Doctor Who [6]

I think the implication is acceptable as only adult viewers would pick up on it- exactly they same as the gang rape in the 1st Doctor viking story would only be picked up on by adults watching- Who is far, far more sanitized and pc now than it was ever in classic era- where rape, human sacrifice, on screen blood ect all made appearances in the scripts right form the start.
If you dont think those subjects should at all be mentioned in Who then you are, traditionally, watching the wrong show.

Too many children know very well what rape is, it is not something you should be expecting to get thrown in your face while watching dr. Who or any family show.

Figgy darling, you got it all wrong, it was SHE that lured that poor, poor man ! she teased him, tormented him, she seduced him ! oh, the poor man !
( Like fuck !)

it is not something you should be expecting to get thrown in your face while watching dr. Who or any family show. - Amarie

Oddly noone seemed to think this in the 60's, 70's and 80's when such subjects came up in the show- for implied rape trying watching Caves of Androzani (5th Doctor)- or the Time Meddler from the 1st Doctor- or several other episodes where there are unpleasant sexual or physical threats hanging over a companion.
Then there is the on screen violence- there is no onscreen blood in Nuwho- there used to be quite a lot of it.
Modern Who is already over sanitized in my view compared to classic.
There are very bad things in the universe the Doctor is there to confront- we shouldnt be afraid of implying what some of those bad things are.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I think the implication is acceptable as only adult viewers would pick up on it- exactly they same as the gang rape in the 1st Doctor viking story would only be picked up on by adults watching- Who is far, far more sanitized and pc now than it was ever in classic era- where rape, human sacrifice, on screen blood ect all made appearances in the scripts right form the start.
If you dont think those subjects should at all be mentioned in Who then you are, traditionally, watching the wrong show.

standards were different in the 60s and 70s, by all accounts then it was ok for tv presenters to fiddle with girls in dressing rooms, I would have hoped Dr Who didnt need to stoop to cheap plot devices these days. call me old fashioned.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:it is not something you should be expecting to get thrown in your face while watching dr. Who or any family show. - Amarie

Oddly noone seemed to think this in the 60's, 70's and 80's when such subjects came up in the show- for implied rape trying watching Caves of Androzani (5th Doctor)- or the Time Meddler from the 1st Doctor- or several other episodes where there are unpleasant sexual or physical threats hanging over a companion.
Then there is the on screen violence- there is no onscreen blood in Nuwho- there used to be quite a lot of it.
Modern Who is already over sanitized in my view compared to classic.
There are very bad things in the universe the Doctor is there to confront- we shouldnt be afraid of implying what some of those bad things are.

totally unacceptable argument and disingenious. There is also no longer the Black and White Minstrel show and Benny Hill. We have supposed to have evolved from the bad old days.

I'm with you Figgy.

I dont think it is a cheap lot device but I ghave explained at length before why I beleive that- any more than it was a cheap plot device in Time Meddler or in Caves- they serve a purpose in the plot and script.
Who has never talked down to children- it why it so successful- and I for one dont think it should shy away from any subject- yes it should handle it sensitively or in a manner where the implications will not be understood by very young children (and I dont know of any of the young children in my family, friends families, or in reviews I have read that got a 'rape vibe' from that episode- its adults who pick up on it. And I dont have any problem with that.

well I do have a problem with it. A lot of adults dont want nasty stuff from the 'real' world to intrude into what should be a fun family show that you can sit in front of the tv with all the family without embarassment or that sinking feeling that Who has pandered to so called 'big issues', when its really just cheap thrills.
and that goes for OTT cleavage and pseudo sexy flirty bedroom talk that sometimes came from River.

Well dont think the writers should have restrictions place on them based on passing moral fads of the time and pc thinking. Its just censorship in a clever hat.

moral fads? whats a moral fad about not exposing kids to unecessary harm? theres enough so called adult stuff about without it oiling its boringly predictable way into a kids show.

I dont agree at all it with your premise that it is exposing any child to harm anymore than Red Riding Hood does or Rumplestiltskin.
Quite the opposite- it alludes to parts of the adult world children will have to grew up and deal with, and prewarned is preprepared and it has always been a part of Who and in fact childrens stories in general.

so you are saying that a child watching her favourite tv show, something that should be safe from sexual violence (as it is after all a family show), is somehow going to get a valuble life lesson from watching some creepy guy make rape threats to a woman? thats just so ridiculous its painful and sad. what is really sad are the justifications used.

