Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby GhostWolfe » Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:47 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Iceskating is horribly traumatic when it goes wrong as well. Dangerous too. People die from iceskating accidents. So is that immoral too? ... I don't see how anyone can get to make that call for someone else.
Logic disconnect: iceskating is not something that someone does to you.

I don't think anyone's arguing that choosing to participate in unsafe behaviour is immoral, I rather get the feeling that they're arguing that if your sexual partner starts acting like they want you to stop, regardless of the fantasy of power play, it would be immoral to ignore them.

/angell
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
Amnesiasoft
Posts: 2573
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 4:28 am UTC
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Amnesiasoft » Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:53 am UTC

Diadem wrote:A fire is in fact more dangerous when asleep, because you die before you wake. So even if there is a risk, it's the same risk you face everytime you go to sleep. And besides: Against fires we have fire alarms, wasps, leg cramps or sudden urges to urinate are merely uncomfortable, and burglars can't fly. Finally there's always the 'scream at the top of your lungs' trick to get attention, no?

If I'm gagged and bound to a bed, I can't simply get up to leave the premises if there is a fire. Perhaps I'm dangerously allergic to wasps? That ranks above mere discomfort. When my leg cramps up it's also more than "merely uncomfortable," it feels like someone is attempting to snap my leg in half. Burglars can't fly? How is that relevant to anything? Are you saying this person is on the top floor of the house? If so, have you ever heard of a ladder? And screaming at the top of your lungs doesn't work if you're gagged.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7572
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby phlip » Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:41 am UTC

Diadem wrote:That is +1 for circular logic.

I wouldn't think you'd want to bring up that angle, since your argument is basically "I shouldn't have to give my partner a way to signal disconsent, because it's not a bad thing if I keep going regardless, because if I do so it's an accident, because my partner doesn't have a way to signal disconsent." Which is pretty damn circular. If your partner stops consenting, but doesn't have a way to signal it to you, and you keep going regardless, then that's not purely an accident, 'cause it's your fault that they don't have a way to signal it to you.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Cynical Idealist » Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:26 am UTC

Diadem wrote:
Philwelch wrote:
Diadem wrote:
Philwelch wrote:I can.
Well then, go ahead. Surprise me.

What if there was a fire in the bedroom? Sleeping people can get out of bed if there's a fire. Or a wasp. Or a leg cramp. Or a sudden urge to urinate. Or a medical emergency. Or a burglar. Or....

All of those are equally dangerous while sleeping. A fire is in fact more dangerous when asleep, because you die before you wake. So even if there is a risk, it's the same risk you face everytime you go to sleep.

...what? If your partner is responsible, they'd wake you up in the event of a fire, or remember you and release you. If your partner is irresponsible (or nonexistent, as may be the case for sleeping), though, you either die in your sleep or wake up and get out if you're sleeping, or...get burned to death alive while awake. SO much safer.
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Philwelch » Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:40 am UTC

Diadem wrote:And you still haven't given any argument as to why it is morally wrong. You merely rephrased what you said earlier. It's wrong because there are limits to what you can rightfully do? That is +1 for circular logic.

I mean sure it's traumatic when it goes wrong, but that's not an argument. Iceskating is horribly traumatic when it goes wrong as well. Dangerous too. People die from iceskating accidents. So is that immoral too? Of course not. The benefits outweigh the risks.


What benefits, exactly, arise from not using a safeword?
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

MrGee
Posts: 998
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby MrGee » Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:37 am UTC

Diadem, by leaving your partner restrained and alone you're making the assumption that you're so fucking smart and clairvoyant that you have predicted and prevented every possible emergency that could arise.

You're not.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Diadem » Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:59 am UTC

GhostWolfe wrote:
Diadem wrote:Iceskating is horribly traumatic when it goes wrong as well. Dangerous too. People die from iceskating accidents. So is that immoral too? ... I don't see how anyone can get to make that call for someone else.
Logic disconnect: iceskating is not something that someone does to you.

Neither is engaging in risky sexual activity. Both are things you chose to do. You. Yourself. Because you want to.

I don't think anyone's arguing that choosing to participate in unsafe behaviour is immoral, I rather get the feeling that they're arguing that if your sexual partner starts acting like they want you to stop, regardless of the fantasy of power play, it would be immoral to ignore them.

For the billionth time: Yes, I completely agree that if you partner signals to you that she wants you to stop, then you should stop.

All I'm saying is that if your partner DOES NOT start acting like they want you to stop, it is not immoral to continue.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7572
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby phlip » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:04 am UTC

But you also seem to be claiming that it's not immoral to remove your partner's means to signal such, which is the point people are disagreeing with you on. Is that what you're suggesting, or are we misreading?

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Diadem » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:22 am UTC

Amnesiasoft wrote:If I'm gagged and bound to a bed, I can't simply get up to leave the premises if there is a fire.

