Page 25 of 36 [ 575 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 ... 36  Next

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,675
Location: Stendec

22 Jun 2021, 3:31 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
It's interesting how often people seem to think it's not political because I've never perceived it as political.  Or the related logical failing things weren't political before I became politically aware.
Exactly.
Also Related: "Nothing was fattening before I went on a diet" or "Nothing was sinful before I became a Christian".


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 5,975
Location: The Oort Cloud

22 Jun 2021, 3:36 pm

Fnord wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
It's interesting how often people seem to think it's not political because I've never perceived it as political.  Or the related logical failing things weren't political before I became politically aware.
Exactly.
Also Related: "Nothing was fattening before I went on a diet" or "Nothing was sinful before I became a Christian".


It's also telling the extent to which we as a society have been conditioned to perceive the world through the lens of being a white cishet male.

If it's something white cishet men like or agree with, then it's not "political." But if it's something white cishet men dont like or can't relate to, then it's "political."


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,675
Location: Stendec

22 Jun 2021, 3:45 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Fnord wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
It's interesting how often people seem to think it's not political because I've never perceived it as political.  Or the related logical failing things weren't political before I became politically aware.
Exactly.
Also Related: "Nothing was fattening before I went on a diet" or "Nothing was sinful before I became a Christian".
It's also telling the extent to which we as a society have been conditioned to perceive the world through the lens of being a white cishet male.  If it's something white cishet men like or agree with, then it's not "political." But if it's something white cishet men dont like or can't relate to, then it's "political."
In broader terms, "It was never a problem until those <<derogatory term for victim group>> made it one."

Taking up two parking spaces?  "It was never a problem until those whining cripples made it one."

Schoolyard bullying?  "It was never a problem until those crybaby wimps made it one."

Verbal abuse?  "It was never a problem until those politically-correct snowflakes made it one."


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,212

22 Jun 2021, 4:41 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Women being on display as nothing but "tits and ass" is still "political," it's just politics that straight men enjoy.


Huh?


Objectifying women is "political."

Presenting women as primarily being sex objects is "political."

It's just that straight men enjoy these "politics," so they don't complain about it.


Yes I remember the term "jiggle TV". I don't dispute the tactic of drawing a straight male audience by using attractive women to play those roles. However it was also a trade-off. The Angels also fought crime and bashed the crap out of bad guys. However, now that i think of it whether it be Lindsay Wagner or Linda Carter, even the way they fought crime was sexualised. Alas.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,068
Location: canada

23 Jun 2021, 1:20 am

IsabellaLinton wrote:
Also, because we've learned from people like Harvey Weinstein that those beautiful women were abused, controlled, and exploited by male execs to get their roles. They were treated like chattel, for their dollar value.


But I don't think that all women in movies that played sexualized characters were abused though. There are women actresses who have played such roles and have had good things to say about them. Halle Berry for example said she enjoyed being a Bond girl, in an interview, and it seems she was never abused. So I think you can have women play sexualized characters without them being abused, or without them falling under that same unbrellla.



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,560
Location: Brisbane, Australia

23 Jun 2021, 2:47 am

ironpony wrote:
But I don't think that all women in movies that played sexualized characters were abused though. There are women actresses who have played such roles and have had good things to say about them. Halle Berry for example said she enjoyed being a Bond girl, in an interview, and it seems she was never abused. So I think you can have women play sexualized characters without them being abused, or without them falling under that same unbrellla.


Is someone saying that all women that play sexualised characters were abused?

It is not about every case. It isn't about what specific things they said in some specific interview. It matters that there is a trend of actors/actresses being abused and pretty much a piece of meat. There is nothing even wrong about women playing sexualised characters, but it still should be known that there are some sketchy things that happen.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,068
Location: canada

23 Jun 2021, 2:53 am

Oh okay, but it's just that people object to the characterization of the fictional character. Why punish the fictional characters, just because some actors were abused here, and there unfortunately... But that doesn't mean the fictional characters sould suffer as a result in their sexual portrayal, does it?



