[ SECRET POST #2439 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2439 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________














[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]
















07. [SPOILERS for Iron Man 3]



__________________________________________________



08. [SPOILERS for Naruto Shippuden - Road to Ninja]



__________________________________________________



09. [SPOILERS for Psycho Pass]



__________________________________________________















[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]



















10. [WARNING for suicide]



__________________________________________________



11. [WARNING for rape? i think]

[orange is the new black]


__________________________________________________



12. [WARNING for rape]

[Sherlock Holmes 2009]





















Notes:

I think I accidentally deleted a secret today or yesterday - if yours (from the week before this one) hasn't been posted, please resubmit. Sorry about that.

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #348.
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

[dreemyweird]

I would've understood your sentiments, OP, if there was any indication at all that it made him uncomfortable or that he was in any way not OK with it. As it is, well? It is Victorian England? Nobody knows what informed consent is.

I see where you are coming from, but I cannot help thinking that you judge actions of a character who belongs in a different epoch by employing modern ethics, and that's where the problem lies.

[(Anonymous)]

if that's the case, why did everyone here say lucretia from spartacus was a rapist for having sex with her husband's gladiator?

[dreemyweird]

...probably because they're committing the same mistake as the OP

But then I'm not overly familiar with this particular canon source, so there may be other, more valid reasons. Perhaps the gladiator in question seemed to mind at some point.

[(Anonymous)]

Because F!S is full of stupid and incoherent SJWs.

[kallanda_lee]

I think if you're sensible you can learn to frame things in several contexts.

By out terms, Lucretia would be a rapist.

By Roman terms, she certainly was not, as slaves were property and had no specific right to bodily integrity.

It is your choice how you choose to judge Lucretia based on that info.

[dreemyweird]

That's a good point.

[(Anonymous)]

Because she forced Crixus to service her for years, in order to get pregnant and give her husband a child. Crixus wasn't just her husband's 'gladiator', he was their slave and he had NO say (especially when she first started sending for him) in anything that happened to him much less 'servicing' the woman of the house.

Lucretia was a complicated, fascinating character who was a rapist.

Actually Lucretia AND Battiatus were both rapists. They used their house slaves to get sexually aroused by requiring the slaves to stimulate and fellate them, in addition to forcing them to perform sexual acts for honored guests of the house. Just because it was as common as grapes on the dinner table doesn't make it any less wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

So you'd agree that movie!Irene is a rapist (at the very least, a sexual assaulter) as well, yes?

[(Anonymous)]

Would you say the same if the genders were reversed?

[dreemyweird]

Yep, absolutely. Given that otherwise the situation is the same.

[kallanda_lee]

I think it's indeed relevant that this incarnation of Sherlock doesn't mind the situation at all. And one might even argue Irene is enough of a judge of character to know he isn't. Which are all factors that lead towards me not interpreting this scene as rapey.

[insanenoodlyguy]

There's also a pratical aspect to consider.

Obviously Irene has a sense of humor, but her undressing of holmes was also a precaution: this was calculated to buy her time, delay holmes as much as possible cause she knows that man can follow a trail.

[kallanda_lee]

True. Adding to that not all nudity is sexual.

[(Anonymous)]

I second all that's been said here and given OP's comment below, I wonder if it isn't a very subtle troll trying to distort the scene into something it isn't.

[(Anonymous)]

Reason #several thousand why this version of Holmes sucks beyond the telling of it.

[(Anonymous)]

Haha no. That's not a "reason".

[(Anonymous)]

This reason sucks, because we are not talking about an historical accurate movie. Do not pick your beans only when you want them.

The real reason would be the "Women can´t rape men, because men always want to have the sex, especially with a pretty lady. When a woman molest a man it is totally funny!" - trope