Neither can you while asleep
Perhaps I'm dangerously allergic to wasps?

Perhaps the pope is a woman :)

I can go through the entire list of objections you gave me, and counter them one by one. Same for the objections the others gave. But it's not even relevant.

There's a small but non-zero risk in tying someone up. There's a still very small but slightly bigger risk in tying someone up and then leaving them unattended. So what? Sexual activities like suspension bondages, breath play or electroplay are way riskier. Parachute jumping is way riskier. Iceskating is way riskier. And I'd argue that all those activities are ok. So I certainly think that my example was ok. You're allowed to take risks with yourself. Ergo you are allowed to engage in riskier-than-average sexual activities. Ergo you are allowed to let your partner tie you up and leave you unattended for a spell. QED.

phlip wrote:
Diadem wrote:That is +1 for circular logic.

I wouldn't think you'd want to bring up that angle, since your argument is basically "I shouldn't have to give my partner a way to signal disconsent, because it's not a bad thing if I keep going regardless, because if I do so it's an accident, because my partner doesn't have a way to signal disconsent." Which is pretty damn circular. If your partner stops consenting, but doesn't have a way to signal it to you, and you keep going regardless, then that's not purely an accident, 'cause it's your fault that they don't have a way to signal it to you.

This may sound crazy, but I actually consider my partner to be an autonomous human being. Yeah, I know, it's radical. I'm not making her do anything, she decides what she wants to do herself. If she wants to engage in risky sexual play, that's her choice. And I make my own choice, of course, about whether I want to or not do said activity. But I'm not going to patronize her by claiming she's not responsible enough to make her own decisions about what risks she is willing to take. And I'm certainly not going to say she does not have the right to make that decision.

Philwelch wrote:What benefits, exactly, arise from not using a safeword?

Better sex, of course.

(This should not be needed, but I'm going to repeat myself yet again: I always use safewords myself. I'm merely arguiing that people have the right to not use them. None of it is about me).

MrGee wrote:Diadem, by leaving your partner restrained and alone you're making the assumption that you're so fucking smart and clairvoyant that you have predicted and prevented every possible emergency that could arise.

Again, no: I'm merely making the assumption that the risks are sufficiently low as to be acceptable. More importantly, so is my partner. And it's her call.
Last edited by Diadem on Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:26 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Diadem » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:24 am UTC

phlip wrote:But you also seem to be claiming that it's not immoral to remove your partner's means to signal such, which is the point people are disagreeing with you on. Is that what you're suggesting, or are we misreading?

It is not immoral to remove them if you do that with your partners consent. Yes.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Cynical Idealist » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:27 am UTC

Diadem wrote:
Amnesiasoft wrote:If I'm gagged and bound to a bed, I can't simply get up to leave the premises if there is a fire.

Neither can you while asleep

And yet it is much, much easier to wake up than remove your own bonds. I really, really can't believe your statement that its safer to be tied up in a building that catches fire than asleep in the same building.
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Diadem » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:33 am UTC

Cynical Idealist wrote:
Diadem wrote:
Amnesiasoft wrote:If I'm gagged and bound to a bed, I can't simply get up to leave the premises if there is a fire.

Neither can you while asleep

And yet it is much, much easier to wake up than remove your own bonds. I really, really can't believe your statement that its safer to be tied up in a building that catches fire than asleep in the same building.

I thought it was common knowlege, but maybe I'm wrong. The #1 reason why fires are so dangerous is that you do not wake up from them. Smoke interferes. You lose conscience before you wake up. Even light sleepers do. And so you die. That is why smoke detectors are so damn important. But absent those, well, then if you're tied up but awake, you can at least scream for help or something like that. Anyway my building does have very good smoke detectors and I was in the next room. Fire as a risk is out. (And again, even if it wasn't, you're allowed to take risks).
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

MrGee
Posts: 998
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby MrGee » Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:15 am UTC

Diadem wrote:(And again, even if it wasn't, you're allowed to take risks).


You're the sex equivalent of a hardened smoker. :?

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Philwelch » Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:06 am UTC

Diadem wrote:
Philwelch wrote:What benefits, exactly, arise from not using a safeword?

Better sex, of course.


Weighed against a non-zero chance of your partner having the exact subjective experience of rape? You're saying that's a positive moral balance?
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Diadem » Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:44 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:
Diadem wrote:
Philwelch wrote:What benefits, exactly, arise from not using a safeword?

Better sex, of course.

Weighed against a non-zero chance of your partner having the exact subjective experience of rape? You're saying that's a positive moral balance?

But it's not a moral balance at all. The submissive partner (not my partner. For the billionth time.) balances the added benefit from the activity (playing without a safeword) with the added risk (having a negative experience). Those are two subjective things, neither of them affecting someone else. Morality don't enter into it. Well I suppose it does negatively affect the dominant partner if things go wrong, but since he also consents that is ok. Both parties are aware of the risks, both parties consent.