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,513
Location: Long Island, New York

23 Jun 2021, 6:14 am

How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory

Quote:
Remote work turned out to be advantageous for people looking to leak information to reporters. Instructions that once might have been given in conversation now often had to be written down and beamed from one home office to another. Holding a large meeting on Zoom often required e-mailing supporting notes and materials—more documents to leak. Before the pandemic, if you thought that an anti-racism seminar at your workplace had gone awry, you had to be both brave and sneaky to record it. At home, it was so much easier. Zoom allowed you to record and take screenshots, and if you were worried that such actions could be traced you could use your cell phone, or your spouse’s cell phone, or your friend’s. Institutions that had previously seemed impenetrable have been pried open: Amazon, the I.R.S., the U.S. Treasury. But some less obviously tectonic leaks have had a more direct political effect, as was the case in July, 2020, when an employee of the city of Seattle documented an anti-bias training session and sent the evidence to a journalist named Christopher F. Rufo, who read it and recognized a political opportunity.

Rufo, thirty-six, was at once an unconventional and a savvy choice for the leaker to select. Raised by Italian immigrants in Sacramento and educated at Georgetown, Rufo had spent his twenties and early thirties working as a documentary filmmaker. In 2015, Rufo began work on a film for PBS that traced the experience of poverty in three American cities, and in the course of filming Rufo became convinced that poverty was not something that could be alleviated with a policy lever but was deeply embedded in “social, familial, even psychological” dynamics, and his politics became more explicitly conservative. Returning home to Seattle, where his wife worked for Microsoft, Rufo got a small grant from a regional, conservative think tank to report on homelessness, and then ran an unsuccessful campaign for city council, in 2018. His work so outraged Seattle’s homelessness activists that, during his election campaign, someone plastered his photo and home address on utility poles around his neighborhood. When Rufo received the anti-bias documents from the city of Seattle, he knew how to spot political kindling. These days, “I’m a brawler,” Rufo told me cheerfully.

Through foia requests, Rufo turned up slideshows and curricula for the Seattle anti-racism seminars. Under the auspices of the city’s Office for Civil Rights, employees across many departments were being divided up by race for implicit-bias training. (“Welcome: Internalized Racial Superiority for White People,” read one introductory slide, over an image of the Seattle skyline.) “What do we do in white people space?” read a second slide. One bullet point suggested that the attendees would be “working through emotions that often come up for white people like sadness, shame, paralysis, confusion, denial.” Another bullet point emphasized “retraining,” learning new “ways of seeing that are hidden from us in white supremacy.” A different slide listed supposed expressions of internalized white supremacy, including perfectionism, objectivity, and individualism. Rufo summarized his findings in an article for the Web site of City Journal, the magazine of the center-right Manhattan Institute: “Under the banner of ‘antiracism,’ Seattle’s Office of Civil Rights is now explicitly endorsing principles of segregationism, group-based guilt, and race essentialism—ugly concepts that should have been left behind a century ago.”

The story was a phenomenon and helped to generate more leaks from across the country. Marooned at home, civil servants recorded and photographed their own anti-racism training sessions and sent the evidence to Rufo. Reading through these documents, and others, Rufo noticed that they tended to cite a small set of popular anti-racism books, by authors such as Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo. Rufo read the footnotes in those books, and found that they pointed to academic scholarship from the nineteen-nineties, by a group of legal scholars who referred to their work as critical race theory, in particular Kimberlé Crenshaw and Derrick Bell. These scholars argued that the white supremacy of the past lived on in the laws and societal rules of the present. As Crenshaw recently explained, critical race theory found that “the so-called American dilemma was not simply a matter of prejudice but a matter of structured disadvantages that stretched across American society.”

This inquiry, into the footnotes and citations in the documents he’d been sent, formed the basis for an idea that has organized cultural politics this spring: that the anti-racism seminars did not just represent a progressive view on race but that they were expressions of a distinct ideology—critical race theory—with radical roots. If people were upset about the seminars, Rufo wanted them also to notice “critical race theory” operating behind the curtain. Following the trail back through the citations in the legal scholars’ texts, Rufo thought that he could detect the seed of their ideas in radical, often explicitly Marxist, critical-theory texts from the generation of 1968. (Crenshaw said that this was a selective, “red-baiting” account of critical race theory’s origins, which overlooked less divisive influences such as Martin Luther King, Jr.) But Rufo believed that he could detect a single lineage, and that the same concepts and terms that organized discussions among white employees of the city of Seattle, or the anti-racism seminars at Sandia National Laboratories, were present a half century ago. “Look at Angela Davis—you see all of the key terms,” Rufo said. Davis had been Herbert Marcuse’s doctoral student, and Rufo had been reading her writing from the late sixties to the mid-seventies. He felt as if he had begun with a branch and discovered the root. If financial regulators in Washington were attending seminars in which they read Kendi’s writing that anti-racism was not possible without anti-capitalism, then maybe that was more than casual talk.

