual" information presented within an issue opening or description. To clarify on that, we don't take a fascist or racist character as an authorial endorsement of fascism or racism: there are allowances for the fact that opinions stated are those of fictional characters.

Those considerations in mind, I think that it's okay for this option to remain as it is for now.

However, I thank you for raising the potential concern, and you should consider this issue to be under scrutiny rather than the concerns being dismissed.

[Telcz]

Beautiful or ugly are in the eye of the beholder. Who says the mentioned woman isn't indeed beautiful (to some), just because she's overweight?

[The Blaatschapen]

Beautiful or ugly are in the eye of the beholder. Who says the mentioned woman isn't indeed beautiful (to some), just because she's overweight?

Queen seemed to agree https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMnjF1O4eH0

[Trotterdam]

People don't make mother-in-law jokes any more, or at least, they've ceased to be funny.

We've had one as recently as #1009.

I think their decline is less because they're offensive, and more because modern cultural emphasis on personal freedom and independence means it's less believable to continue to be forced to interact with a distant family member you hate.

---

On topic, I haven't studied it in depth, but I recall reading that the majority of rapes are in fact by someone the victim was familiar with, after meeting somewhere that made sense based on their previous relationship, rather than just grabbing a random person from a dark alley. So really, regardless of how personally likely she is to be targetted, worrying about street lamps as the main source of protection is somewhat misguided, and for that matter she's probably more likely to fall victim to a different street crime like mugging.

On the other hand, this also means that statistics for those minority of rapes that do happen on the streets might break down differently from those of rapes in general... and then there's also the fact every statistician knows that there's a big difference between saying something is less likely to happen and saying it definitely won't.

[USS Monitor]

On topic, I haven't studied it in depth, but I recall reading that the majority of rapes are in fact by someone the victim was familiar with, after meeting somewhere that made sense based on their previous relationship, rather than just grabbing a random person from a dark alley. So really, regardless of how personally likely she is to be targetted, worrying about street lamps as the main source of protection is somewhat misguided, and for that matter she's probably more likely to fall victim to a different street crime like mugging.

This. Joy and I were actually talking about this on Discord. Assuming that poor lighting is setting her up to be raped is already pushing an unrealistic trope regardless of whether she's attractive or not. Even rapes where the people don't know each other beforehand are likely to be "said yes to getting in the car, did not say yes to sex" rather than literally being grabbed off the sidewalk. Changing the underlying assumption from "attractive women walking at night are rape magnets" to "any woman walking at night is a rape magnet" does not make it address sexual assault in a realistic way.

The character is already out of touch with reality anyway, and the original flows better than the suggested rewrites.

[Behest]

Oh boy, I thought my post went unnoticed and forgot about it. Now I find out a few major figures in this community have responded. Wish there was a way to get notifications for post replies. Anyway, I'll address Candlewhisper Archive's response.

For sure, I see the potential offence there. However, as Verdant Haven says, I think the joke here is the self-delusion, rather than the implication that attractiveness determines vulnerability to sex crimes. In the modern age, anything that could imply victim-blaming in rape is deeply problematic.

I may have been harsh to imply the option is malice-based, but it's still a tasteless (and arguably disturbing) joke.

Also, of course, what was acceptable in humour once could become unacceptable over time. People don't make mother-in-law jokes any more, or at least, they've ceased to be funny. Nor is it a good taste joke now for a visual joke's punchline to be "surprise, she's ugly" (the classic old fashioned joke being the male protagonist following a woman who looks conventionally sexy, and then she turns around, reveals her face or whatever, and is hideous).

It's not only an issue of "jokes that was once acceptable and are now taboo". This is beyond the "PC Culture Is Ruining Our Comedy" debate and moving into pushing harmful ideas.

This is also humour that punches down rather than up, and isn't so much satire, but is certainly and clearly presented with the goal of humour.

Again, I don't want to imply the author wrote that option with misogynist intent or anything like that.

That in mind, we're not going to shut down this complaint dismissively.
However - and this is the point of judgement - I don't think that this joke is all that offensive. There's no direct mention of sexual assault. Also, we're not saying that she's ugly directly, we're just implying it, and riffing off her self-delusion. If the non-speech text said something like "a middle aged woman who no rapist would be interested in anyway" then that'd be awful, and would need removing. As it is, we've just described some physical features that some might judge unattractive, then presented in character speech implying that she thinks herself beautiful. That might imply a narrative that she's worried when she doesn't need to be, but that opinion is never offered by the option - it's a narrative that the reader must construct themselves.

Well, this is the point where we're coming to the crossroad known as "different interpretations". You think the humor is "Haha, the woman thinks she's beautiful while she's actually ugly!" while I think the humor is "Haha, the woman thinks she's beautiful and think someone would assault her, while she's actually ugly so no one will!". Who is right? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ In my opinion it meant the latter, but who knows.

There's always a danger in watering down comedy for the sake of being as inoffensive as possible, and somewhere along the way becoming unfunny. Sometimes, comedy HAS to take the hit. I was all for the issues that presented offensive transgender and traveller stereotypes being changed, and indeed those issues seem to work fine with the language modernised, even though some might feel they are now less funny.

I'm not the color-haired, man-hating SJW boogeyman that thinks we need to water down comedy that far. And I'm not going to rant about every issue I find distateful here.

However here, I think that while offence could be taken (especially if someone had the misfortune of being a victim of sexual assault), the levels of separation from an outright statement of "ugly women don't get raped" offers some protection from offensiveness, as does the fact that it's text within speech presented by a character, rather than "factual" information presented within an issue opening or description. To clarify on that, we don't take a fascist or racist character as an authorial endorsement of fascism or racism: there are allowances for the fact that opinions stated are those of fictional characters.

As said above, I wasn't implying the author wrote the option with malicious intent. I get that all issues in this website have the South Park attitude of "LOL everyone is a dumb extremist and every political ideology is stupid!" (except at least issues here make fun of libertarians too). The bigger problem is what I said - advancing the dangerous idea that ugly (or any other "traditionally" less attractive women) don't get raped. I'm not saying this issue is some kind of brainwasher that instantly makes everyone hate women. But it's still helps build that stereotype in the grand scheme of things.

Those considerations in mind, I think that it's okay for this option to remain as it is for now.
However, I thank you for raising the potential concern, and you should consider this issue to be under scrutiny rather than the concerns being dismissed.

Thank you for noticing this and replying anyway. I just made this thread to debate the merit of that option in that otherwise normal issue. While I did hope it would be changed, I'm not going to die on that hill.

[Trotterdam]

A bit late here, but I had a closer look at the text of the option in question and it occurs to me that there are probably even fewer rapists who care about whether their victims is single than who care about whether their victim is pretty.