don't confuse me with the other poster. i never said anything about you being any of those things. you complained earlier about words being put in your mouth, i believe? well, you're doing that.

jamie is portrayed as a reprehensible person the rest of the series? even the rest of the episode? or do they frame and focus some of these rape scenes in a way so that the aggressors may later be deemed sympathetic/the audience can identify with them later, when the story calls for it and we are asked to forget that…

i don't intend this to be insulting or demeaning, but i can't think of a better way to say it. but are you familiar with some of the baseline arguments in the original article? do you know what "male gaze" is, and have you any familiarity with film criticism that focuses on the movements of the camera and how that…

i do not believe that any dress code, short perhaps of unisex head-to-toe uniforms, could actually "reduce" "distractions." and if the original argument was to prepare children for the adult world, well, life is full of distractions, better learn to work within it? or, childhood and adulthood are different and one…

nothing will stop that. they'll always find something to snicker and point at.

oh yes, i see.

i think the storytellers (both) focus on the "situational" badness of rape or the victims, because later in the story he needs the rapist character to be sympathetic in completely different situations. so the attackers are not absolved in any sense, but their brutality isn't the focus of the scenes, so that the…

"people" who? i didn't call you stupid. i will say i think you're being dishonest, possibly with yourself, in how often you are switching up your argument. it makes you appear, to borrow a phrase from you, to be grasping at straws, any straws, any string, to prove this article "wrong" when really, it's an article for…

"The camera is ALWAYS on the victim in this show - be they raped or head smooshed into the ground, because watching their reaction is a terrifying icky thing."

there are plenty of times in violent scenes where the camera is on the perpetrator, showing rippling muscles, well-framed faces that exude determination, heroism, or guilt or pain or whatever else the story is conveying. when you don't even see the victims' faces AT ALL.

who are the codes protecting, though? other children, or adults? because tbh from a fashion standpoint i don't even have an issue with a speedo in a classroom. coldness or chafing should teach the kid that's not an every-day kind of look. but who cares. they are kids. they can worry about the rest of the world later.…

the evidence, whether you agree with it or not, was very well-presented in the above article...

"not watching the same show" followed by "my opinion differs but is still valid"

can i ask you to consider not being a dick, please?

or, since their life choices will obviously be so limited and crushed by the realities of adult living... maybe we let them wear whatever the fuck they want until there's a real reason to conform to social standards? it's not like one needs to practice for 4 years to understand how to wear khakis.

where is the camera? on the victim or on the rapist?

you're not the boss of us.

the scenes are staged to show how brutal the situations are. not how brutal the rapists are. the focus on the victims and the "situations" allows for titillation without having to confront the idea that the situations are created by brutal men acting brutally, and to delve into that.

i've definitely heard of 12-year-olds who raped another child being tried as adults.

the idea of an eternal spirit or ghost is terrifying and awful. YOU KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE HBO GO WHEREVER THEY ARE, RIGHT?