As to whether it's a positive balance. Some people obviously think so.

Also: It's not the emotional equivalent of rape at all. Just because two experiences are both unpleasant does not make them equally traumatic. Being forced into the situation, or voluntary entering it, makes all the difference in the world.

MrGee wrote:You're the sex equivalent of a hardened smoker. :?

Smoking is not immoral either. Unless you smoke in the presence of other people who did not consent to it (unfortunately 90% of smokers do this. But that's another story). Plus smoking is a lot more dangerous (and unhealthy even on the short run) than the sexual activities described so far. But anyway, even if I was, so what. Smoking is not immoral.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Malice » Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:29 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Also: It's not the emotional equivalent of rape at all. Just because two experiences are both unpleasant does not make them equally traumatic. Being forced into the situation, or voluntary entering it, makes all the difference in the world.


Um. No. That's... I don't know how to explain how wrong that is. Once it's rape--once sex is continuing against your will--it's moved past "unpleasant".
Image

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Aetius » Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:19 pm UTC


User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Diadem » Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:22 am UTC

Malice wrote:
Diadem wrote:Also: It's not the emotional equivalent of rape at all. Just because two experiences are both unpleasant does not make them equally traumatic. Being forced into the situation, or voluntary entering it, makes all the difference in the world.


Um. No. That's... I don't know how to explain how wrong that is. Once it's rape--once sex is continuing against your will--it's moved past "unpleasant".

You don't know how to explain how wrong it is, because it's not wrong. First of all you're completely changing the context of the word 'unpleasant' that I used, and thus changing its meaning. A cheap trick. What I said is that rape is not merely unpleasant but traumatic, yet you make it sound as if I said the exact opposite. Sorry, I don't accept such cheap debating tricks.

Also, sex without a safe word is not rape. I've been explaining now for 2 pages why it isn't. And instead of giving arguments against it you just pretend it is? That's quite a cheap trick too, to be honest. "The sun revolves around the earth!". 'No it doesn't, look (...)". "Ok. But given the fact that the sun revolves around the earth (...)". *sigh*

Thirdly: You're wrong. How traumatic an experience is, does not depend on how how unpleasant an activity is, but on the feelings and emotions involved. Specifically on your sense of integrity being violated. Rapeis not traumatic because its hurts, or because the activity is unpleasant. It is traumatic because your integrity is being violated. Because someone is taking away your autonomy over yourself. The intentions of the other person are also very important. Someone accidently hurting you is much less traumatic than someone doing that on purpose. For all those reasons, realizing halfway through a sexgame that you want to quit, but being unable to, is much less traumatic than actual rape.

They are completely different psychological processes.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Philwelch » Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:29 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Thirdly: You're wrong. How traumatic an experience is, does not depend on how how unpleasant an activity is, but on the feelings and emotions involved. Specifically on your sense of integrity being violated. Rapeis not traumatic because its hurts, or because the activity is unpleasant. It is traumatic because your integrity is being violated. Because someone is taking away your autonomy over yourself. The intentions of the other person are also very important. Someone accidently hurting you is much less traumatic than someone doing that on purpose. For all those reasons, realizing halfway through a sexgame that you want to quit, but being unable to, is much less traumatic than actual rape.


So basically, you can make up whatever shit you want to tell yourself without justifying any of your claims at all, and the burden of proof is on us to prove that continuing with sex when your partner does not want it is rape.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Malice » Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:04 am UTC

Diadem wrote:
Malice wrote:
Diadem wrote:Also: It's not the emotional equivalent of rape at all. Just because two experiences are both unpleasant does not make them equally traumatic. Being forced into the situation, or voluntary entering it, makes all the difference in the world.


Um. No. That's... I don't know how to explain how wrong that is. Once it's rape--once sex is continuing against your will--it's moved past "unpleasant".

You don't know how to explain how wrong it is, because it's not wrong. First of all you're completely changing the context of the word 'unpleasant' that I used, and thus changing its meaning. A cheap trick. What I said is that rape is not merely unpleasant but traumatic, yet you make it sound as if I said the exact opposite. Sorry, I don't accept such cheap debating tricks.


You said: Rape (you know, rape-rape, the real thing) is unpleasant and traumatic, whereas sex without a safe word that turns unwanted is unpleasant but not as traumatic.
I said (a bit badly, I admit): Anytime sex is against your will, it's rape, and it's the fact of it being against your will that makes it traumatic, therefore they are equally traumatic.

