<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Reëvaluating Showgirls</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/11/24/reevaluating-showgirls/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/11/24/reevaluating-showgirls/</link>
	<description>Overthinking It subjects the popular culture to a level of scrutiny it probably doesn&#039;t deserve.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:16:06 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Diana</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/11/24/reevaluating-showgirls/#comment-13564</link>
		<dc:creator>Diana</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:42:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=11446#comment-13564</guid>
		<description>Thanks Belinkie -- I hope I didn&#039;t jump down your throat. Um, my position on Showgirls is that I don&#039;t particularly enjoy watching it sober, (my position when not sober falls somewhere between &quot;meh&quot; and &quot;boobies!&quot;), but I do believe it&#039;s a really interesting movie to analyze because it&#039;s very much what I&#039;ve come to think of as a quintessential [American] Verhoeven movie after writing about Basic Instinct and reading the other posts and discussions. What&#039;s quintessential Verhoeven? A movie that presents a critical caricature of a world or system that is already deeply problematic, and through this narrative hyperbole sets the thing being criticized into relief, where we can then gawk at it an have all sorts of uncomfortable/fascinated/grossed out/entertained feelings. This is a device that&#039;s often used in contemporary/postmodern literature, also -- essentially cut your reader off from the predictable world and entrap your reader with a handful of extremely exaggerated features or problems of that world in order to force an existential/moral/ethical/spiritual moment of resolution (see Simic&#039;s The World Doesn&#039;t End, Ball&#039;s March Book, Robinson&#039;s The Life of a Hunter for examples of this device in poetry). So in a way he&#039;s a very high-brow artist working in a traditionally low-brow medium (meaning schlocky/melodramatic movies, not the whole of film), which is pretty cool and unique. I would never go on a date with the man, but his movies, Showgirls included, are at the very least historically and culturally important, and force difficult questions on their viewers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Belinkie &#8212; I hope I didn&#8217;t jump down your throat. Um, my position on Showgirls is that I don&#8217;t particularly enjoy watching it sober, (my position when not sober falls somewhere between &#8220;meh&#8221; and &#8220;boobies!&#8221;), but I do believe it&#8217;s a really interesting movie to analyze because it&#8217;s very much what I&#8217;ve come to think of as a quintessential [American] Verhoeven movie after writing about Basic Instinct and reading the other posts and discussions. What&#8217;s quintessential Verhoeven? A movie that presents a critical caricature of a world or system that is already deeply problematic, and through this narrative hyperbole sets the thing being criticized into relief, where we can then gawk at it an have all sorts of uncomfortable/fascinated/grossed out/entertained feelings. This is a device that&#8217;s often used in contemporary/postmodern literature, also &#8212; essentially cut your reader off from the predictable world and entrap your reader with a handful of extremely exaggerated features or problems of that world in order to force an existential/moral/ethical/spiritual moment of resolution (see Simic&#8217;s The World Doesn&#8217;t End, Ball&#8217;s March Book, Robinson&#8217;s The Life of a Hunter for examples of this device in poetry). So in a way he&#8217;s a very high-brow artist working in a traditionally low-brow medium (meaning schlocky/melodramatic movies, not the whole of film), which is pretty cool and unique. I would never go on a date with the man, but his movies, Showgirls included, are at the very least historically and culturally important, and force difficult questions on their viewers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gab</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/11/24/reevaluating-showgirls/#comment-13552</link>
		<dc:creator>Gab</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:13:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=11446#comment-13552</guid>
		<description>@Belinkie: Well I can&#039;t say 100% for certain if I&#039;m with you or not because I haven&#039;t seen the movie myself.  As such, I can&#039;t make a valid opinion about Showgirls in particular (I really *should* see it, now, eh?  This is why I read those Meyer books!!!!!!).  However, I can pontificate about how rape as a means of character motivation and for that lone purpose is not okay, but if it is contextualized properly and also making it clear that rape itself is NOT OKAY, then yes, I&#039;m alright with it being in a movie.  I may not like seeing it, it may make me uncomfortable and angry, but not at the movie so much as what the movie is making a statement about.  Word, M-Dog ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Belinkie: Well I can&#8217;t say 100% for certain if I&#8217;m with you or not because I haven&#8217;t seen the movie myself.  As such, I can&#8217;t make a valid opinion about Showgirls in particular (I really *should* see it, now, eh?  This is why I read those Meyer books!!!!!!).  However, I can pontificate about how rape as a means of character motivation and for that lone purpose is not okay, but if it is contextualized properly and also making it clear that rape itself is NOT OKAY, then yes, I&#8217;m alright with it being in a movie.  I may not like seeing it, it may make me uncomfortable and angry, but not at the movie so much as what the movie is making a statement about.  Word, M-Dog ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Belinkie</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/11/24/reevaluating-showgirls/#comment-13527</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Belinkie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 05:44:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=11446#comment-13527</guid>
		<description>@Diana -

I didn&#039;t mean to misrepresent your SVU comments - I was just sort of playing devil&#039;s advocate. You say that TV shows that depict rape make you uncomfortable, and I sort of assumed you were saying that these shows were doing something inappropriate. But on review, you were just saying that they made you uncomfortable. I apologize for misconstruing.

