[ SECRET POST #5138 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[meadowphoenix]

it's irrelevant whether there are more prescient issues for you, or for anyone. the idea that if something is rape it must be the main issue doesn't make sense. the question of rape is whether someone is preventing you from acting with agency. you can question wherein the limitation moves from substantial to insignificant, but not that that the deliberate removal of agency automatically is substantial. because magic used against a person isn't just a limitation but actual removal, I think this applies as substantial.

real world examples rarely completely remove agency from a person, they mostly limit it. for the record, there are a couple of places where rape by deception is criminal (thought they are controversial laws), so this isn't even beyond the legal realm. in the US, this is usually by putting the person in danger (unknown STI's, removal of condoms), because the victim doesn't have the relevant information to protect themselves.

California has a good example of substantial agency limitation, or fraud. There was a person who pretended to be a doctor and told people that they were spreading disease and could be charged criminally if anyone found out, and the only way to get rid of the disease was a prohibitively expensive surgery or sex with a donor, (who was the "doctor" what a co-winky-dink). They had "consensual" sex, but California changed the law to be able to charge him, because that's wildly rapey.

[ypsilon42]

Sure rape doesn't have to be the main issue to count. I guess what I was trying to say is that I just wouldn't classify it as rape. I also wouldn't classify it as rape if someone had a relationship/sex while undercover for example (which for example can happen with long term undercover law enforcement). Or if someone lied/fabricated evidence/etc. to keep a relationship going, that would otherwise have ended. Both of these thing are of course severely fucked up, but I wouldn't really call them rape.

I feel like the Willow/Tara situation is more in line with these, than with putting someone in danger via undisclosed STD or the pretend doctor. At the end of the day it's really hard to put real life terms on magic anyways so maybe, its a moot point to argue.

[meadowphoenix]

I mean, it may be hard to visualize in real world terms but I don't think defining how magic acts on a person, and how that works as a understanding of consent is actually hard. Bottom line is you don't think anything less than active consent violations within sexual encounters to the encounter are rape, and that's certainly a framing you can have on consent. I think active manipulation is a violation of consent if it removes the ability to make an informed decision on saying yes, and in sexual encounters, therefore rape (although difficult to make criminal). The magic is irrelevant except that you don't think it was relevant to the consent, and I do. I don't think that's actually a grey area, or an area of nuance, that's straight up we don't think the same about acting on other people's wills or circumstances and how that impacts their ability to say yes.