fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2481 ]

[ SECRET POST #2481 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2481 ⌋

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

01.

[game of thrones]

__________________________________________________

02.

[Star Trek, Sleepy Hollow, Elementary]

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

[Junjou Romantica]

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

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

06. [SPOILERS for Percy Jackson]

__________________________________________________

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

07. [WARNING for suicide/self-harm]

[Slipknot]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #354.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - 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've never read the canon myself, but if it's true that the character himself says it wasn't rape, then it isn't rape. That's not the reader making assumptions or justifying it, that's the character themselves coming out and stating that it was not in fact rape.

It doesn't work because, unlike real life, the readers have already been invited to witness the incident and draw their conclusion. The depiction gave them the clear impression that this is sexual assault, so having the character deny it after the fact isn't convincing.

But that's a common trope used in fiction in general. The author shows us (sometimes through the eyes of another character) a scene that looks a certain way with the intent of having the readers draw a particular conclusion about it, only to reveal later on that that particular conclusion is wrong.

It is my opinion that isn't what happened in this series, or else if that was the intent, then it was not well-presented enough to be persuasive.

That's a different matter entirely and also one highly subjective, as this thread proves.

Well duh, that's why I prefaced it with "in my opinion". I'm confident in my belief, and the fact that others in this thread agree with me.

That's nice. I am confident in my belief too, and the fact that others in this thread and elsewhere too agree with me.

DA

Except this is a trope that happens a lot in BL series. Something that is clearly sexual assualt or rape is either handwaved by the character saying it wasn't or saying that if the character enjoyed it then it wasn't rape.

Sounds like you can only accept your own vision. So much that not only you negate what the canon says, you also negate what other readers say.

There are quite a few people in this thread saying that what happened in Junjou was rape, so it seems that, at least in this corner of fandom, you're the only one who thinks otherwise. DA above hasn't read the series.

Nice scare tactic there, good thing there's other corners of the fandom around.

That's fine, because I disagree with those corners as well if they believe what you do. I'm under no illusion that there aren't a lot of people out there who buy into these tropes; that's kind of why it's a problem.

It's a problem that people, who understand the difference between reality and fiction, don't agree with you? Oh boy.

So which argument are you going with? Is it "This wasn't rape and you're wrong for thinking it was" or "This is fantasy and you're wrong for being bothered by it"? You keep flip-flopping between the two, but they aren't the same thing. For my part? I believe a) what happened in Junjou was rape and b) even fantasy that romanticizes rape is problematic.

Re: da

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-19 02:38 (UTC) - Expand

I haven't read the series, no, but I don't understand why this is even being argued if the character himself unequivocally says that it wasn't rape. "Well, it LOOKED like rape" is kind of a ridiculous argument when the character states that it wasn't. That just means it was badly written, not that it was in fact rape.

Look at it this way. The character being assaulted protested at the time of the incident. When someone says no during sex, you are supposed to stop; if you continue, it is rape. You are repulsive for continuing when your partner protested. If the victim later tells you they were okay with it, does that change the fact that you chose to continue? No. You made the decision to override their protest. You couldn't have read their mind at the time and known how they really felt, you only had the information that was expressly given to you -- which was that they didn't want it -- and you made your decision based on this information. You committed rape.

Technically Misaki only protested before the incident happened. Then he was surprised at himself at how good it felt, and was even no longer scared at Usami when it ended, just highly embarrased.

Also nice lecturing on rape, but if I decide that I was okay with it, then I was never a victim of rape, nor was the person I had sex with a rapist. What's the point of saying that rape is only non-consensual if you're going to dismiss my decisions on my own consent anyway if they don't fit your views?

The moment he protested is the moment it should have stopped. If at this point the victim changes his mind and wants to have sex, the other person still has to wait for consent to be clearly given before proceeding. Possibly he wasn't sure, he might have even wanted it, but from the rapist's POV, no consent was given. The decision made by the rapist is what repulses readers.

Re: original DA

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-19 02:48 (UTC) - Expand

Re: original DA

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-19 21:02 (UTC) - Expand

Re: original DA

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-19 22:03 (UTC) - Expand

That doesn't make what the character says about themselves any less true.

In my opinion, the merit of the story does rely on whether you can convince your readers the action of your characters is consistent with past action. If the author did it badly, the author did it badly, and the readers aren't convinced.

But readers are convinced, or at least many are, or we wouldn't even be arguing now. So for all your trying to speak for everyone, you really aren't at all convincing yourself.

Your argument all hinges upon how the victim feels about the assault, without even considering the action of the aggressor. Whatever happened afterward, consent was not expressly given at the time. Why did he go ahead and do it?

I've addressed this in a comment above.

Man, I'm not even in this fandom and this argument leaves me thinking the guy's a scumbag. "He was told no but he told the person to yell if he didn't like it" He was told 'no', that commonly means they don't like it! And "But Misaki doesn't, and not even out of fear or pressure, just of out of his own stubborness" requires him to be a mindreader to know it isn't out of fear or pressure.

That's the beauty of manga, isn't it? Looking at the page, we can tell it isn't out of fear or pressure since we can read into the character's thoughts! Like we can't do with real people! And guess what, when the author draws one character looking at the other on the page, they can also tell their reaction too! Amazing huh.

Also, I'm sorry, but if you don't even know the series then you likely don't even know what you're talking about. Heck, if you find that handjob despicable I'll have you know Usami apologized for it, and Misaki said there was nothing to apologize for. What now? Are the characters valid only when they act the way you want, and when they don't they're "just the author's beliefs"?

Re: da

(Anonymous) - 2013-10-20 19:41 (UTC) - Expand

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only