fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2441 ]

[ SECRET POST #2441 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2441 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 055 secrets from Secret Submission Post #349.
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

i'm really not. but i think i'm about to do a damn good impression of one. sorry in advance.

ok so i found this today:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/7517c8e6264c2130a77c3aaed888a21c/tumblr_mscskpBp461ryeto5o1_500.png

and at first i thought it was just some random anti-guy 'feminist' hate speech.

then i got to the last two lines...

well shit. i have to admit, i kinda feel like i've been defending guys at the expense of women. the line of reasoning I've been using to defend victims of male rape can and is being used to help male rapists escape judgment. i am not happy about this.

thoughts?

no.

1) having an erection does not necessarily = consent, just like a victim having an orgasm does not necessarily = consent. physical response =/= mental response

2) what a man chooses to do with an erection is his responsibility, just like what a man chooses to do with or about a superior who is trying to pressure him to rape, is his responsibility

3) people can be a rapist and a victim at once. they arent mutually exclusive

people can be a rapist and a victim at once. they arent mutually exclusive

^ all that needed to be said really.

I feel like a lot of tumblr just doesn't understand how erections work. When I was younger, I got an erection everytime there was a strong breeze. Honestly, it doesn't take much.

also, I don't really understand your confliction. there is a huge, gigantic difference between saying "it's possible for men to be raped because an erection doesn't equal consent" and "my boss told me to rape someone so I did". those arguments don't really go together...like at all.

this

wtf?

i suppose my problem is that these animals can go out there and commit these horrible acts, and then turn around and say "i'm not a rapist, i'm a rape victim" and they get to do that because of the line of reasoning i have up until now been supporting, the "erection does not equal consent" line

i helped build this shelter for these animals

Um. No. You did not "build a shelter" when you accepted a physiological fact.

Just because someone attempts to distort truth into an excuse or justification for their behavior does not mean the truth should be denied.

Physical arousal =/= consent.

you helped build an animal shelter? good for you!

No, they don't "get to do that," at least in a moral sense, because unless the "pressure" their commander puts them under is sticking a gun to the side of their head and saying "Rape this woman or I shoot you!" then they made a choice to be a rapist and the state of their penises has nothing to do with it. Even if it was, "Rape this woman or I fire you," the correct response there is, "With no respect, sir, I fucking quit. Also, you're an evil bastard, sir." There are no circumstances where peer pressure or professional pressure make it okay to rape somebody and THAT is what's wrong with this example. Not that somebody did or didn't have an erection.

No, you built a shelter for victims, and the animals came barging in and used it for themselves, because that's what predators do. That doesn't mean the shelter shouldn't exist for those who need it, because some asshole may exploit it at some point.

I think this is an extremely good way of putting it.

Eloquent anon is eloquent, this is a good way to put it

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

diet_poison - 2013-09-09 05:03 (UTC) - Expand

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-09 16:03 (UTC) - Expand

Goddamn that is stupid. I mean, seriously stupid

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-08 23:58 (UTC) - Expand

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-09 00:02 (UTC) - Expand

here just repeat this until you understand

a person can be a rapist and a victim at the same time
a person can be a rapist and a victim at the same time
a person can be a rapist and a victim at the same time

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-08 23:58 (UTC) - Expand

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-09 00:03 (UTC) - Expand

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

kelincihutan - 2013-09-09 02:54 (UTC) - Expand

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-09 03:09 (UTC) - Expand

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

kelincihutan - 2013-09-09 03:20 (UTC) - Expand

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-09 04:24 (UTC) - Expand

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

kelincihutan - 2013-09-09 11:28 (UTC) - Expand

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-09 11:39 (UTC) - Expand

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

kelincihutan - 2013-09-09 11:57 (UTC) - Expand

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-09 04:26 (UTC) - Expand

annnnnnnnnd that's about it for me. there's literally no way for me to respond to this comment in a thoughtful manner so I think I'm going to just...let this thread go. you have a nice evening

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-09 00:01 (UTC) - Expand

Ok, here's what the law says.

Rape is a criminal act. It's a criminal act for military personnel. It's a criminal act to order it done. It's a criminal act to do it under the orders of a superior officer. "Under pressure" from a superior officer is not an acceptable defense under the UCMJ, and probably not an acceptable defense under other military jurisdictions either.

What might be an affirmative defense (meaning the defendant will would have to prove it) is if the defendant was coerced by threat of imminent harm. Again, this is an affirmative defense where the defendant assumes the burden of proof.

You are not at fault, and the correct arguments you were making are not proven wrong, if someone uses those arguments in a totally fucking incorrect, irrational, obviously flawed, vicious way.

