[ SECRET POST #4188 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4188 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01. https://s33.postimg.cc/hv89rrhqn/s22.jpg
[OP wanted a warning for spiders, also everything below is spoilers and etc.]




__________________________________________________



02. https://s33.postimg.cc/olor17zrj/s21.jpg
[OP warned for gore/death]


__________________________________________________





















03. [SPOILERS for Hereditary]


__________________________________________________



04. [SPOILERS for Hogwarts Mystery]



__________________________________________________



05. [SPOILERS for Vampyr]



__________________________________________________



06. [SPOILERS for Digimon Adventure Tri]



__________________________________________________



07. [SPOILERS for Blue Exorcist]



__________________________________________________



08. [SPOILERS for Solo]



__________________________________________________



09. [SPOILERS for Solo]



__________________________________________________



10. [SPOILERS for Solo]




__________________________________________________



11. [WARNING for discussion of suicide]



__________________________________________________



12. [WARNING for discussion of suicide]




__________________________________________________



13. [WARNING for discussion of suicide]




__________________________________________________



14. [WARNING for discussion of child porn]



__________________________________________________



15. [WARNING for discussion of sexual abuse]

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #599.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I promise you that that scene was not intended to be even remotely sexual and the fact that you interpret it as such kinda says more about you than about the fact that the rest of us do not interpret it in a sexual way

[(Anonymous)]

So are you saying if they didn't INTEND it to be sexual it's not sexual assault? Do you know that's excuses people give for actual sexual assault? Ask Brendan Fraser.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

This is a terrible argument. We are talking about authorial intent in depicting a scene, not the kind of intent that exists in real life interactions.

[(Anonymous)]

Saying "Rowling didn't intend for sexual assault to be sexual so it's not sexual assault" is a terrible argument.

[(Anonymous)]

It doesn't prove anything on its own, of course. but it's one important factor to consider as a guideline for interpretation, for figuring out how best to read the scene.

[(Anonymous)]

Under that logic, we'd never be able to enjoy anything. Writers are not pure moral templates and we sometimes have to separate the character from their miscommunicated parts in order to enjoy them the way they were intended. If it leaves too big a smudge to be overlooked, that's fine, but the next person doesn't have to feel the same way.

[thewakokid]

Kinda yeah. Like, lets beef up the situation to something more obviously not ok. Say Rowling wrote James shoving a bottle up Snape. But Rowling doesn't believe that men can be raped, or that it wouldn't count as rape because it's not a penis, or any of the other arguments actual real life people have for why male rape isn't really rape.

Say she genuinely doesn't feel she's writing a rape scene. Does that mean her intent counteracts the fact that it is a rape?

[(Anonymous)]

It's a scene in a work of fiction. It didn't actually happen. The incident and characters have no reality independent of what was intended.

[thewakokid]

The fuck? What did Brendan Fraser do?

*Preparing to be bummed out*

[(Anonymous)]

Got molested by a studio exec, complained, was told 'it was just a joke lololol'

[thewakokid]

Ah ok.

Good. Well no, not good, but I'm glad he didn't rape anyone.

How is it I never heard about this???

[(Anonymous)]

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/brendan-fraser-hfpa-ex-president-sexually-assaulted-him-1202707850/

"It's not sexual assault! It's just a joke! I didn't INTEND it to be sexual!"

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, because one guy fiddling with another guy's taint and ass is the exactly the same as a kid flipping another kid upside to expose his underwear.

[(Anonymous)]

Meant to be "is exactly the same as a kid flipping another kid upside-down to expose his underwear."

[(Anonymous)]

So if I were to hold down a girl and lift up her skirt I could just say “hey this isn’t sexual assault bedside I didn’t diddle your asshole”? Wtf?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sorry you can't understand the levels between a kid being stupid and a full grown adult who should know better, much less the difference between not touching someone and actually touching someone.

[(Anonymous)]

When I was a child, my friend and I would twist each others nipples when we were fighting. If I twisted my coworker's nipple when we had an argument now, it would've been sexual assault. But then it was just kids doing mean things to one another. I certainly don't feel sexually assaulted by my childhood friends.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm in total agreement with you, anon. Exposing someone's underwear a la "pantsing" is meant to evoke the underlying embarrassment that seems to be endemic to the human consciousness. See: all the people who have dreams about showing up to class or work in their underwear. It's not about the genitals, it's about the vulnerability of having your private self made public.

JK Rowling wrote James doing the magical version of pantsing Snape. have we really gotten to the point where people don't know that this ever was a thing that immature dicks did to each other to be immature?

[(Anonymous)]

In fairness: there probably are times when pantsing should be considered sexual assault, and if JKR had written the scene differently, it might have been.

but, you know, she didn't

[(Anonymous)]

She also didn't write a golden years love story between McGonagall and Hooch, so where did all these fanfics in my pocket come from?

[(Anonymous)]

NA who's only mildly interested in the eternal James & Snape argument would respectfully like to request some McGonagall/Hooch recs.

[thewakokid]

well, just for context, if a writer wrote a rape scene, but had no intended it to actually be rape and thought they were just writing some kinky shit (Thinking all the bodice ripper stuff) does that mean that it's A-OK?

I mean, "The writer never even considered that this is basically assault" doesn't feel like it would have a mitigating effect in any other circumstance.

[(Anonymous)]

ah, the old twilight argument. it's bit romantic it's creepy, witch hunt witch hunt

[thewakokid]

Well, yeah, Does it matter that the writer finds it sweet if the actions themselves are by most peoples standards creepy? I don't know.

I do think that most people find it creepy regardless of what the writer intended, tho. And if you think the authors intent doesn't matter with twilight, then the same should apply to Harry Potter.

[(Anonymous)]

It doesn't mean that it's A-OK. It's about trying to interpret it in context, and authorial intent is one important piece of the context. What did the author want us to take from the scene, and how does that fit in relation to the rest of the story? How do we actually respond to the scene, as readers? How big is the tension between those two things? Is this a tension we can resolve? There are times where the intended meaning is so dissonant from our reaction that we just can't see them the way that they're intended, and there are times when that's not the case - it depends how it's written and what's going on.

So with the scene in question - on the one hand, a bare recital of the facts of the scene would probably fall under our definition of sexual assault. On the other hand, that's clearly not what was meant by JKR, and it's also clearly not something that would really have been considered sexual assault by most readers when the book was released. It's not something that every reader today would see as sexual assault, and the scene isn't written in a way that really couches itself as sexual. And it doesn't really make sense with the rest of the book - we're really not meant to read James as sexually menacing, and reading him that way would be massively tonally dissonant. So, I would say it probably makes more sense to interpret it as not being sexual assault. Ultimately, it's a fictional construct, not a real event.

But honestly, there isn't even anything intrinsically wrong with interpreting the scene as sexual assault. I don't think it's the most textual or accurate reading, but there's nothing wrong with that, and it can be interesting to say, OK, how would this interpretation change the way that we read the rest of the story. I don't think this interpretation is that interesting, but that's just me. Where the problem comes is when people treat that interpretation as though it's textual, as though it's fact, and rely on it to make arguments about other parts of the text (IE, Snape Woobie James Evil). It's fundamentally bad and biased interpretation.