Diadem wrote:So, basically, being unable to find any argument why such an activity would be a bad thing, you insist on calling it rape so as to obfuscate the issue and make it look like a bad thing. And then you call me a rape apologist, while you're the one who insists on labelling perfectly acceptable activities as rape, thereby devaluating the word.
I'm pointing out that your insistence that rape is impossible under these circumstances is a denial of the fact that rape has
happened under similar circumstances, and it can be incredibly traumatic for those who were victimized as such. I'm also pointing out that you're insistently telling rape victims under what circumstances they have a right to feel traumatized ("if your partner didn't intend it, it shouldn't be as traumatic" - what? Why? Why should a rape victim feel less raped just because you didn't intend
to rape them?).
I find it curious though that you do not care if an activity is immoral or not. You put rules, nay, definitions of words, above morality? What kind of weird priority is that? In your defence though you seem somewhat confused about this yourself as well. Because later on in the same post you say:
The Great Hipplo wrote:Basically, I can't see any way to work around you being a jerk here.
So it's not immoral, but if you do it you're jerk. In what universe does that make sense?
Because what you're saying
is very jerkish, not what you're doing
. You're explaining that you're engaging in consensual relationships with other people where (we'll assume) everyone is aware of the risks and there is a level of trust and maturity which allows you to minimize the risk of trauma, of rape, of pain and of anguish. I don't parse that as immoral, and again, if everyone understands and consents, I really don't care anyway. But when you go ahead and say "Now, if something terrible does happen - if someone involved suddenly isn't consenting, and can't express that consent - oh, that's not rape. And if they feel traumatized by it, well, because of some pop psychology course I once took, I am in a position to determine that their trauma is irrelevant and silly, because obviously it's less of a deal if I didn't intend
to rape them."
Diadem wrote:Also. Flat out denying the existence of psychology? ¡This cheese is burning me!.
Do you have a degree in psychology? Have you received formal training on rape counseling? Do you have a license to provide therapy for those who have suffered through sexual abuse? Have you yourself been sexually abused?
If the answer to all of these questions is 'no', then you need to shut up and stop telling rape victims 1)
How they're supposed to view their rape, 2)
Under what circumstances they cease being rape victims, and 3)
Exactly what part of rape is the most traumatizing for them. Because, HEY, GUESS WHAT: You don't have one fucking clue.
Don't feel too bad. Neither do I. But I'm not the one creating hierarchies of rape.