[ 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 viscerally hate this logic because it implies that anything besides the threat of physical bodily harm is not grounds for claiming rape. It's a kind of logic that says that, by extension, people who get blackmailed, shamed, emotionally abused, and otherwise emotionally pressured and/or terrified into having sex are not raped.

Rape is coerced sex. It does not say for whom or with whom. Coerced sex is coerced sex.

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

[kelincihutan]

What? No it doesn't imply that. You've made a pretty big leap there for reasons that are not in what I wrote. The situation under discussion isn't one of "You have sex with me or I'll fire you." That is rape. But that's not the scenario we're discussing. What we're talking about is "You have sex with this third party or I'll [insert threat here]." The calculus is obviously different when looking at things that violate your rights versus things that would violate the rights of a third party. And it is only logical that it should be.

Come on now. Are you the OP of the thread? 'Cause s/he was making a similar, logically ungrounded leap.