Also, sex without a safe word is not rape. I've been explaining now for 2 pages why it isn't. And instead of giving arguments against it you just pretend it is? That's quite a cheap trick too, to be honest. "The sun revolves around the earth!". 'No it doesn't, look (...)". "Ok. But given the fact that the sun revolves around the earth (...)". *sigh*


Sex against your will is rape, whether or not you are able to indicate your will. Someone who has been roofied and then fucked has been raped, despite the fact that they were unable to say no or fight back. Sex with a coma patient is rape, even though they're unconscious. Sex with a person who is blacked-out unconscious drunk is rape (even though they willingly removed their ability to protest via drinking, even if they originally intended to drink as a precursor to sex). Sex with somebody who can't speak, move, or indicate distress is rape if it ends up being against their will. Is that rape the partner's fault? That's debatable. But sex against your will is rape. Period.

Thirdly: You're wrong. How traumatic an experience is, does not depend on how how unpleasant an activity is, but on the feelings and emotions involved. Specifically on your sense of integrity being violated. Rapeis not traumatic because its hurts, or because the activity is unpleasant. It is traumatic because your integrity is being violated. Because someone is taking away your autonomy over yourself. The intentions of the other person are also very important. Someone accidently hurting you is much less traumatic than someone doing that on purpose. For all those reasons, realizing halfway through a sexgame that you want to quit, but being unable to, is much less traumatic than actual rape.


The bolded portion is what I disagree with--your assertion and then your restated conclusion. I don't think getting run over by a drunk driver is any more traumatic than getting run over by Kurt Russell from Death Proof. In fact, it might be more traumatic knowing that your partner is raping you unwittingly in an act they consider to be loving. But on the whole I don't think the intentions of the rapist matter to the rape victim in any real sense. Rape is traumatic because of the loss of control. Doesn't matter whether it's accidental or malicious.
Image

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:14 am UTC

Diadem wrote:For all those reasons, realizing halfway through a sexgame that you want to quit, but being unable to, is much less traumatic than actual rape.
Emphasis mine. Two things.

First: The moment someone withdraws their consent, it is now rape. That's some pretty basic stuff and if you can't wrap your head around it, then God help you.

Second: I would really, really not go around telling people who have been raped under similar circumstances (basically, any circumstance where consent was withdrawn for whatever reason) that their experiences are less traumatic and do not constitute "actual" rape.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Diadem » Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:32 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:
Diadem wrote:Thirdly: You're wrong. How traumatic an experience is, does not depend on how how unpleasant an activity is, but on the feelings and emotions involved. Specifically on your sense of integrity being violated. Rapeis not traumatic because its hurts, or because the activity is unpleasant. It is traumatic because your integrity is being violated. Because someone is taking away your autonomy over yourself. The intentions of the other person are also very important. Someone accidently hurting you is much less traumatic than someone doing that on purpose. For all those reasons, realizing halfway through a sexgame that you want to quit, but being unable to, is much less traumatic than actual rape.

So basically, you can make up whatever shit you want to tell yourself without justifying any of your claims at all, and the burden of proof is on us to prove that continuing with sex when your partner does not want it is rape.

Well, doh. Of course the burden of proof lies with you. You're the accuser. The burder on proof lies with the accuser, not the accused. That's a good principle not just in courts of law, but in any debate. The one who makes the claim (that is: a different claim than the null-hypothesis) has to proof it.

But what you have to proof is not the name of the activity, but the morality of it. Ultimate a name is just a label. I personally think it's silly to call two completely unrelated activities rape, but if you insist on doing so, well, a name is just a label. What you have to show is why it would be immoral. So far, I have not seen a single argument for that.

Nor can I think of one. And I'm really trying.

Malice wrote:You said: Rape (you know, rape-rape, the real thing) is unpleasant and traumatic, whereas sex without a safe word that turns unwanted is unpleasant but not as traumatic.
I said (a bit badly, I admit): Anytime sex is against your will, it's rape, and it's the fact of it being against your will that makes it traumatic, therefore they are equally traumatic.

That's fair summary of what i said :) Thanks. We obviously disagree though. I think what you are forgetting is that while the sex may at that point be against your will, you signed up in advance for the risk of that happening. That makes a big difference, psychologically. Your will is not being ignored, it is being misread. There is no malice on the side of your partner, he's still respecting your personal integrity. There's no betrayal of trust. Those things really make a big difference. Another important factor that makes rape so traumatic is fear. You don't know what's going on, what's going to happen, what else he is going to do, if you'll even survive. Such fear will be almost entirely absent in a situation where you are having sex without a safe word.

So yeah. Sex without a safe word that turns unwanted is unpleasant but hardly traumatic.