The correct response here is not to say "Oh jesus! The physical facts I was talking about earlier must somehow be untrue! I guess men can't be raped!" The correct response here is to use your fucking reason and to realize that the people in question are using bullshit arguments, and using true facts in untrue ways, to justify their horrific behavior. That does not make the arguments or the facts untrue; it makes the people misusing them shithead liars. C'mon, just use your head.

Being serious now.

First off, considering that first part shows that this person clearly has no idea how the male body works, despite being a guy. I wouldn't worry too much about this guys rants as far as your worldview.

He makes an obvious point (and it's been said above me to) that yeah, a guy who's got an erection AND is actively putting it in something has responsibility if they are doing that to somebody who doesn't want it, sure!

Lets use another metaphor, one famous since the Nuemburg trials. A solider ordered to kill by a superior. That soldier may well be afraid of what might happen if they disobey the order, even if it's sketchy. After the war they might even have PTSD from it. However, in many circumstances, that does not magically absolve them of their responsibility if they committed a war crime. They did something bad, even if they feared something bad happening to them.

None of that involves erections, but it still applies I think, to cases like that. Even if there was a real pressure, a real threat those soldiers feared, that doesn't magically change that they raped somebody and wave any consequences they deserve for that. Even if they are sorry now.

Re: You're illogical leaps are bizzare and there is no real conflict here

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-09 02:43 (UTC) - Expand

That post made me recoil from the fucking screen. That's the exact same logic people use when rape victims orgasm while being assaulted, claiming they couldn't have had such a physical reaction if it was nonconsensual. That's pro-rape logic, and that's horrible, even when it's being used to condemn rapists themselves. Becoming the monster to beat the monster just plays right into the very mindset with which those monsters view the world, that some people, any people, are ever asking for it, or deserve it; that's unacceptable to me.

And as for gang rape, as the above anon said, one can be a rapist and a victim at the same time. How to address that reality in a court of law, well, hell if I know.

I'd say in response that most male survivors of rape are not in the military. We're living day to day trying to make reasons not to swallow a bullet.

It's going to be very hard for me to be polite here but I'm going to do it.

This line of reasoning is not particularly cogent because the two issues are separate issues. The argument the image seems to be making is this: if it is true that boners do not necessarily indicate consent and that men can't control their boners, then soldiers who are ordered to rape women are justified in excusing their behavior on the grounds that they were ordered to do so. This argument is not correct. The fact that, in general, men can become aroused when they don't want to does not mean that these specific men couldn't control their own arousal.

The confusion comes from the fact that you're trying to take a general argument and apply it to a specific case - but just because it's true in general, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily and always true in the specific. It's completely possible (and very likely) that, even though men in general can't always control their arousal, the people in this specific instance did have a choice in their actions. And I think that's the truth.

Pointing out that men can become aroused without consenting and that it's possible to rape men is not defending guys at the expense of women. It's simply not. And the fact is that men can become aroused without consent, and denying that is simply incorrect and untrue, and it also hurts male victims of abuse. So don't do it.

That's a load of crap.

I know the USians rather hate sex ed, but do NONE of you understand how dicks work? I don't have or want one, but even I know it's just a physical thing and in no-way represents if a person consents or not

Also that link leads to total crap.

If a person doesn't want it or cannot verbally consent or is unconscious it is NOT consent. The only thing that makes it consenual is if they verbally* go "yes". That's consent. Consent is them saying they would like to have sex - and they can change their mind at any point and consent one time is not blanket for all future times. Absolutely nothing else is consent and the gender doesn't matter

*or sign language if mute, I guess

Kids like the Sandusky 10 (who are unicorns because their rapes were prosecuted, not because they happened) are an order of magnitude more common than military rapists. And these arguments do more to push abused people into the closet than they serve to punish war criminals.

what the heck is this lmao?? just cuz a guy has it up doesn't mean he wants it to be up, or wants to put it in you or someone/something else. i'm not equipped with a dick but there are a number of things i can think of that would probably make it difficult to go soft. it's really shitty to tell a victim they were asking for it or wanted it, period.

So in Rawanda and I believe Congo there were these horrific incidents where men were forced to rape women and girls they cared about or else their families would be slaughtered. Obviously they managed to do it. I'm not going to go into detail because it's the ugliest thing you can imagine.

Also, the threat to a soldier doesn't have to be a gun to the head, necessarily. That would be hard to cover up. What would happen is being shot during a future patrol and the death being blamed on the enemy. It happened with alarming frequency in Vietnam.

I'm not saying those soldiers aren't full of shit. But I am saying whoever made the image probably is.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only