As Rufo eventually came to see it, conservatives engaged in the culture war had been fighting against the same progressive racial ideology since late in the Obama years, without ever being able to describe it effectively. “We’ve needed new language for these issues,” Rufo told me, when I first wrote to him, late in May. “ ‘Political correctness’ is a dated term and, more importantly, doesn’t apply anymore. It’s not that elites are enforcing a set of manners and cultural limits, they’re seeking to reengineer the foundation of human psychology and social institutions through the new politics of race, It’s much more invasive than mere ‘correctness,’ which is a mechanism of social control, but not the heart of what’s happening. The other frames are wrong, too: ‘cancel culture’ is a vacuous term and doesn’t translate into a political program; ‘woke’ is a good epithet, but it’s too broad, too terminal, too easily brushed aside. ‘Critical race theory’ is the perfect villain,” Rufo wrote.

He thought that the phrase was a better description of what conservatives were opposing, but it also seemed like a promising political weapon. “Its connotations are all negative to most middle-class Americans, including racial minorities, who see the world as ‘creative’ rather than ‘critical,’ ‘individual’ rather than ‘racial,’ ‘practical’ rather than ‘theoretical.’ Most perfect of all, Rufo continued, critical race theory is not “an externally applied pejorative.” Instead, “it’s the label the critical race theorists chose themselves.”

Last summer, Rufo published several more pieces for City Journal, and, on September 2nd, he appeared on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Rufo had prepared a three-minute monologue, to be uploaded to a teleprompter at a Seattle studio, and he had practiced carefully enough that when a teleprompter wasn’t available he still remembered what to say. On air, set against the deep-blue background of Fox News, he told Carlson, “It’s absolutely astonishing how critical race theory”—he said those three words slowly, for emphasis—“has pervaded every aspect of the federal government.

The next morning, Rufo was home with his wife and two sons when he got a phone call from a 202 area code. The man on the other end, Rufo recalled, said, “ ‘Chris, this is Mark Meadows, chief of staff, reaching out on behalf of the President. He saw your segment on ‘Tucker’ last night, and he’s instructed me to take action.” Soon after, Rufo flew to Washington, D.C., to assist in drafting an executive order, issued by the White House in late September, that limited how contractors providing federal diversity seminars could talk about race. “

Last Thursday, I travelled to visit Rufo at home in Gig Harbor, Washington, a small city on the Puget Sound with the faint but ineradicable atmosphere of early retirement—of pier-side low-exertion midmorning yoga classes. Rufo has a thin, brown beard and an inquisitive, outdoorsy manner, and when we met for lunch on a local café’s veranda he spoke about his political commitments (to conservatism against critical race theory) loudly enough for those around us to hear. Rufo and his wife, Suphatra, a computer programmer at Amazon Web Services who emigrated from Thailand in elementary school, moved to Gig Harbor last year, in part to get away from the intense political climate that had coalesced around him in Seattle.

Since his appearance on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” last fall, Rufo’s rise had matched that of the movement against critical race theory. When Ron DeSantis and Tom Cotton have tweeted about critical race theory, they have borrowed Rufo’s phrases. He has travelled to Washington, D.C., to speak to an audience of two dozen members of Congress, and mentioned in passing that earlier in May he’d had drinks with Ted Cruz. In the 2016 Presidential election, Rufo had cast a dissenter’s vote for Gary Johnson. In 2020, he voted to reëlect Trump. Rufo said, “I mean, how can you not? It would have seemed rude and ungrateful.”

Rufo’s new position did not give him just a view up, into the world of Republican power, but down, into the mounting outrage at anti-racism programs across the country. Rufo set up a tip line last October, and has so far received thousands of tips, many of which he thought were substantive. (An assistant does the culling.) From among this pile, he’d discovered that third graders in Cupertino, California, were being asked to rank themselves and their classmates according to their privilege; he also learned about a three-day whiteness retreat for white male executives at Lockheed Martin and an initiative at Disney urging executives to “decolonize their bookshelves.” Some of the outrage appeared to have been ginned up by local political actors.