Sex against your will is rape, whether or not you are able to indicate your will. Someone who has been roofied and then fucked has been raped, despite the fact that they were unable to say no or fight back. Sex with a coma patient is rape, even though they're unconscious. Sex with a person who is blacked-out unconscious drunk is rape (even though they willingly removed their ability to protest via drinking, even if they originally intended to drink as a precursor to sex). Sex with somebody who can't speak, move, or indicate distress is rape if it ends up being against their will. Is that rape the partner's fault? That's debatable. But sex against your will is rape. Period.

Well by that logic: Killing is murder. Period. Hitting someone is abuse. Period.

I'm saying "Sure, in general that's true. But there are expections". If you want to argue that no such exceptions exist, sure, but don't do that by rigorously restating your original premise. Give me actual arguments of why sex without a safe word would not be such an exception. Or better yet give me actual arguments why it would be immoral. Because like I said above in response to Philwelch: Morality is what is important. At the end of the day a name is just a label.

The bolded portion is what I disagree with--your assertion and then your restated conclusion. I don't think getting run over by a drunk driver is any more traumatic than getting run over by Kurt Russell from Death Proof.

You're confusing physical trauma with mental trauma. Obviously for physical trauma who does it, or why, is not relevant. But I'm talking about emotional trauma.
In fact, it might be more traumatic knowing that your partner is raping you unwittingly in an act they consider to be loving. But on the whole I don't think the intentions of the rapist matter to the rape victim in any real sense. Rape is traumatic because of the loss of control. Doesn't matter whether it's accidental or malicious.

Disagree. See above.

The Great Hippo wrote:First: The moment someone withdraws their consent, it is now rape. That's some pretty basic stuff and if you can't wrap your head around it, then God help you.

Same logic here as Malice the post before you, so you get the same answer: By that logic killing is always murder, and hitting someone is always abuse. Sure most of the time that is true. But simply declaring all exceptions to be non-existent is not a convincing argument.

Second: I would really, really not go around telling people who have been raped under similar circumstances (basically, any circumstance where consent was withdrawn for whatever reason) that their experiences are less traumatic and do not constitute "actual" rape.

Have you even read the thread? Calling "any circumstance where consent was withdrawn" a similar circumstance makes me wonder if you have. It's like calling a dog and a tree similar because they are both alive.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:01 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
Malice wrote:You said: Rape (you know, rape-rape, the real thing) is unpleasant and traumatic, whereas sex without a safe word that turns unwanted is unpleasant but not as traumatic.
I said (a bit badly, I admit): Anytime sex is against your will, it's rape, and it's the fact of it being against your will that makes it traumatic, therefore they are equally traumatic.

That's fair summary of what i said :) Thanks. We obviously disagree though. I think what you are forgetting is that while the sex may at that point be against your will, you signed up in advance for the risk of that happening. That makes a big difference, psychologically. Your will is not being ignored, it is being misread. There is no malice on the side of your partner, he's still respecting your personal integrity. There's no betrayal of trust. Those things really make a big difference. Another important factor that makes rape so traumatic is fear. You don't know what's going on, what's going to happen, what else he is going to do, if you'll even survive. Such fear will be almost entirely absent in a situation where you are having sex without a safe word.

I hesitatingly agree with Diadem here, partly because I was reading through the blog of someone who indulges in sexual behaviour that's very similar to BDSM-without-a-safe-word. That is, sex where consent can't be withdrawn. If someone's big and ugly enough to say they choose to participate in such sexual activities, then far be it from me to tell them they're wrong for it. Yes, the people involved are exposing themselves to risks, but I don't think it's the same as it would have been if there were no such predetermined arrangement. To me, it's not entirely unlike getting stupidly drunk when you intend to get laid, and then waking up to find you have some regrets about the way things panned out (read as: sometimes you make decisions when you're drunk you wouldn't have made when you were sober, but you nevertheless feel responsible for them. Do not read as: "you were drunk so you were asking for it", because that's not what I'm implying).
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:24 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Same logic here as Malice the post before you, so you get the same answer: By that logic killing is always murder, and hitting someone is always abuse. Sure most of the time that is true. But simply declaring all exceptions to be non-existent is not a convincing argument.
All killing is murder. All hitting is abuse. The only difference is whether your murder was justified, or whether your abuse was justified. If I murder someone in self-defense, that's still murder. If I abuse someone in self-defense, it's still abuse. If I abuse someone because they like abuse, it's still abuse; if I murder someone to relieve their pain (and they gave me consent), it's still murder. If suddenly in the middle of that abuse or murder they go "STOP! I've changed my mind!" and I continue through with it, now it's wholly unjustified murder/abuse.

