[ SECRET POST #2441 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

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

[(Anonymous)]

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

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

[anonymouslyyours]

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.

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

[(Anonymous)]

you helped build an animal shelter? good for you!

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

[kelincihutan]

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.

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.

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

[(Anonymous)]

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

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

[(Anonymous)]

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

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

[diet_poison]

THIS.

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

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly. It's like saying "Because some women were proven to have made false rape allegations to get back at some guy, all women who say they were raped are lying".

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

[(Anonymous)]

Goddamn that is stupid. I mean, seriously stupid

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

[(Anonymous)]

and your an asshole.

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

[(Anonymous)]

what about their "an asshole"? did it do something?

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

[(Anonymous)]

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)]

i understand. i just disagree.

if you choose to commit a rape, you are a rapist. If you choose not to commit a rape and it is forced on you, you are a victim.

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

[(Anonymous)]

"if you choose to commit a rape, you are a rapist. If you choose not to commit a rape and it is forced on you, you are a victim."

scenario: a man has a gun to a woman's head. he tells her, you're going to have sex with a third man, or the gunman is going to kill her. he is also going to kill her child who he has in the other room, so it's not only the woman's life on the line. the third man is unwilling to have sex. the gunman is getting ready to masturbate while watching.

if she chooses to have sex with the third man, she is a rapist and that is it? she is not a victim of anything sexually coercive whatsoever? it is impossible for her to be a victim of coerced sex in the scenario?

people who think like you frighten me.

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

[kelincihutan]

In the scenario you described, the woman is not acting with free choice. She's under duress. She's being raped as much as the third man is, both by the man with the gun. He is applying the coercion and is thus responsible for the whole scenario. So, she's not choosing to rape someone and is therefore not a rapist. She and the man without the gun are neither of them rapists, both of them victims, and both totally innocent in the scenario you suggest.

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

[(Anonymous)]

anon im responding to might not agree with you. that's why i'm asking them what they think.

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

[kelincihutan]

I suppose it's possible, but I think that's a pretty unfair reading of the comment. When anon1 said "If you choose not to commit a rape and it is forced on you, you are a victim." you responded by constructing a scenario where a woman doesn't choose to commit rape and it is forced on her and then asked if s/he thought that woman was a rapist. Which really seems to be pretty well covered by the initial statement. The type of situation you describe is exactly the one anon1 addressed at the outset.

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

[(Anonymous)]

what amount of "pressure" counts as "forced"?

physical harm to self? physical harm to others? blackmail? threat of loss of job?

why could these not apply to men in the military whom anon1 is condemning as rapists? i am not saying it applies to all of them, i don't have that much faith in humanity. but anon1 is condemning all of them without regarding the possibility of actual, real coercion.

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

[(Anonymous)]

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)]

lmao, I don't usually see a commenter here get so irritated at someone that they can't even bear to yell obscenities at them. that's almost an accomplishment, OP.

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

[cbrachyrhynchos]

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.

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.

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

[insanenoodlyguy]

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)]

+1