HOWEVER, I&#039;m pretty sure Amelie DID argue that SVU was morally wrong and sexist. That was way up near the top of this epic comment thread.

Moving on: I guess I&#039;m not completely buying that rape isn&#039;t about sex. Yes, absolutely it&#039;s about power and violence, but can&#039;t it ALSO be about sex? Actually, more to the point, I&#039;m not sure I buy ANY blanket statement about what rape is &quot;about.&quot; I think rape, like murder, can be committed for a very broad range of reasons. You allude to the use of rape in ethnic cleansing, but surely you&#039;re not suggesting that ALL rape is a &quot;weapon of war&quot;? Obviously you know more about this stuff then I do, but I&#039;ve got to say, &quot;Rape has nothing to do with sex&quot; doesn&#039;t feel like a true statement to me.

Now, let me see if I can refocus this on Showgirls. This debate began when Amelie said that the rape scene was &quot;sexist&quot; and &quot;gratuitous.&quot; I responded that it didn&#039;t seem gratuitous to me, because the whole movie is about women presenting themselves as sex objects. The rape scene, to me, shows the dangers of that. You, in turn, see that as dangerously close to blaming the victim. Just because women strip and give lapdances does not mean anyone is justified in raping them. Of course I COMPLETELY agree with you. I only meant that giving lapdances raises the probability that you will be sexually assaulted:
http://www.desireealliance.org/Exoticdancersfacerealdangers.htm
However, Molly ISN&#039;T a stripper, which complicates my argument.

My goal here has been to argue that there is nothing &quot;sexist&quot; about the rape scene. So let me test an entirely new argument on you. Forget the idea that the rape is somehow a product of all the stripping. What if the whole POINT is really to show the casino&#039;s reaction to it (nothing)? At the beginning of the film, Nomi sees Cristal Connors and envies her. She&#039;s the toast of Vegas. She SEEMS powerful and respected, right? But the rape reveals the truth to Nomi - women aren&#039;t respected in Vegas, one little bit. It&#039;s a boys club, and she doesn&#039;t have one iota of power. And what good is being the toast of Vegas if she can&#039;t do anything to help her friend?

Whew, I&#039;m exhausted. Could you sort of remind me what your position is, re:Showgirls? Do you hate the movie? Do you object to the rape scene? Would it still be sexist if a women had written the script?