You seem to be immensely interested in whether or not a person is a rapist under these specific circumstances, or whether we can blame them for the situation; really, that's irrelevant, and an example of poor focusing. What's important is whether or not the victim has been raped. That's our focus, that's our concern. The intent of the actor does not matter one spit in this equation. You and your intent do not get to determine when someone has been raped - they determine that, by withdrawing their consent or never giving it in the first place.
Diadem wrote:Have you even read the thread? Calling "any circumstance where consent was withdrawn" a similar circumstance makes me wonder if you have. It's like calling a dog and a tree similar because they are both alive.
They are both similar in that regard. And yes - the definition of rape is nonconsensual sex. If someone withdraws consent, they are now being raped. If you withdraw consent mid-coitus and the person continues with that sex for 0.53 seconds before stopping, for that 0.53 seconds, you were being raped. Whether or not that means the person is evil - whether or not you should go around describing yourself as a rape victim - that's a discussion for another thread. But yeah, that's what rape is. It's pretty easy.
Pez Dispens3r wrote:I hesitatingly agree with Diadem here, partly because I was reading through the blog of someone who indulges in sexual behaviour that's very similar to BDSM-without-a-safe-word. That is, sex where consent can't be withdrawn. If someone's big and ugly enough to say they choose to participate in such sexual activities, then far be it from me to tell them they're wrong for it. Yes, the people involved are exposing themselves to risks, but I don't think it's the same as it would have been if there were no such predetermined arrangement. To me, it's not entirely unlike getting stupidly drunk when you intend to get laid, and then waking up to find you have some regrets about the way things panned out (read as: sometimes you make decisions when you're drunk you wouldn't have made when you were sober, but you nevertheless feel responsible for them. Do not read as: "you were drunk so you were asking for it", because that's not what I'm implying).
BDSM activities where you withdraw your ability to consent for whatever reason are your own business and I'm sure as snot not gonna tell consenting adults what they can and can't do. My issue is with Diadem's belief that if their partner withdraws consent - for real - that isn't rape, because they've given their consent previously to continue, regardless. One of the risks you run with these sort of activities is that you really will rape someone. Everyone involved needs to understand this risk. The notion that it's not actual rape because they said it was okay an hour ago is silly and nonsensical. The notion that this rape is somehow less important or less harrowing compared to other, more 'actual' types of rape - also silly, also nonsensical.

Also, as for your example - allow me to modify it to more clearly fit the situation we're discussing. Imagine a person decided they wanted to have drunken sex, announced this loudly and quite a number of times to the room, got drunk, and while they were drunk, suddenly changed their mind. They tried everything to convince those around them that they didn't want sex, but no one listened because our victim was so completely stinking drunk that they couldn't clearly express the fact that they wanted to withdraw consent. So someone had sex with them, despite consent having being withdrawn. Has this person been raped?

The answer is YES, screamed through an electrified bullhorn.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:51 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:All killing is murder. All hitting is abuse.

A nit: "murder" is defined as killing that is wrong (or illegal). Obviously, this is subjective, but for most speakers and listeners there is such a thing as a killing that is not murder. The real problem with Diadem's claim ("If all nonconsensual sex is rape, then all killing is murder") is that each clause employs very different logic: all nonconsensual sex is rape because rape is defined as nonconsensual sex, but not all killing is murder because murder is not defined merely as killing.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:06 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:A nit: "murder" is defined as killing that is wrong (or illegal). Obviously, this is subjective, but for most speakers and listeners there is such a thing as a killing that is not murder. The real problem with Diadem's claim ("If all nonconsensual sex is rape, then all killing is murder") is that each clause employs very different logic: all nonconsensual sex is rape because rape is defined as nonconsensual sex, but not all killing is murder because murder is not defined merely as killing.
That's fair, and I was later pondering over the fact that murder has a very real, very legal definition that other words might not - it implies certain things about the act itself that can separate it from the term 'kill'.

But yeah, unlike the words 'murder' and 'kill', 'non-consensual sex' and 'rape' are wholly interchangeable.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Diadem » Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:47 pm UTC

It seems very silly to describe to different activities with the same word. It only hinders clear and precise communication. All you achieve by definion all possible kinds of killing as murder is a downgrade of the term murder. Now, murder is no longer immoral. And you need a new defition for the kinds of killing (= murder) that is immoral. Same story for abuse. If you define all forms of hitting someone as abuse, then abuse is no longer a bad thing, and you need a new term for the kinds of abuse that are bad.

But if you're married to the word, then go ahead and use it.

You still have to show why it is immoral. All I hear on that subject so far is deafening silence.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:53 pm UTC

Why is it immoral... to hurt people?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Diadem » Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:56 pm UTC

Why would it be immoral to engage in sexual activities where consent, once given, can no longer be withdrawn for the duration of the activity. Such as bdsm play where one partner is gagged and bound, or rape roleplaying without a safe word.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:00 pm UTC

It doesn't have to be about morality. When you remove the ability to withdraw consent, and especially when you then go on to push hir boundaries, you run a substantial risk of hurting your partner. It may be OK for the two of you to take that risk, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that there even is a risk.