In Rufo’s living room in Gig Harbor, I asked what he thought constituted the emotional core of the protests against critical race theory—was it simply that white people thought they were being unfairly called racist? “I think that’s a part of it, for sure, ” Rufo said, but he also listed other complaints. He’d spoken to parents in Cupertino, who, he said, “were incredibly pissed off because they were doing, like, race and gender theory during math class.”

Rufo opened his laptop and, after a couple of clicks, showed me a screenshot from the anti-racism training session that white male executives at Lockheed Martin had been required to attend. The Lockheed training had evidently included an exercise in which the executives had explained in writing what they hoped to get out of the session. Rufo had the responses and read them. One executive had written, “I won’t get replaced by someone who is a better full-diversity partner.” Another had said, “Evolving the white male culture so future generations won’t be stereotyped.” A third: “I’ll have less nagging sense of guilt that I’m the problem.” I thought these sounded less like expressions of outrage than annoyance, of a bunch of powerful people who would have preferred to return to selling bombers to the Air Force.

Rufo, who saw these statements as evidence of “humiliation,” said that what he often heard from conservatives in situations like this was that “there’s very heavy psychological stuff happening here at work.” That “heavy psychological stuff” reflected what Rufo thought of as a Marxist strain running through critical race theory:

The next day, I spoke by phone with Kimberlé Crenshaw, a law professor with appointments at Columbia and U.C.L.A., and perhaps the most prominent figure associated with critical race theory—a term she had, long ago, coined. Crenshaw sounded slightly exasperated by how much coverage focussed on the semantic question of what critical race theory meant rather than the political one about the nature of the campaign against it. “It should go without saying that what they are calling critical race theory is a whole range of things, most of which no one would sign on to, and many of the things in it are simply about racism,” she said. When I asked what was new to her about the conservative movement against critical race theory, she said that the main thing was that it had been championed last fall not by conservative academics but by Donald Trump, then the President of the United States, and by many leading conservative political and media figures. But the broader pattern was not new, or surprising. “Reform itself creates its own backlash, which reconstitutes the problem in the first place,” Crenshaw said, noting that she’d made this argument in her first law-review article, in 1988. This is a post-George Floyd backlash,” Crenshaw said. “The reason why we’re having this conversation is that the line of scrimmage has moved.”

As she saw it, the campaign against critical race theory represented a familiar effort to shift the point of the argument, so that, rather than being about structural racism, post-George Floyd politics were about the seminars that had proliferated to address structural racism. I asked Crenshaw whether she thought that the anti-racism seminars were doing good. “Sure, I’ve been witness to trainings that I thought, Ennnnnh, not quite sure that’s the way I would approach it,” she said. “To be honest, sometimes people want a shortcut. They want the one- to two-hour training that will solve the problem. And it will not solve the problem. And sometimes it creates a backlash.

Crenshaw said. “If we’re really going to dig our way out of the hole this country was born into, it’s gonna be a process.”

On this, at least, Rufo might not have disagreed too much. His adaptation of the term “critical race theory” was itself an effort to emphasize a deep historical and intellectual pattern to anti-racism, and he, too, found it predictable that people encountering it for the first time would be outraged by it. The rebranding was, in some ways, an excuse for politicians to stage the same old fights over race within different institutions and on new terrain. At my lunch with Rufo, I’d asked what he hoped this movement might achieve. He mentioned two objectives, the first of which was “to politicize the bureaucracy.” Rufo said that the bureaucracy had been dominated by liberals, and he thought that the debates over critical race theory offered a way for conservatives to “take some of these essentially corrupted state agencies and then contest them, and then create rival power centers within them.”

This is one of the better articles on the controversy. I knew Rufo was the key person behind the backlash and this article gave a lot of insight into where he is coming from. The article also included a reaction from Professor Crenshaw the person who coined the term. It went beyond the usual how can you be anti anti racism, another way of saying gotcha racist.

Many will see this article and say “aha, the whole thing is a faux manufactured controversy”. A curated one yes, manufactured no. No one to my knowledge has refuted the claims of anti racism training outrages.

Identifying a problem is not the same as proscribing the correct solution. Rufo solutions involve doing what the Anti Racism training does, over correcting. With all his efforts at censoring no wonder he does not like the term “cancel culture”. CRT or at least some of the ideas can be taught as ideas not mandatory right and wrong thought. And please stop laying this on elementary school kids. In the workplace forget teaching correct thought, replace it with enforcing acting professionally towered your co workers.

