fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5138 ]

[ SECRET POST #5138 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5138 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02. [SPOILERS for Queen's Gambit]

__________________________________________________

03. [WARNING for mention of animal death]

[Doug]

__________________________________________________

04. [WARNING for mention of rape]

__________________________________________________

05. [WARNING for discussion of sexual harassment/rape fantasies]

__________________________________________________

06. [WARNING for mention of child grooming]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #735.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

No they didn't

Willow drugs Tara, OP.

She uses magic to make her forget an argument

OOoohooHHHH, I am SOOOOO sorry OP. She only MAGICALLY drugs her. K, troll.

Saying she was drugged implies she was incapitated and unable to consent when she was fully cognizant

K, troll.

😘

You were being manipulative with language by using the word "drugged" and you know it. "Magically drugged" can mean anything because magical drugs aren't real, so they could theoretically have any effect that the writer chooses to imbue them with. There is no real drug that causes the loss of a specific memory chosen by the giver of the drug.

Did Willow take an action which deprived Tara of the ability to use all the facts relevant to make her own free decision in regards to consent?

Uh. Yes? Or was this rhetorical. Willow magicked away a very fucking serious argument they had. Tara likely would not have slept with her (at that time) if she had still had memories of said argument. That is literally depriving her of all the facts to consent properly...

Canon is very clear, though, and makes the connection explicit. Tara herself views it as taking away of her consent.

She was upset, she didn't say she was raped

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2021-01-30 12:28 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2021-01-30 14:52 (UTC) - Expand

She basically roofied Tara. And the show makes every effort to show and directly tell that it wasn't okay. Tara broke up with Willow because of it. It was bad. The message from the show was "this was bad."

If you're not getting it, it's because you don't want to.

It can be wrong without being rape

Sure, but it was rape

I'm not necessarily saying I think it wasn't rape, but I do appreciate your desire to unpack this a bit and explore the nuances. What Willow does to Tara is unquestionably a violation, and a serious one at that.

Whether the sex that occurs later is rape is a much more complicated question.

If one cheats on one's partner, keeps one's unfaithfulness a secret, and continues sleeping with one's partner, does that constitute rape because the partner would leave if they knew? What if one goes deeply into debt due to a gambling addiction but keeps it secret from one's partner and continues sleeping with them, is it rape because the partner would leave if they knew? What if one has been through it with their partner before, and the partner has issued a warning: "Do not do this again or I will leave you"? Does that make it rape to conceal the misdeed and continue sleeping with one's partner? Where is the line?

All are deep, maybe unforgivable, violations of the partner's right to make informed decisions about what they do with themselves. But is it rape?

So yeah, I don't think the question of whether Willow rapes Tara is an open-and-shut one, and I find it exasperating (though not exactly surprising) that so many people are acting like it is.

Well, you're talking about keeping info to yourself that you know your partner would be interested in, which is manipulative, that's not at all the same as removing information from someone that they had, which is abusive. There's simply no real world equivalences. The only thing that comes close is deliberately giving someone a concussion and convincing them while they're confused that you're in a sexual relationship. I do think sex in that circumstance is straight up rape.

How about a situation where you lie to your partner or produce false evidence exonerating you, as a closer real life equivalent.

Personally, calling the situation rape doesnt work for me at all. If my partner took away my memories and free will, the fact that I had (at the time consensual) sex with them during that time, really not be the main problem for me.

(no subject)

meadowphoenix - 2021-01-31 00:15 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

ypsilon42 - 2021-01-31 00:45 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

meadowphoenix - 2021-01-31 01:58 (UTC) - Expand

DA. I think you raise some interesting points that are often overlooked in kind of black and white arguments about these kinds of storylines. However, I also think you're giving AYRT far too much credit here by assuming they actually mean to "unpack these nuances".

DA Magical drugging, then.

yeah, isn't drugging somebody by magic just as bad as doing it by more mundane methods?

One thing I've gathered over the past few weeks that some people think that if it is magical, it doesn't count and all moral rules go out the window even when canons themselves already have clear moral rules that are based on real world ones.

This is my favorite thing about fandom vs. the media we obsess over. Books, movies, tv shows etc are littered with metaphors. So many of them are allegories.

And fandom is just so. Fucking. Literal.

Meh. Personally, I never want to be so high school basic in my reading of a text that I fail to recognize both the metaphoric and the literal, or fail to consider the text from both a Doylist and a Watsonian perspective.

Non-consensual vampire blood-drinking may be a metaphor for sexual assault. But it's also, literally, a vampire non-consensually drinking someone's blood. Both of those things can be true, and the latter definitely is.

Death Eaters may be a metaphor for Nazism and racism. The First Order may be a metaphor for Nazism and fascism. But separate from that, they are both, also, literally just what they are.

So the argument that X equals Y in any valid interpretation of the text, because X can be read as a metaphor for Y, just seems incredibly simplistic to me. Like, ye-ees. But also, no.

Thank you. I am very aware of the real-world metaphors that can be made and may be intended by the writing of magical violations that can't literally happen for real. The distinction between magical and literal violations in fiction are important to me -and I would assume I'm not the only one- because I literally react differently to them. Actual rape in fiction distresses me while magical rape does not, and I can't help this, it's a physical reaction so I'm sorry my body is so ~childishly literal~ that it panics when someone is being raped on the screen but doesn't when someone is getting their blood sucked by a vampire.

That's why, at the very least, I would like people to always use literal language when they describe something that happened on a show. "Willow roofied Tara" may mean the exact same thing to you as "Willow put a spell on Tara to make her forget they were arguing and then had sex with her" but it makes all the difference as to how I choose to view it and how well I'd be able to assess whether I can handle watching a show where this happens. At the very least, have some consideration for other people's triggers. (Not you, AYRT; the people you're replying to.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only