[ SECRET POST #2544 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2544 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Kim Richards, Real Housewives of Beverly Hills]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Saints Row IV]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Supernatural]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Magnificent 7]


__________________________________________________












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













06. [SPOILERS for Supernatural]



__________________________________________________



07. [SPOILERS for Sons of Anarchy]



__________________________________________________



08. [SPOILERS for Person of Interest]



__________________________________________________



09. [SPOILERS for I have no idea. Doctor Who?]



__________________________________________________



10. [SPOILERS for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.]




__________________________________________________


11. [SPOILERS for Frozen]



__________________________________________________













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














12. [SPOILERS for Reign]
[WARNING for dead people?]



13. [WARNING for rape]














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #363.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - ships it ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly. If you don't want something to be read as rape, don't portray something that falls within the definition of rape. Writers should know what they're writing about, and if they do make a mistake, they should own up to it. "It's not rape because I said so" is a flimsy excuse.

[(Anonymous)]

don't portray something that falls within the definition of rape

And what exactly is that definition, because by my standards, and the standards of my subset of feminism, and the standards of the law in most places (in particular, where I live.) the 'victim' being male or even that the 'victim' was not penetrated, means that legally that falls well out of the definition of rape.

[(Anonymous)]

SA

Just to be clear, I don't think she's a GOOD character (Good as in moral, anyway) I have a problem considering it rape.

[(Anonymous)]

That makes it sexual assault in most places in the western world, so there's that. But males can't be victims? Really? Where is that because I never ever want to go anywhere near a place where rape or sexual assault isn't a crime if it happens to roughly half the population.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

Rape of men is definitely rape in Australia. The law isn't gender specific in that way.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think that the legal definition of rape in most places includes that it's a crime that can only have female victims. Maybe the stuff about penetration more so, but I'm pretty sure that's not what the laws about rape say, at least in the places I'm familiar with. Maybe it's different where you are.

(and in any case, whatever the law may say, the idea that rape can only have a female victim is untrue. it is incorrect and it is morally wrong)

[(Anonymous)]

Absolutely it is morally wrong.

Rape is rape, no matter the gender of the rapist or the victim. Period. This redefinition of rape where it is called rape only if the rapist penetrates with a penis is pernicious. "Sexual assault" carries less impact therefore victims who were not raped by penetration of a penis are disenfranchised even further than rape victims already are. This re-definition was made to make a man's claim of rape to be less than a women's claim of rape.

Politics and discussion of privilege does not make a victim any less a victim. Neither do statistics. A victim is a human being, someone who has been violated, not a percentage or a statistic, and being a victim is not a position of privilege.

[(Anonymous)]

*applauds fervently*

Well, no, not in the US.

[(Anonymous)]

As of the early 2000s, in the US, all states define rape without reference to the sex of the victim and the perpetrator. Though the overwhelming majority of rape victims are women, a woman may be convicted of raping a man, a man may be convicted of raping a man, and a woman may be convicted of raping another woman.

Lack of consent is a necessary element in every rape. Lack of consent may result from either forcible compulsion by the perpetrator or an incapacity to consent on the part of the victim.

[crunchysunrises]

"Legally" definitely doesn't mean what you think it means.

And I dare you or anyone in your deranged subset of feminism to try to use that in any U.S. court of law.

Edit: Also, look to the Anon above me. 'Cause the Nonny said All The Things.

[(Anonymous)]

I think they said "feminism" when they meant "assholes".

Or "trolls".

[crunchysunrises]

Ah! Thanks for the clarification!

[(Anonymous)]

WTF has feminism to do with it? Feminists believe men can't be raped? Bollocks. Sounds like you're actually an anti-feminist trying to tar feminism with the "man hating" brush