I dont agree with you premise yet again that Who should be safe from anything. Why should it be?
Are you wanting to draw up a list of subjects they can and cannot tackle?
If so how is that different from censorship?
It never was that way in the past and it should not be in the future- I think its already over sanitised- when people get shot they bleed- they used to in Who, now they dont.

Sex is a very large part of human existence- and not all of is positive- so reflecting the existence of that in the show is indeed valid in my view.

If you want a nice cosy safe show that lives in a world where no bad ever happens, and people are only evil to a prescribed point then you are watching the wrong show.
It has never been that way.

I also contend that a child would pick up on it as being a threat of rape and not just that hes been nasty and horrible to her- I know that's how the kids in my family saw it- not one of them had an inclination of the sexual undertones.
Older children approaching or in their teens would though- but that's fine- that's just the age you need some heads up about this unpleasant aspect to humanity.
And for the adults it underscores just how repulsive the man is thus giving the story reason for the Doctors actions towards him.

''Are you wanting to draw up a list of subjects they can and cannot tackle?
If so how is that different from censorship'' petty



yes absofuckinglutely I am listing subjects unsuitable for childrens tv, and they include rape, sexual violence and sadistic perverts. Who is not the place to tackle sensitive things like this, and certainly not with a throwaway one-liner that would cause more confusion and upset than a documentary would. You are basically saying Who is a tv show where anything is acceptable, how about someone fisting a dog? would you be ok with bestiality? or would you use censorship.

Well said. A family show can be topical; but the kinda things you are mentioning Petty are not topical issues to children. Wait for them to grow up and put them in other shows, not a show for the whole family.

Who is a show Rigby that covers all age groups- I believe therefore it should tackle and mention such things- so long as it is done in a way that the youngest viewers wont even see it (as I firmly believe is the case here) and older viewers will- and thats perfectly fine.
It is the levels the show has always operated on and I believe is one of the fundemental factors in it still being here 50 years later.

how about someone fisting a dog? - Figg

If you are going to make completely stupid sensational points that have nothing to do with the underlying issues I simply wont bother responding to you further on the matter.

Oddly none of you seem to have a problem with the 'hero' being guilty of genocide and murder on a massive scale.
Or is that because it doesnt specifically mention women being harmed?

Ah, but remember the saying; you only walk as fast as the slowest walker! I say that a lot. I am slow at walking. Only tackle issues that are age-appropriate to the entire demographic. I don't believe rape would be a suitable issue to raise to a child.

my points were not stupid and I wont be responding if you stoop to personal insults, it shows you are losing the argument.

I don't believe rape would be a suitable issue to raise to a child.- Rigby

But genocide by the main character is? Murder by the main character is?
After all in the episode we are discussing the Doctor

Spoiler:

How is genocide and mass murder worse than rape in the context of the show or society?

"my points were not stupid" Figg

I don think it was a valid point- it was sensationalism- might as well have said why not let the Doctor fuck a dog. Its silly as we all know thats not going to happen- but in a show which deals with murder and genocide and guilt and retribution I dont see that alluding to, not directly mentioning, the issue of rape is any way worse than these other things.

The only difference I can see is the rape was aimed at a woman specifically- it does seem odd not one female here seems to have any problem with the Doctor being a mass murderer but you are up in arms about one line of dialogue form the bad guy implying rape.

I don't think there should be any murders on Doctor Who either!

Now that would change the show given the main character is a murderer!

of course my point was sensationalist, it was supposed to be, I was making a point about censorship and you thinking any subject is acceptable in Who. which its not.
as to genocide, its Daleks and Cybermen we are talking about not fellow humans, the Doctor does not kill humans as a rule, he protects them. There is one thing educating a child about good and bad using metalic alien enemies, and quite another the predatory villain threatening a human woman.

He's killed a lot of humans over the run- including in the episode under discussion.
In fact if you include humans from the future and past he has probably killed more 'evil' humans than any other species save his own and Daleks- as he went the whole hog with them and went for genocide.

And even with aliens- was 11 justified in murdering all those cybermen just to find out where Amy was?
Was 10 justified in Family of Blood to condemn the family to eternal hells? Or when he murdered all the offspring of the Rachnoss, effectively ending their race (Donna didnt seem to think he was) or in Waters of Mars when he claimed the right to act like a God resulting a woman committing suicide rather than go along with his plans?





He can be a right bastard at times can the Doctor.