The Pitters' Place

So, to keep Liszt happy, there's also a universe in which he doesn't use the time machine and yet manages to seduce the woman anyway...so STFU Liszt

Go wear your salad.

Can't we just agree that this video presents just yet another ethical issue with time travel?

Dr_Liszt wrote:Go wear your salad.

I just might, because food is plentiful and I'm not living in poverty

Blade Azaezel wrote:So, to keep Liszt happy, there's also a universe in which he doesn't use the time machine and yet manages to seduce the woman anyway...so STFU Liszt

An infinite number of them. There are also an infinite number of universes where Liszt is a psychotic serial killer as well as an infinite number of universes where she sodomizes rabbits with a wooden spoon.

Why exactly are we assuming that he has a 100% chance of a success rate if she keeps trying? I don't buy that simply trying over and over again that he would be successful, so long as he says the right things in the right order. If she were married or in a committed relationship, homosexual, asexual, etc, then it could be argued that he wouldn't succeed no matter how many times he tried. This is largely what I mean when I say that the character is poorly written, where women are just these easily manipulated beings just waiting to be picked up by a guy so long as he says and acts the right way.

If we're going to argue that it's a different universe each time and eventually he'll find a universe in which the woman agrees to go out with him, then logically we also have to say that each time it's technically a different person (thus, each person before that willfully chose to reject him)

I'm wondering where they got the idea that he immediately dies in all previous universes. That's a new one.

CashRules wrote:

Blade Azaezel wrote:So, to keep Liszt happy, there's also a universe in which he doesn't use the time machine and yet manages to seduce the woman anyway...so STFU Liszt

An infinite number of them. There are also an infinite number of universes where Liszt is a psychotic serial killer as well as an infinite number of universes where she sodomizes rabbits with a wooden spoon.

One of which we currently live in.

Dr_Liszt wrote:Go wear your salad.

There are naked people in Africa.

Monk wrote:Why exactly are we assuming that he has a 100% chance of a success rate if she keeps trying? I don't buy that simply trying over and over again that he would be successful, so long as he says the right things in the right order. If she were married or in a committed relationship, homosexual, asexual, etc, then it could be argued that he wouldn't succeed no matter how many times he tried. This is largely what I mean when I say that the character is poorly written, where women are just these easily manipulated beings just waiting to be picked up by a guy so long as he says and acts the right way.

If we're going to argue that it's a different universe each time and eventually he'll find a universe in which the woman agrees to go out with him, then logically we also have to say that each time it's technically a different person (thus, each person before that willfully chose to reject him)

This is correct.

The very idea that there must be a precise equation in some universe that will lead to her agreeing to sex erases her autonomy. It's possible for a woman to not be attracted to you, and/or agree to sex, no matter what you do. The way her character is conceptualized is part of the problem. The guy's actions and the way the woman is written are both weird.

Also...TIMETRAVELISN'TREAL!!!

Cassius Clay wrote:
This is correct.

The very idea that there must be a precise equation in some universe that will lead to her agreeing to sex erases her autonomy. It's possible for a woman to not be attracted to you, and/or agree to sex, no matter what you do. The way her character is conceptualized is part of the problem. The guy's actions and the way the woman is written are both weird.

Also...TIMETRAVELISN'TREAL!!!

This is my last comment on this. Just because I'm bored.

The video shows us that the guy doesn't know about the parallel universes, so he's pushing the button until he finds the answer he wants. So the whole parallel quantum physics thing is irrelevant to the creepiness factor of this dude.

---------------THE END------------ FOR ME -------------------- I'll go sodomize some rabbi... I mean learn anatomy all over again. Yeah I'll do that.

Also, I think the video shows that the girl likes him but he screws it up with him being an idiot and that makes her change her mind.

Yeah...I do think there is a huge ethical difference between 1) her already being attracted to him/interested in sleeping with him, and so he keeps starting over because he keeps comically screwing up, and 2) treating her like a code he can eventually crack regardless of her initial feelings/situation.

I had two or three situations in college where a girl and I were into each other, and things seemed to be heading towards sex...but I fucked it up by opening my big mouth or doing/saying something stupid (boasting to a friend, etc)...and word got back to the girl. And the girls literally told me that the reason we weren't going to be having sex is because I fucked it up.

It's hard for me accept that wishing I had a time machine for a little redo in such a situation is necessarily creepy.