- Matt</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Diana -</p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t mean to misrepresent your SVU comments &#8211; I was just sort of playing devil&#8217;s advocate. You say that TV shows that depict rape make you uncomfortable, and I sort of assumed you were saying that these shows were doing something inappropriate. But on review, you were just saying that they made you uncomfortable. I apologize for misconstruing.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, I&#8217;m pretty sure Amelie DID argue that SVU was morally wrong and sexist. That was way up near the top of this epic comment thread.</p>
<p>Moving on: I guess I&#8217;m not completely buying that rape isn&#8217;t about sex. Yes, absolutely it&#8217;s about power and violence, but can&#8217;t it ALSO be about sex? Actually, more to the point, I&#8217;m not sure I buy ANY blanket statement about what rape is &#8220;about.&#8221; I think rape, like murder, can be committed for a very broad range of reasons. You allude to the use of rape in ethnic cleansing, but surely you&#8217;re not suggesting that ALL rape is a &#8220;weapon of war&#8221;? Obviously you know more about this stuff then I do, but I&#8217;ve got to say, &#8220;Rape has nothing to do with sex&#8221; doesn&#8217;t feel like a true statement to me.</p>
<p>Now, let me see if I can refocus this on Showgirls. This debate began when Amelie said that the rape scene was &#8220;sexist&#8221; and &#8220;gratuitous.&#8221; I responded that it didn&#8217;t seem gratuitous to me, because the whole movie is about women presenting themselves as sex objects. The rape scene, to me, shows the dangers of that. You, in turn, see that as dangerously close to blaming the victim. Just because women strip and give lapdances does not mean anyone is justified in raping them. Of course I COMPLETELY agree with you. I only meant that giving lapdances raises the probability that you will be sexually assaulted:<br />
<a href="http://www.desireealliance.org/Exoticdancersfacerealdangers.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.desireealliance.org/Exoticdancersfacerealdangers.htm</a><br />
However, Molly ISN&#8217;T a stripper, which complicates my argument.</p>
<p>My goal here has been to argue that there is nothing &#8220;sexist&#8221; about the rape scene. So let me test an entirely new argument on you. Forget the idea that the rape is somehow a product of all the stripping. What if the whole POINT is really to show the casino&#8217;s reaction to it (nothing)? At the beginning of the film, Nomi sees Cristal Connors and envies her. She&#8217;s the toast of Vegas. She SEEMS powerful and respected, right? But the rape reveals the truth to Nomi &#8211; women aren&#8217;t respected in Vegas, one little bit. It&#8217;s a boys club, and she doesn&#8217;t have one iota of power. And what good is being the toast of Vegas if she can&#8217;t do anything to help her friend?</p>
<p>Whew, I&#8217;m exhausted. Could you sort of remind me what your position is, re:Showgirls? Do you hate the movie? Do you object to the rape scene? Would it still be sexist if a women had written the script?</p>
<p>- Matt</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Diana</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/11/24/reevaluating-showgirls/#comment-13524</link>
		<dc:creator>Diana</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:36:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=11446#comment-13524</guid>
		<description>Belinkie, I&#039;m not saying that SVU condones rape or that its viewers are pro-rape, and I don&#039;t think any of the words in my original comment indicated that, but what I do think is that it&#039;s not just about the &quot;get the bastard&quot; mentality. There is a reason they go into detail and it&#039;s not just so that we can be extra glad when a guilty verdict comes in. Ditto for violent crime novels and related stuff, and while yes, I certainly could say we should burn down that section of the book store, I don&#039;t remember doing it or thinking it. So to summarize my position as potentially saying we should burn all crime novels is a bit of a leap, don&#039;t you think? It&#039;s just problematic -- not amoral, not a sign that all viewers/readers/consumers of such media are bad. That&#039;s why I was careful to implicate myself in the group I was describing. And yes, I feel this same sense of moral ickiness w/r/t murder and other depictions of violent, amoral acts. Like how we (or at least I, and I would assume all of us who posted on Verhoeven) get a sense of satisfaction from watching gory movies. But that&#039;s part of why such art and media are worthy of scrutiny.

I agree with your point about objectification of women and male awareness of body/sexuality. But again, rape is not about sex, it&#039;s about power and violence (in fact it&#039;s now widely defined as a &quot;weapon of war&quot; by the WHO, UNFPA, and other global health and humanitarian organizations). And it&#039;s also very important that we don&#039;t give anyone a pass for being in a situation where they were &quot;forced&quot; to think of their dongs and then it was somehow &quot;more likely&quot; that they would work themselves into some frenzy that culminated in rape. This is what soldiers in the DRC say after raping 14 year olds with machetes. Like actually -- I had to write a case study on it. Wild dogs we are not, and any &quot;frenzied sexual state&quot; arguments are demeaning both to women who have been assaulted and men who are trying to achieve a nuanced understanding of human sexuality. Thus: linkage, sure. Sufficient  linkage? HELL no.

Remember, too, that this is sticky territory in terms of legal/advocacy progress: while I know you were not making the &quot;she was asking for it&quot; argument, and I would not accuse you of doing so, tracing cause to the activities of the rape survivor in any way is a really fraught direction to go in. After all, it was only maybe 15 years ago -- maybe, and that&#039;s a generous estimate -- that &quot;she was wearing something that made her boobs obvious, thus my client is in no way culpable&quot; was still a largely effective method to use with juries in sexual assault cases in the US. 

So sure, stripping may assist men in maintaining and justifying the really messed up ideas about woman they bring to the situation, but it is not enough to put any new ones in their heads -- and definitely not enough to inspire rape.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Belinkie, I&#8217;m not saying that SVU condones rape or that its viewers are pro-rape, and I don&#8217;t think any of the words in my original comment indicated that, but what I do think is that it&#8217;s not just about the &#8220;get the bastard&#8221; mentality. There is a reason they go into detail and it&#8217;s not just so that we can be extra glad when a guilty verdict comes in. Ditto for violent crime novels and related stuff, and while yes, I certainly could say we should burn down that section of the book store, I don&#8217;t remember doing it or thinking it. So to summarize my position as potentially saying we should burn all crime novels is a bit of a leap, don&#8217;t you think? It&#8217;s just problematic &#8212; not amoral, not a sign that all viewers/readers/consumers of such media are bad. That&#8217;s why I was careful to implicate myself in the group I was describing. And yes, I feel this same sense of moral ickiness w/r/t murder and other depictions of violent, amoral acts. Like how we (or at least I, and I would assume all of us who posted on Verhoeven) get a sense of satisfaction from watching gory movies. But that&#8217;s part of why such art and media are worthy of scrutiny.</p>
<p>I agree with your point about objectification of women and male awareness of body/sexuality. But again, rape is not about sex, it&#8217;s about power and violence (in fact it&#8217;s now widely defined as a &#8220;weapon of war&#8221; by the WHO, UNFPA, and other global health and humanitarian organizations). And it&#8217;s also very important that we don&#8217;t give anyone a pass for being in a situation where they were &#8220;forced&#8221; to think of their dongs and then it was somehow &#8220;more likely&#8221; that they would work themselves into some frenzy that culminated in rape. This is what soldiers in the DRC say after raping 14 year olds with machetes. Like actually &#8212; I had to write a case study on it. Wild dogs we are not, and any &#8220;frenzied sexual state&#8221; arguments are demeaning both to women who have been assaulted and men who are trying to achieve a nuanced understanding of human sexuality. Thus: linkage, sure. Sufficient  linkage? HELL no.</p>
<p>Remember, too, that this is sticky territory in terms of legal/advocacy progress: while I know you were not making the &#8220;she was asking for it&#8221; argument, and I would not accuse you of doing so, tracing cause to the activities of the rape survivor in any way is a really fraught direction to go in. After all, it was only maybe 15 years ago &#8212; maybe, and that&#8217;s a generous estimate &#8212; that &#8220;she was wearing something that made her boobs obvious, thus my client is in no way culpable&#8221; was still a largely effective method to use with juries in sexual assault cases in the US. </p>
<p>So sure, stripping may assist men in maintaining and justifying the really messed up ideas about woman they bring to the situation, but it is not enough to put any new ones in their heads &#8212; and definitely not enough to inspire rape.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Belinkie</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/11/24/reevaluating-showgirls/#comment-13496</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Belinkie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:52:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=11446#comment-13496</guid>
		<description>@Amelie - I&#039;m not saying that striptease is wrong. I am saying that when women are judged ONLY by their worth as sex objects, then yeah, that creates an environment in which men feel entitled to their bodies.

- Matt</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Amelie &#8211; I&#8217;m not saying that striptease is wrong. I am saying that when women are judged ONLY by their worth as sex objects, then yeah, that creates an environment in which men feel entitled to their bodies.</p>
<p>- Matt</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Wrather</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/11/24/reevaluating-showgirls/#comment-13489</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Wrather</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:05:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=11446#comment-13489</guid>
		<description>Finally we agree!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Finally we agree!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: callot</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/11/24/reevaluating-showgirls/#comment-13487</link>
		<dc:creator>callot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:09:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=11446#comment-13487</guid>
		<description>I think Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and every other post-structuralist would disagree with you about people being manipulated for most of history.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and every other post-structuralist would disagree with you about people being manipulated for most of history.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Wrather</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/11/24/reevaluating-showgirls/#comment-13486</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Wrather</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=11446#comment-13486</guid>
		<description>Again, Andre, you&#039;re painting with too broad a brush. There is not a thousand year period in human history when people (which people? where?) were universally stupid and easily hoodwinked.

But now we&#039;re way off topic. This is why this site needs discussion forums. Jeez. Who the hell is in charge around here?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Again, Andre, you&#8217;re painting with too broad a brush. There is not a thousand year period in human history when people (which people? where?) were universally stupid and easily hoodwinked.</p>
<p>But now we&#8217;re way off topic. This is why this site needs discussion forums. Jeez. Who the hell is in charge around here?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amelie</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/11/24/reevaluating-showgirls/#comment-13484</link>
		<dc:creator>Amelie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:14:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=11446#comment-13484</guid>
		<description>Matt, 
I don&#039;t like censorship, so they can show rape as often and as explicitly as they like. I also don&#039;t think that strip-tease (or prostitution, for that matter) is wrong. Your argument presupposes that it is wrong of women to dance for male pleasure outside of love or marriage. I, for one, like to look good for men. But rape is not the next logical step. 
-A</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt,<br />
I don&#8217;t like censorship, so they can show rape as often and as explicitly as they like. I also don&#8217;t think that strip-tease (or prostitution, for that matter) is wrong. Your argument presupposes that it is wrong of women to dance for male pleasure outside of love or marriage. I, for one, like to look good for men. But rape is not the next logical step.<br />
-A</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Belinkie</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/11/24/reevaluating-showgirls/#comment-13482</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Belinkie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:00:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=11446#comment-13482</guid>
		<description>@Mike - At the top of the page is a &quot;Contact Us&quot; link. You&#039;ll find our email addresses there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Mike &#8211; At the top of the page is a &#8220;Contact Us&#8221; link. You&#8217;ll find our email addresses there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