Also, this discussion has gone really fucking off topic, as far as I can tell.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Freakish
Posts: 909
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:47 am UTC
Location: Northern Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Freakish » Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:32 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:It doesn't have to be about morality. When you remove the ability to withdraw consent, and especially when you then go on to push hir boundaries, you run a substantial risk of hurting your partner. It may be OK for the two of you to take that risk, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that there even is a risk.

Also, this discussion has gone really fucking off topic, as far as I can tell.


That's just not true. There is a risk, and it's been accepted.

Why can I not consent to rape with full knowledge that I won't be able to revoke my consent once the fantasy has started. It's the exact same as sky diving, you jump out of the plane with full knowledge that you'll have no control until you hit the ground. I'm consenting to removing my ability to revoke consent.

When consenting to rape, there's a chance that someone hasn't fully consider the possibilities and things can go wrong like any time you consent to sex. You just need to be careful, and you need to do it with someone you have complete trust in. You need to be aware of what your partner is okay with.
Freakish Inc. We completely understand the public’s concern about futuristic robots feeding on the human population

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:09 pm UTC

Freakish wrote:Why can I not consent to rape with full knowledge that I won't be able to revoke my consent once the fantasy has started. It's the exact same as sky diving, you jump out of the plane with full knowledge that you'll have no control until you hit the ground. I'm consenting to removing my ability to revoke consent.

When consenting to rape, there's a chance that someone hasn't fully consider the possibilities and things can go wrong like any time you consent to sex. You just need to be careful, and you need to do it with someone you have complete trust in. You need to be aware of what your partner is okay with.
Oh, yes, and really, that's fine. If you consent - if you say "I want to be put in a situation where I cannot withdraw my consent, and I accept that there is a possibility that this might, as a result, turn sour with no way out" - there's no way in hell I'm going to tell you you're wrong or you can't do that. All I'm saying is that we have to acknowledge what the situation becomes when it turns nonconsensual.

What Diadem is doing is saying that, if the rapist didn't intend to rape you, it's not the same as 'actual' rape, etc. Which is ridiculous.
Diadem wrote:It seems very silly to describe to different activities with the same word.
Explain how rape is fundamentally different, more traumatizing, or otherwise more 'bad' than non-consensual sex? This is something I'm intensely interested in hearing.
Diadem wrote:You still have to show why it is immoral. All I hear on that subject so far is deafening silence.
No, I don't have to show why it's immoral. I don't care if it's immoral or not. What you want to do behind closed doors is your business, and so long as everyone consents, I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong. Go ahead, do it.

But when you tell me that an unintentional rape is not as bad as an intended rape - that the victim of unintended rape is somehow less traumatized, somehow less a victim of rape - that's when I get a little peeved. You're the one who's hung up on words - you're demanding we not call rape what it is because you don't want that word anywhere near you. And really, I don't give a fuck. Rape is rape; any time someone withdraws their consent and sex continues, they are being raped. There is no way for you to wriggle, squirm, or twist your way out of that.

And I don't think that the victims of rape - rapes that began as consensual encounters, rapes that came about as a product of an inability to express a lack of consent, rapes where the rapist was not intentionally aiming to rape anyone, etc - would appreciate you telling them that they weren't really raped, oh no; they just kind of, y'know, failed at consent. I'm also fairly certain that they wouldn't like you telling them that whatever experiences they have as a product of that rape are far less traumatizing and damaging than the experiences of victims of 'actual' rape.

Basically, I can't see any way to work around you being a jerk here. All you have to do is say: "My partners and I understand that one of us getting raped is a potential risk of how we do things. However, we all understand those risks, and accept them." - Bam, you're done. You get to keep BDSMin', and you don't sound like some sort of creepy rape apologist.

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Cynical Idealist » Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:40 pm UTC

Freakish wrote:Why can I not consent to rape

Because that would be an oxymoron?
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Philwelch » Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:37 am UTC

Diadem wrote:It seems very silly to describe to different activities with the same word.


I got this definition of "rape" from the New Oxford American Dictionary:

"force (another person) to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will"

We're describing a situation where a person previously consented, is made capable of stopping sex or communicating a withdrawal of consent, and during the sexual act, chooses to withdraw consent and does not want to continue. That fits the definition of rape.

Diadem wrote:You still have to show why it is immoral. All I hear on that subject so far is deafening silence.


You've been given multiple arguments, ranging from "it's not meaningfully different from other forms of rape" to "it causes intense suffering", to which your only counterargument has been "yes it is" and "no it doesn't", respectively.

Incidentally, it's rather revealing where you've pushed the goalposts. I was trying to suggest that arguing from a moral basis was a bad idea--just out of compassion for your partner, you don't want to put them at any risk of the kind of suffering and trauma that comes with rape. Arguing from a moral basis implies an attitude of "I don't give a fuck about my partner, I just want to feel morally entitled to potentially rape them." Which makes you a rapist asshole.