Monk wrote:Why exactly are we assuming that he has a 100% chance of a success rate if she keeps trying? I don't buy that simply trying over and over again that he would be successful, so long as he says the right things in the right order. If she were married or in a committed relationship, homosexual, asexual, etc, then it could be argued that he wouldn't succeed no matter how many times he tried. This is largely what I mean when I say that the character is poorly written, where women are just these easily manipulated beings just waiting to be picked up by a guy so long as he says and acts the right way.

If we're going to argue that it's a different universe each time and eventually he'll find a universe in which the woman agrees to go out with him, then logically we also have to say that each time it's technically a different person (thus, each person before that willfully chose to reject him)

I don't know if that last part is quite right. The machine is taking him to a universe in a point where it is the same woman who has made the same previous decisions aside from the one that causes the guy to redo the interaction. So it effectively is the same person, but unaware of the previous universes' interactions.

Though to be honest, I do think the worst thing about this is that as you put it is her own character; she is impressed that someone would die for her several times over and is actually forgiving of the guy for manipulating the situation when she does become freaking aware of what he's doing.

She then goes on to manipulate the scenario herself, so...yeah

Blade Azaezel wrote:She then goes on to manipulate the scenario herself, so...yeah

Because she was "won" over, which I think is the problem Monk is having with that character.

Unvoiced_Apollo wrote:

Monk wrote:Why exactly are we assuming that he has a 100% chance of a success rate if she keeps trying? I don't buy that simply trying over and over again that he would be successful, so long as he says the right things in the right order. If she were married or in a committed relationship, homosexual, asexual, etc, then it could be argued that he wouldn't succeed no matter how many times he tried. This is largely what I mean when I say that the character is poorly written, where women are just these easily manipulated beings just waiting to be picked up by a guy so long as he says and acts the right way.

If we're going to argue that it's a different universe each time and eventually he'll find a universe in which the woman agrees to go out with him, then logically we also have to say that each time it's technically a different person (thus, each person before that willfully chose to reject him)

I don't know if that last part is quite right. The machine is taking him to a universe in a point where it is the same woman who has made the same previous decisions aside from the one that causes the guy to redo the interaction. So it effectively is the same person, but unaware of the previous universes' interactions.

Though to be honest, I do think the worst thing about this is that as you put it is her own character; she is impressed that someone would die for her several times over and is actually forgiving of the guy for manipulating the situation when she does become freaking aware of what he's doing.

I was mostly responding to the idea that there's an infinite number of universes and he's searching for the one where he doesn't fuck up, but it was more of a secondary argument anyway. So I'll concede it.

Monk wrote:

Unvoiced_Apollo wrote:

Monk wrote:Why exactly are we assuming that he has a 100% chance of a success rate if she keeps trying? I don't buy that simply trying over and over again that he would be successful, so long as he says the right things in the right order. If she were married or in a committed relationship, homosexual, asexual, etc, then it could be argued that he wouldn't succeed no matter how many times he tried. This is largely what I mean when I say that the character is poorly written, where women are just these easily manipulated beings just waiting to be picked up by a guy so long as he says and acts the right way.

If we're going to argue that it's a different universe each time and eventually he'll find a universe in which the woman agrees to go out with him, then logically we also have to say that each time it's technically a different person (thus, each person before that willfully chose to reject him)

I don't know if that last part is quite right. The machine is taking him to a universe in a point where it is the same woman who has made the same previous decisions aside from the one that causes the guy to redo the interaction. So it effectively is the same person, but unaware of the previous universes' interactions.

Though to be honest, I do think the worst thing about this is that as you put it is her own character; she is impressed that someone would die for her several times over and is actually forgiving of the guy for manipulating the situation when she does become freaking aware of what he's doing.

I was mostly responding to the idea that there's an infinite number of universes and he's searching for the one where he doesn't fuck up, but it was more of a secondary argument anyway. So I'll concede it.

How conceded.

ethical discussions about time travel are relevant to my interests.

Also...TIMETRAVELISN'TREAL!!!

Yet. Which means it is, because if it exists in the future, it potentially exists now.

I'd agree that if all those universes already existed, then it wouldn't be as creepy as if he were actively creating them; it then becomes a matter of luck, not misrepresentation.

The very idea that there must be a precise equation in some universe that will lead to her agreeing to sex erases her autonomy. It's possible for a woman to not be attracted to you, and/or agree to sex, no matter what you do.

Good point. But we don't know how far he might potentially go beyond just actions. The instance of him going back to try and read the chapter is already taking things a step further, where he's trying to change his existing knowledge. So e.g. if she's only attracted to purple-haired astronauts, in a world where his time machine could go back more than a minute, it's possible that he might have gone back to redo his life such that he ended up as a purple-haired astronaut at that point of time; if she's already in a relationship, he might go back to ensure she never met that other guy; if it turned out she was a lesbian, he might have gone back to mess with his conception to ensure he ended up female; if it turned out she just didn't like sex, he might have gone back to try and change her personal history; and so on. The concept is the same - the idea that he cannot take 'no' for an answer and will find some way to change things so her no will become a yes. We're just shown the milder degrees of it.

That said:

I do think there is a huge ethical difference between 1) her already being attracted to him/interested in sleeping with him, and so he keeps starting over because he keeps comically screwing up, and 2) treating her like a code he can eventually crack regardless of her initial feelings/situation.

I agree with that, with the caveat that only if it's about changing his own actions to things that he might have done anyway. e.g. knowing the right thing to say, but accidentally messing up because of nervousness. vs if his new actions are influenced by things he wouldn't have otherwise known without the time machine - such as her personal information.

i.e.:

Ethical:
Bob: "Hi, my name is-" *trips and falls and knocks her over, fracturing her arm and three ribs*
Bob: ...crap. *TIME TRAVEL*

vs

Unethical:
Bob: "Hi, my name is Bob and I like deformed rabbits!"
Woman: "Ew, that's gross. I prefer deformed elephants. I think guys who like them are totally hot."
Bob: ...Oh. *TIME TRAVEL*
Bob: "Hi, my name is Bob and I like deformed elephants!"
Woman: *swoons*

I like turtles!

Lol this is getting complicated.

I'm gonna have to agree with Bruce.

No one seems to have address the whole "didn't take no for an answer" thing. Forget anything related to time travel or other dimensions here. A man pursues a woman. The woman makes it clear she is not interested in the man. Any further action the man takes to continue to pursue the woman at this point is wrong.

This is one of those weird threads with a lot of gendoing and gendo isn't one of the people doing it.

You know what I saw in this video? I saw a PSA addressing the whole "won't take no for an answer" that women deal with on a daily basis. I saw a guy repeatedly being denied even using extraordinary measures which seemed to me to be an advisory statement educating guys (and women to a point) that even with cheating, a woman who says no will not say yes if you continue to harass her.

That was the only thought going through my head when I watched it.

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:You know what I saw in this video? I saw a PSA addressing the whole "won't take no for an answer" that women deal with on a daily basis. I saw a guy repeatedly being denied even using extraordinary measures which seemed to me to be an advisory statement educating guys (and women to a point) that even with cheating, a woman who says no will not say yes if you continue to harass her.

That was the only thought going through my head when I watched it.

But she does say yes at the end.

Gendo wrote:No one seems to have address the whole "didn't take no for an answer" thing. Forget anything related to time travel or other dimensions here. A man pursues a woman. The woman makes it clear she is not interested in the man. Any further action the man takes to continue to pursue the woman at this point is wrong.

Well, no offense, but I think you're being a bit nearsighted about the issue. I think the entire dynamic is insidious...not merely his not taking no for an answer. That, to me, is just a small part of it. In fact, I think the way her character is written(as someone you could always eventually sleep with if you get the formula correct) is the more insidious part of the dynamic...'cause I think it says much more about our culture (even encompasses your concerns 'cause it's part of why people don't take no for an answer) than a guy that keeps starting over 'cause he screwed up a courting ritual says about our culture. And, again, there's a big difference between starting over because you misspoke and starting over because you want to cynically use information you learned about the person to your advantage. His behavior may be gross, but the writers justify it by complimenting it with a female character that can be easily/eventually manipulated into sex.

I think what's really insidious about Groundhog day is not merely that he takes advantage of the situation by manipulating women into sleeping with him, but the very idea that the women are reducible to objects that have specific inputs that will lead to sex in the first place. If I recall, I think it was implied that he pretty much slept with all the attractive women in the town, and the only code he had trouble cracking was the woman he falls for...which is partly why he falls for her (which is multiple levels of icky) That trope helps encourage not taking no for an answer.

As gross as it may be, I can't take the argument that he took away their ability to consent because of time travel very seriously. It's like, it may be true, but what the hell does that really mean? It's too philosophical and abstract....non-grounded. And there are problematic implications, because if you accept that he can remove their ability to consent with time travel, then you're also saying they are reducible to objects that you can get specific outcomes from with specific inputs. What is grounded and what I can take seriously is that the writers think women are easily manipulated into sex.

I was being sarcastic. I forgot my face.

But she does say yes at the end.

I actually took that to mean that all this time she had also been trying to court him in the same way, which was the plot twist.

...Whatev. I like turtles too.