To prevent any more tarding up in the other thread and ruining everyone else's new year I'm putting this here for WOWS chatter about all things misogyny.

Obviously Sorsese and crew are not trying show how awesome Belfort was as a human being but the excesses of the movie brings into question how much responsibility a director and their crew have in creating a film that is sensitive to those that presently face discrimination in society in a similar manner to the discrimination depicted in the film.

I am of the opinion that intentions don't really matter that much because you can intend not to make film that discriminates but still end up creating a film that is discriminatory simply due to your ignorance of the topic at hand. We can't really expect a rich, white, old man to have any inherent insight into topics such as racism, sexism, or financial devastation and it's entirely possible for him to have created a movie that goes to far through no fault of his own. I'm sure he's a nice guy and has lots of poor, black, female friends.

Feel free to discuss anything in regards to this topic. For myself I want to request one clarification from Dominic. In the previous thread you stated:

To coerce someone is to physically force (or threaten with physical force) someone into acting with your wishes. In the context of sexual desires, coercing someone into having sex with you is most certainly rape and as far as I know western law does not allow marriage to be a get out of jail free card for sexual coercion. Married men can still be charged for rape given the same set of acts of a non married man, marriage has no bearing on legal distinction between rape and consensual sex.

I really hope that Dom misspoke and meant to use something a little less aggressive, like cajole, beg, or influence. The sterotype of the wife having a headache and the man whining until he convinces his wife is not coercion. Changing someone's mind before the act is not rape, having someone change their mind when they are in the middle of the act is a much more grey area because the person likely just changed their mind to avoid an escalation of physical violence. The Jezebel article claimed that WOWS depicted the latter and the rape scene was actually depicting rape.

I am not sure what riverboatking and serioussam were on about but this thread is open for their debate to.

I don't care about any of that.......I just thought it was a great enjoyable movie. I could write about how my Christmas tree dying is a metaphor for my year ending and my relationship with my loved ones once had the excitement of the new tree smell. Oh squiggly line....

Scorsese has never judged his characters. Also, the omission of any perspective from the victims of Belfort' s actions was a conscious choice to amplify the narcissistic nature of the characters and the story. The title says it all really. this film is about the wolves, not the sheep. Full Metal Jacket and Dr. Strangelove spring to mind as comparisons. Don't expect the filmmaker to hold your hand by moralizing the story in a way that has no place in the world he creates, and in this case would actually contradict the facts as they happened in real life. Belfort as I understand it did reap very little tangible consequence considering the scope of his sins. If that upsets you, maybe it really should. maybe that's kind of the point.

All that analysis and debate aside, what a spectacle and what a greatly entertaining film from one of the true legends of the cinema (with a performance from Leo that is absolutely INSPIRED).

Since he put so much effort in into the OP, I will answer his question:

Yes, "coerce" was not the proper term. Howabout "cajole?"

WoWS is the story of an a**hole told by an a**hole, and that's not a bad thing

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jordanzakari...ld-by?s=mobile

there is no case to be made, just as there was no rape scene. so, yeah. you and anyone who thinks there was such a scene are just... i don't know. but it isn't worth discussing.

Wow, you guys really fell for Hobby's ridiculous bait, hook line and sinker. What a joke.

aaaah, is that where this ridiculous nonsense arises? ha, trolls gonna troll.

I thought the movie sucked. There was no point, it was just 2 hours of Leo being a narcissistic party boy that liked to chew ludes like skittles.

I would much rather watch boiler room than this.

Actually it was 2 hrs 59 mins. That probably makes it worse. I kinda felt the same and put my comments in the 2013 movies thread. Helicopter coming off the boat was pretty awesome though I must say.

Is this thread a joke?

If you didn't enjoy the ride, then I don't know what to say. I say, BRAVO!

I made this thread so that the people talking about mysoginy in wows would stop tarding up the other thread.

I thought we could get some interesting discussion but the conversation has seemed to run its course.

My OP was mainly just there to summarize the conversation in the other thread not make the case for either option. It's too bad the conversation didn't go anywhere but that's not too surprising since each side thinks they were being trolled.

After the "rape scene" she said, "That's the last time we ever have sex." /thread

I am trying to figure out what you think this addresses. There is really only one response that addresses the criticism of the jezebel article and that would be that she gives consent before they have intercourse.

The whole point of the jezebel article is that the majority of rape is not perpetrated by jump out of the bushes type rapists as depicted in the Girl with a Dragon Tattoo. Marital Rape is a type of rape that isn't discussed often, same with submissive consent (aka rape).

First, I do find the insistence of some posters that that scene was not rape a bit weird. To me the scene clearly, if nothing else, had a rapey vibe, and I think those saying it didn't might want to watch it again. That said, what does it matter? I agree with what Clovis said in the movie thread:

I guess the debate whether it was rape or not is good for discussing the definition of rape, but I don't see how it has anything to do with the quality of the movie. I also don't think the movie was misogynistic.

Finally and more importantly, I'm (almost) as panegyric about the movie as Vixticator. I'm not sure i can agree (yet) that it's Scorsese's best, but it for sure is the best of 2013 that I've seen, and the most excited I've been about a movie since Enter the Void.

And it did have some impressive competition this year - especially Blue Is the Warmest Color and The Act of Killing, which I think are also close to perfect. Also Post Tenebras Lux (which came out in festivals in 2012 but I had no chance of watching it until this year).

did you actually watch the girl with the dragon tattoo?
cuz the rapes in that movie are nothing like you describe.
and in fact in the first rape (oral) the dude basically extorts her into blowing him it's not a physical coercion.

It's been a while, but he extorts her for oral and once he gets her to his house he jumps out of the metaphorical bushes and butt rapes her correct?

But it's kind of the beside the point I was making. Some rapes are far more obviously rape than others. Some include violent resistance, a lot don't. A lot of them are victims submitting to people that are known to them and are written off as something they just stomach to get it over with.

gotcha

That Jezebel article is ****ing terrible, and the comments are even worse. But that's nothing compared to this.

neither obviously

holy **** that might be the stupidest thing i've ever read.

whats really ironic about so many hardcore "feminists" is how intolerable they are of other women's viewpoints if they differ from their own.

Care to elaborate?

elaborate on what?
i understood your explanation wrt the rape scenes in the girl with the dragon tattoo.

Ok I see, I just misunderstood