Freakish wrote:Why can I not consent to rape with full knowledge that I won't be able to revoke my consent once the fantasy has started. It's the exact same as sky diving, you jump out of the plane with full knowledge that you'll have no control until you hit the ground. I'm consenting to removing my ability to revoke consent.


Gravity is a natural law. People are moral agents capable of changing their actions based upon moral imperatives. That's the difference.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Internetmeme
Posts: 1405
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:16 pm UTC
Location: South Carolina, USA

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Internetmeme » Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:25 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:My best guess is that, if you even had a legally binding contract for sexual services, the prostitute would *not* be required by the court to render specific performance. The best you could get out of suing a prostitute who didn't fuck you was monetary damages.


Deleted.

I think I should avoid this question.
Last edited by Internetmeme on Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:31 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Spoiler:

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:31 am UTC

Of fucking course not. It's considered rape. And, yeah, that was still pretty insensitive. Beyond insensitive.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Saurus33
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:19 am UTC

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Saurus33 » Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:47 am UTC

I think (maybe) what Diadem's saying here is that while the submissive partner would be raped, the one doing the raping would not be a rapist, in that someone who goes into something with consent being given prior isn't equally as horrible as someone who commits rape without prior consent.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:12 pm UTC

Saurus33 wrote:I think (maybe) what Diadem's saying here is that while the submissive partner would be raped, the one doing the raping would not be a rapist, in that someone who goes into something with consent being given prior isn't equally as horrible as someone who commits rape without prior consent.
Diadem wrote:Thirdly: You're wrong. How traumatic an experience is, does not depend on how how unpleasant an activity is, but on the feelings and emotions involved. Specifically on your sense of integrity being violated. Rapeis not traumatic because its hurts, or because the activity is unpleasant. It is traumatic because your integrity is being violated. Because someone is taking away your autonomy over yourself. The intentions of the other person are also very important. Someone accidently hurting you is much less traumatic than someone doing that on purpose. For all those reasons, realizing halfway through a sexgame that you want to quit, but being unable to, is much less traumatic than actual rape.
"It doesn't hurt as much if they didn't intend to rape you... Because intent is very important as far as the victim is concerned. If they didn't intend to rape you, it's not 'actual' rape."

Yeah, no. Don't think that's what Diadem is trying to say. I respect your attempt to mediate, but Diadem's trying to tell rape victims how they're supposed to feel about their rape. And telling some number of them that they weren't actually raped.

Maybe Diadem wants to say something else, but I'd have an easier time swallowing it if they weren't engaging in this sort of nonsense along the way.

User avatar
Freakish
Posts: 909
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:47 am UTC
Location: Northern Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby Freakish » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:46 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Thirdly: You're wrong. How traumatic an experience is, does not depend on how how unpleasant an activity is, but on the feelings and emotions involved. Specifically on your sense of integrity being violated. Rapeis not traumatic because its hurts, or because the activity is unpleasant. It is traumatic because your integrity is being violated. Because someone is taking away your autonomy over yourself. The intentions of the other person are also very important. Someone accidently hurting you is much less traumatic than someone doing that on purpose. For all those reasons, realizing halfway through a sexgame that you want to quit, but being unable to, is much less traumatic than actual rape.
"It doesn't hurt as much if they didn't intend to rape you... Because intent is very important as far as the victim is concerned. If they didn't intend to rape you, it's not 'actual' rape."[/quote]

It's pretty bad when you actually have to rewrite your opponent's argument before you twist their words.

"It doesn't hurt as much if they didn't intend to hurt you during a rape fantasy... Because intent is very important as far as the victim is concerned. If you've agreed to the role playing, it's not 'actual' rape."


We're still on the subject of rape role playing right?
Freakish Inc. We completely understand the public’s concern about futuristic robots feeding on the human population

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trigger:Sometimes you fail me modern art....

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:54 pm UTC

Freakish wrote:It's pretty bad when you actually have to rewrite your opponent's argument before you twist their words.
I like to rephrase what people are saying so they can understand why what they're saying is wrong. Exactly how do you think I'm misinterpreting their claim?
Freakish wrote:We're still on the subject of rape role playing right?
And how the assumptions we make there affect rape-claims at large. If it's not rape when someone withdraws their consent during fantasy play - and can't express that withdrawing of consent - then there are a lot of other situations where it's not rape. Also, if the intent of a rapist has a direct impact on how bad a rape victim feels after a rape (or whether or not it even qualifies as a rape), I'm sure there are plenty of rape victims (well, if the intent matters, maybe they don't 'qualify' as rape victims anymore) who need to be told that their experiences are no where near as traumatic as they think they are.

Do I need to draw you a diagram, here?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests