you are so incapable of basic comprehension and logic it's incredible.

You are so incapable of basic intelligence and insight it's remarkable.

Simple indeed. Go away please.

Great movie. Belfort, while persuasive and good at making money, seemed like a pretty unintelligent guy. And I didin't see a rape scene in the movie, it seemed to me like Belforts wife just thought "**** it, let him **** me one last time and I'll never see him again".

Of course once you are being raped you are going to do whatever you can to get through it. The whole point of the jezebel article that started all this is that if do not give consent and your husband forces himself on you anyway, it's still rape even if you later imply some kind of consent. The reason they make that argument is because when you are in the middle of being sexually assaulted you are going to do whatever you can to make sure the perpetrator doesn't further escalate the sexual violence. The jezebel article wanted to raise awareness that marital rape is often not reported by the victims because they can get themselves in the mindset of the dutiful wife and "get through it" one more time.

Anyway we are kind of going around in circles and we are just getting a lot of avoidance and downplaying of the scene so I am just going to leave this here hopefully it will clear it up for those still confused. Seriously, having outdated views of rape is also dangerous to those who might feel like they aren't doing anything wrong but are just ignorant of the law.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...rd=1&word=rape


Md. Court Rules Women Can Withdraw Sexual Consent

The morons and the Men's Rights Advocates who talk about how men are truly the victims aren't worth responding to, but in any event I have responded to them in some cases. You espoused a particularly problematic viewpoint that I chose to attack.

The post in question, in its entirety:

The bolded is toxic bull****. It's a form of victim blaming and contributes to behaviors such as women not reporting rape (or worse, harming themselves) because afterwards they regret "not having fought harder".

Ok, I'm going to say "maybe". BUT, she gave absolutely no physical resistance. Leonardo was on top of her, but it was not clear that she was restrained. He made no physical threats. And then she explicitly gave verbal consent. IANAL, but I'm pretty damn sure this wouldn't be cut and dry rape if the video were shown in court.

She may well have felt threatened and may have felt restrained, but that is far from clear. She did say 'no' and 'I hate you' and there was definitely a good 15 seconds in there where he absolutely should have stopped until she consented or relented or gave up or w/e and then he should still have stopped but she was actually ****ing him at that point.

I can't quite remember how they started and how she got under him. Did he push her down? Were they just lying next to each other and he rolled over?

I'm pretty sure it literally cuts from standing to ****ing, or some equally extreme variation of that.

That omission is everything.

And of course I don't think a woman has to get herself beaten to a pulp for it to count as rape. But, to take a position to an extreme just to try to show the borderline is not absolutely clear, if in the middle of sex one party says 'stop' and the other party takes 0.5 seconds to stop, that's not 0.5 seconds of rape. And in a relationship there is some initial implied consent. If my wife is lying next to me, I can roll over on top of her and it's not a sexual assault. (yes, if she ever had said 'get off' I would) If I did that to a stranger, I'd be in trouble instantly.

And, that doesn't mean there's no such thing as rape in marriage, just that it's possible for it to be fuzzy and for reasonable people to disagree.

The scene goes like this:

He asks for sex she says no stop it. It jump cuts to them having sex. She says I ****ing hate you Jordan get off me. He says you know how much I love you. Then she's like fine you wanna **** me then come for me like it's the last time. It not like he pulled out when she told him to get off her and they had a conversation about consent. She submit to him because he's completely capable if further escalating the sexual violence and we see this almost immediately after when he slaps her and then punches her.

Now, I'm pretty sure this would hold up in court as rape given the legal definitions I posted above but it's very likely that Belfort would get a lesser degree of rape charged against him as he's not a
Jump out of the bushes type rapist but it would still be rape.

Anyway I hope you sort your confusion about the definition of consent for the sake of your safety and the safety of others.

We don't know what happened in the cut. She could have consented and then changed her mind, or he could have forced himself on her. We simply don't know.

How do you know this is why she submits to him? She seemed more annoyed than scared/abused to me.

The violence that came next wasn't sexual.

how on earth can you make that assumption based on something that happened after the fact?
we don't see any evidence whatsoever of him being physically abusive towards her before.
in fact even when she provokes him to his most extreme anger up to that point (repeatedly pouring water on him) he doesn't do anything physical. at no point in the movie did she ever show any fear or intimidation and she clearly didn't feel threatened sexually before that, she made a whole big show of how she and she alone controlled the sex in the relationship in the scene in the baby's room.

those don't seem to be the actions of someone in fear of their partner.
would someone so afraid of their partners violent sexual capabilities taunt him and try to arouse him in such a way?
your assumptions are way off base and somewhat hypocritical given what we're shown of their relationship / dynamic.
she is clearly NOT a woman living in fear of her husband in any way shape or form. if anything it seems as if she has way more power both physically and psychologically up to that point.

no one is apologizing for rape or blaming the victim ITT we're just saying it's not "clearly rape" as u and others keep asserting.
your time would be better spent in the "Steubenville rape" thread where ****ing sickos are ACTUALLY blaming the victims and defending the rapists in what is an absolutely horrific act of sexual violence.

Who knew 'no' was such a hard word to understand?

That's not right. I never have and never will come anywhere near having sex with someone without their full consent and participation. A much greater threat to safety is me beating someone up for implying that I'm a rapist.

The hitting is after and she hit him first , not that that exonerates him, but it makes it further removed from the sex.

Isn't anyone around her a lawyer? My brother is a judge, but he pretty much never goes to the movies.

Film Crit Hulk discussion on rape (not WOWS related):

http://badassdigest.com/2013/11/14/w...lk-about-rape/

Probably worth a read because he worked in a rape crisis center and has firsthand knowledge of what victims go through post-rape.

NSFW

Every F bomb in WoWS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jT4...e_gdata_player

Complete derail here. Why the hell did he tell his captain to sail to monaco into a typhoon, when he had a helicopter sitting on deck. If he was in NW Italy, which seems to be the only possible location when this part of the film starts, he could have flown to Switzerland, or at least to somewhere where he could then take a train to Switzerland, and be there in plenty of time.

Or am I missing something?

MM MD

I guess some of the ambiguity of the scene may come from Belfort acting like a little boy in a lot of scenes. He´s just so rotten on the inside, but both the boyish looks/charms and all the smooth talk go a long way. I think this is a little boy kind of rape, with no physical violence involved and some soft speaking when the victim reacts in a negative way. For those of you wondering wether this is actually rape, just look at the reaction of both Belfort and his soon to be ex wife after the act. You may also want to compare it to the first sex scene between the two of them. The difference between those two scenes is massive.

I don´t have any kind of a doubt as to wether this is a rape scene, but I think it´s pretty funny how people focus on this scene when Belfort himself has been subject to sexual violence in the very same movie (hint: s/m hooker ignoring the safe word and just going on with torturing him).

Let´s also not forget that Belfort himself alluded to the fact that his core business is some sort of rape as well. Just look at all sexual innuendo in Belfort´s body language when he shows his people how to sell garbage to a customer.

I thought the same thing after watching this movie, I am not sure why.

Movie is pointless. There is an attempt at the end to "make a point". When Belfort asks the audience at his selling seminar to "sell me this pen" and he goes from person to person as each fails, the idea is guys like Belfort will ALWAYS exist until people can sell the pen just as well as he can; as long as the average person is a sheep, there will be wolves.

If you want to see a good movie on Wall Street schemers, checkout Arbitrage with Richard Gere, (and don't let any anti-Gere bias dissuade you he is awesome in it).

Richard Gere is "pointless".

I agree that Arbitrage is a better film. So is Margin Call.