No, the last thing we need is more politicized bureaucracy. Like woke this solution chooses to ignore two wrongs do not make a right.

In order to save classical liberalism people from all over the political spectrum are needed. Leaving it all in the hands of a Trumper will not do it. Besides being smeared with the racist accusation, what true supporter of classical liberalism wants to be associated with a seditious insurrectionist?


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 5,975
Location: The Oort Cloud

23 Jun 2021, 9:42 am

cyberdad wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Women being on display as nothing but "tits and ass" is still "political," it's just politics that straight men enjoy.


Huh?


Objectifying women is "political."

Presenting women as primarily being sex objects is "political."

It's just that straight men enjoy these "politics," so they don't complain about it.


Yes I remember the term "jiggle TV". I don't dispute the tactic of drawing a straight male audience by using attractive women to play those roles. However it was also a trade-off. The Angels also fought crime and bashed the crap out of bad guys. However, now that i think of it whether it be Lindsay Wagner or Linda Carter, even the way they fought crime was sexualised. Alas.


I was reacting to the assertion that the original "Angels" show wasn't political because it was intended to titillate men.

Even if you pretend the "Angels" contained no feminist themes, and was only ever focused on T&A, then it's still political as presenting women as nothing but sex objects is clearly political.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,068
Location: canada

23 Jun 2021, 10:51 am

I feel it's a double standard to see women portrayed as sex objects in movies and TV as a bad thing, because whenever guys are portrayed as sex objects, such as in movies like Magic Mike, or 50 Shades of Grey, women are hot for that too, and treat it the same way. So I feel if it's okay to do with men, it's okay to do it with women. I feel that the double standard isn't acknowledged enough.



XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 5,975
Location: The Oort Cloud

23 Jun 2021, 12:01 pm

ironpony wrote:
I feel it's a double standard to see women portrayed as sex objects in movies and TV as a bad thing, because whenever guys are portrayed as sex objects, such as in movies like Magic Mike, or 50 Shades of Grey, women are hot for that too, and treat it the same way. So I feel if it's okay to do with men, it's okay to do it with women. I feel that the double standard isn't acknowledged enough.


I've already explained that.

You can choose to completely ignore cultural context if you want to, but I'm not going to keep repeating myself until you "get it."


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,068
Location: canada

23 Jun 2021, 12:08 pm

Yes I see what you mean that you have explained an exception to the rule when it comes to women, but I feel that is the very definiton of a double standard, is having exceptions to a rule.

Plus when people say it's okay for males to be sexualized in movies, but not okay for females, doesn't that send a message that we think of females as sensitive creatures compared to men, and men can take it and women't can't? And by having that idealogy doesn't that make society more sexist towards women, because he feel they need special treatment, and the men can take it in comparison?



Last edited by ironpony on 23 Jun 2021, 12:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 12,656
Location: I'm right here

23 Jun 2021, 12:09 pm

ironpony wrote:
I feel it's a double standard to see women portrayed as sex objects in movies and TV as a bad thing, because whenever guys are portrayed as sex objects, such as in movies like Magic Mike, or 50 Shades of Grey, women are hot for that too, and treat it the same way. So I feel if it's okay to do with men, it's okay to do it with women. I feel that the double standard isn't acknowledged enough.


You're ignoring a blatantly obvious double-standard to complain about one that results from it though.


_________________
politics is dumb but very important
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,068
Location: canada

23 Jun 2021, 12:12 pm

Okay what are the different results then, in male sexualized characters in entertainment, compared to female?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 12,656
Location: I'm right here

23 Jun 2021, 12:19 pm

ironpony wrote:
Okay what are the different results then, in male sexualized characters in entertainment, compared to female?


The double-standard that you're ignoring is how women and their sexuality are treated by this society compared to how men's is. Until that's resolved it's comparing apples to oranges which leaves your complaint not really valid.

XFG explained it well and you seem to have entirely ignored that to just repost the same flawed complaint.


_________________
politics is dumb but very important
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,068
Location: canada

23 Jun 2021, 12:56 pm

Well it was mentioned before about how the actresses are abused sometimes, and yes I agree that is bad. But what if I am liking a movie with sexualized female characters, and the actresses were not abused. Is it okay then, or is it still not okay?