- This topic has 25,813 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You need the magical mushroom to talk to the tree, tho! *twitch*
In addition, Merlin who was trapped in that tree was able to connect with Emma, Arthur and the apprentice without a mushroom, but “it doesn’t matter”.
[adrotate group="5"]"All your questions are pointless"
You need the magical mushroom to talk to the tree, tho! *twitch*
In addition, Merlin who was trapped in that tree was able to connect with Emma, Arthur and the apprentice without a mushroom, but “it doesn’t matter”.
Of course it doesn’t matter because your questions are pointless.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Just had a thought which will probably never happen. What if instead of making the brothers in that casting call Jekyll and Hyde they make Hook Jekyll and Hyde.
At the minute Hook’s Hyde side is in control, hence why he’s always trying tick a fight with Rumple, why he’s such a skeezy guy etc. However, when everyone was sent into the AU FTL where they’re roles were reversed (Snow became the EQ, Regina became Snow) that’s when Hook’s Jekyll side came out.
This will probably never happen because Hook is too much a creator’s pet at this point but it gives the option for what little redeeming qualities Hook has to come to the fore and for the less liked qualities to be removed. Or just do what happened on Buffy where Xander was split in two and you had the confident Xander who takes what he wants and the timid Xander who was basically Xander’s insecurities rolled up in one.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of Felix@POM it’s a nice thought but it’s one of those times when we–the audience–think about the show on a deeper level than the actual writers.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I also just watched clips at first, but eventually i saw the whole thing in hopes of understanding how Neal gets back etc.
Anyway,
I don’t think Hook was written to be
a rapist or anything. This was never the reason ratings went down. Ratings went down because Hook became really boring and ouat became a boyfriend/girlfriend highschool drama which is exactly like every single other show on TV, so that ouat was no longer unique.Even when we first meet him he takes Arora’s heart which is low, yet he saves it from the portal to SB. So he’s a villain but sort of chivalrous. So why does his character rub me the wrong way?
It is interesting to note that an antonym for chivalry is humbleness. And I think there is pretty much ONE WORD that would describe the Pirate Hook: conceited. He truely believes with all his heart that HE is the greatest thing that happened to the world.
Interestingly, another character on ouat with the complete opposite attitude is Mr. Gold. He is as humble as they come. And very possibly the reason Killian hated Rumple so much when they first met. When someone as pompous as that meets someone as tentative as Rumple, there is bound to be friction. In the playground, children who are arrogant usually pick on the timid ones. This is where bullying starts.
It is also interesting that some people are drawn to humble men in real life even though in movies it’s the cocky men who get the girl.
As written in the Daily Mail
When Hook behaves with chivalry he does it because HE, the Great Captain, deems this insignificant mortal fortunate enough to be rescued by his important self. In other words, he does “good” for his own ego, not because anyone is deserving of his kindness.
Meanwhile, Rumple sees himself as insignificant. So when Hook “took his wife” it was totally against his very nature to so to Hook’s ship and ask for his wife back. Hook sensed it right away, he sensed that here is a man who is “standing up” to him, yet he is timid and terrified and totally out of his comfort zone, so he “picks” on him. A perfect target for bullying. And when this unimprtant little coward came back as the Dark One, it was extremely offensive to Hook. Especially since he DARED kill someone that was part of to the Great and Amazing Captain Killian Jones!
So, no, Killypoo would NEVER rape a woman, he is too Umazing to ever have to FORCE himself on anyone. Women are supposed to flock towards him by the droves, it’s beneath him to EVA have the need to *force* anyone to do anything with him
Meanwhile, poor, worthless Rumple must save his child from the snake bite, and to do that he must KILL. now, everyone knows that murder is a terrible thing, but since Rumple is anyway a worthless piece of garbage, he doesn’t see anything wrong with him self killing someone… HOWEVER, his child is GOD! his child must have the best! So even though he, himself, wouldn’t matter to anyone, he must still be “good”, not because he is worthy of being good, but because his child is worthy of having good parents.
It is also interesting that some people are drawn to humble men in real life even though in movies it’s the cocky men who get the girl.
That’s rape culture. Men, to get the girl who doesn’t know her own mind and resists the guy, must be aggressive and in the end, the woman is grateful because she simply didn’t know what she wanted and the relationship was “inevitable” all along.
So, no, Killypoo would NEVER rape a woman, he is too Umazing to ever have to FORCE himself on anyone. Women are supposed to flock towards him by the droves, it’s beneath him to EVA have the need to *force* anyone to do anything with him
What you’re describing—that’s rape in the very limited and traditional sense. There are different types but because it’s so sensitive and so polarizing, it often gets softened so that the non-traditional forms of rape are called something else. For example, we talk about wonky consent here at the forums. In the traditional sense, Hook never raped anyone. But they did establish, in canon, that Hook got women drunk, as–in his words–“a tactic”, to take them back to the JR for sex. We can quibble, until the cows come home, over what to call it.
The problem is that the writers don’t realize that these “wonky consent” problems are just different forms of rape. Arthur and Guinevere is an example of a roofie–a literal mind altering drug that makes her more pliable. Zelena and Robin, Graham and Regina are examples of “magical” rape because the victims (Robin, Graham) aren’t in their right mind or don’t know the whole story or had their choices taken away from them.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"It is also interesting that some people are drawn to humble men in real life even though in movies it’s the cocky men who get the girl.
That’s rape culture. Men, to get the girl who doesn’t know her own mind and resists the guy, must be aggressive and in the end, the woman is grateful because she simply didn’t know what she wanted and the relationship was “inevitable” all along.
The biggest reason why I hate 3B so much along with the fact that 3B had no climax and Emma was treated as a huge mcGuffin.
"All your questions are pointless"
In the traditional sense, Hook never raped anyone. But they did establish, in canon, that Hook got women drunk, as–in his words–“a tactic”, to take them back to the JR for sex. We can quibble, until the cows come home, over what to call it.
There’s another aspect to this as well though. If Hook was getting these women drunk on the sly aka they didn’t know they were drinking alcohol and Hook was slipping some into their non-alcoholic drink, then that is clearly wonky consent and shame on Hook for doing so.
But if these women are willingly consuming alcohol and then drunkenly make the choice to go back to a guy’s place for sex but then regret it in the morning, where does that fall on the consent scale?
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixIn the traditional sense, Hook never raped anyone. But they did establish, in canon, that Hook got women drunk, as–in his words–“a tactic”, to take them back to the JR for sex. We can quibble, until the cows come home, over what to call it.
There’s another aspect to this as well though. If Hook was getting these women drunk on the sly aka they didn’t know they were drinking alcohol and Hook was slipping some into their non-alcoholic drink, then that is clearly wonky consent and shame on Hook for doing so. But if these women are willingly consuming alcohol and then drunkenly make the choice to go back to a guy’s place for sex but then regret it in the morning, where does that fall on the consent scale?
It’s a good question, and no lies, I have very little in the way of an answer. I think it’s a case by case basis. Different people react to level of alcohol differently (which is why this sort of storytelling shouldn’t be inserted into the show willy nilly without exploring what it means)
From my, admittedly bias reading, Hook is getting these women drunk for the deliberate end of sex. He knows that he is charming, charismatic, and handsome. He believes that women will be flattered by his attention, drinking alongside him and then going back to the JR for sex. The women may even agree to go with him–but how much of that agreement is based on lowed inhibitions and poor decision making because of the alcohol Hook is giving them? Then who is really to blame? You can say Hook in which he might be labeled a rapist, even if not in the most traditional and limited sense. But if you say the woman then it can be seen as victim blaming. For me, the blame is placed on the former not the latter. Our culture teaches women “don’t get raped” instead of teaching men “don’t rape.” It shouldn’t matter how much women drink and what they say/do while drunk, you shouldn’t take advantage of that; if your intention is to get them drunk enough so that they “consent” (quotation marks very much deliberate) to sex, then you’re guilty of a crime.
This is why rape and wonky consent is such a problematic conversation that has to be discussed with great respect because it’s so hard to approach a situation like this as purely one thing or not.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"It shouldn’t matter how much women drink and what they say/do while drunk, you shouldn’t take advantage of that; if your intention is to get them drunk enough so that they “consent” (quotation marks very much deliberate) to sex, then you’re guilty of a crime.
I’ll chime in here. This is very important what RG said. If a guy’s intentions are to get them drunk so that they will be more likely to consent, that is wrong. But, if they are drinking and there were no preconceived motivations to have sex with her beforehand, and it just happens because the girl is drunk, that’s not wrong. That’s called sloppy sex and consequently, the walk of shame the next morning.
The topic ‘Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire’ is closed to new replies.