| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 10 2017 10:10 IgnE wrote: can you provide a page cite for that? im having trouble finding evidence of ignoring the safe word There are so many articles that addressed this Article | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 10 2017 10:14 KwarK wrote: Not sure if trolling or stupid but signing a contract ahead of time doesn't give an irrevocable grant of consent. Consent is an ongoing state. You can't sign your right to withdraw consent away. Not only are the contracts airtight, they're meaningless. They're also not signed before the fucking starts. Also she's constantly telling him no and to go away and that she wants nothing to do with him. That's the central drama for most of it. He has his guys follow her and is constantly showing up where she is and buys her place of work etc. not sure if stupid but where did i say that it grants an "irrevocable grant of consent." im saying he doesnt rape her. show me where or give us the quote where he raped her. whether he stalked her is a separate question. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
thanks for googling and addressing questions i didnt ask. can you show me where in that article it provides the citation or quotation where he ignores her safe word in fifty shades of grey? | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On November 10 2017 10:15 Plansix wrote: There are so many articles that addressed this Apparently a safe word is used once in the entire series, and he does pay attention to it. Doesn't really absolve the rest of the fucked up relationship thouhg During one exchange, Christian pretty much admits that “no” won’t work on him – “I want you to follow the Rules–all the time. Then I know you’ll be safe, and I’ll be able to have you anytime I wish.” “And if I break one of the Rules? "Then I’ll punish you.” “But won’t you need my permission? "Yes, I will.” “And if I say no?” He gazes at me for a moment, with a confused expression. “If you say no, you’ll say no. I’ll have to find a way to persuade you.” It’s not “if you say no, I’ll respect your wishes”, it’s “if you say no, I’ll just have to make you say yes.” He’s genuinely confused that “no” would even be an option. It’s more than a little chilling that the reason Christian chooses to beat her mere moments from that exchange, Christian says “we’re here because you said yes, Anastasia. And you ran from me. I am going to hit you six times, and you will count with me.” Christian beats Ana because she ran away. So yes, even though she didn’t use a safe word? I can see why domestic abuse organizations are up in arms against anyone claiming this series represents anything remotely resembling a healthy relationship. Problem #3: Trying to convince Ana that even safe words shouldn’t matter. Christian has established that “no” is just another word for “convince me.” But that just means the safe word takes its place, right? Well, no. Because they’re lovers. And “lovers don’t need safewords.” In context, it sounds like he’s saying that just hearing “stop” should be enough. And in that chapter, he does listen to Ana when she says that. But it also feels suspiciously like he’s trying to further manipulate Ana into thinking that she can’t use safewords if she believes they’re really lovers. Safe words [probably] weren’t explicitly ignored in Fifty Shades…but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a problem. There are some people claiming Christian ignored Ana when she used the safe word, because that would mean Christian raped Ana. And others who seem to be using his respect for safe words as a defense. Highlighting signs of manipulation and abuse wasn’t something I focused on during my read-through…there are better places to turn to for that. But I’ve got a challenge for you: read through this extensive write-up of one the sex scenes in 50 Shades, and mentally insert the words “yellow” or “red” at any part of the process. See if it makes things any less disturbing. Today’s Lesson: Their relationship didn’t stop being manipulative and abusive because Christian listened when Ana used the safe word that one time. ...not sure how we got here | ||
KwarK
United States43262 Posts
On November 10 2017 10:18 IgnE wrote: not sure if stupid but where did i say that it grants an "irrevocable grant of consent." im saying he doesnt rape her. show me where or give us the quote where he raped her. whether he stalked her is a separate question. He doesn't rape her, he just stalks, threatens, and manipulates her until she goes along with it because she's an innocent virgin acting in a way that no actual human would ever act because fiction. And you are stupid if you think that a "consent contract" means that any sex that follows it is consensual. The two words don't make sense together, consent cannot be contractually granted. You're the one who brought it up as if it were a real thing. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 10 2017 10:20 IgnE wrote: thanks for googling and addressing questions i didnt ask. can you show me where in that article it provides the citation or quotation where he ignores her safe word in fifty shades of grey? My guy, I have not read the book. A friend told me about that part and she also said the book is terrible. I also remember reading about it in several articles. One of which I linked that fully details why the book is terrible about consent: + Show Spoiler + In interviews, practitioners said they like kink and BDSM for lots of reasons: For some, pain releases the same kind of endorphins you might feel after running 10 miles, or after orgasm. Some enjoy the intense power dynamics involved in being completely dominant over or submissive to someone else. People might have fetishes for certain objects, like shoes or leather, which they feel the need to engage with in order to be sexually satisfied. If this is what people like to do, how they figure out who they are as a person, and they do it safely, intentionally, and with respect to the deliberate mores established in the kink community, that’s one thing. But that is not how the kink is portrayed in Fifty Shades. For all the talk of nipple clamps and butt plugs, BDSM is actually presented as a pathology, not a path to pleasure. Toward the middle of the first book, when Christian hands Ana a list of possible activities they might partake in, she reacts with shock—and, to an extent, a disgust that she never gets over. As Ana takes her first tour through the Red Room of Pain, she thinks to herself: “He likes to hurt women. The thought depresses me.” By the end of the third book, Christian gives up on being in a dominant/submissive relationship with Ana—his sexual preferences were a way of coping with childhood abuse, he realizes, and now that he has Ana, he doesn’t have to be that way any more. As Mitchell Kaplan, the bookseller in Florida, put it, it’s a story of redemption—meaning, of course, that Christian is redeemed from his deviant sexuality. The books are bad. Like super bad. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43262 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 10 2017 10:28 KwarK wrote: Second movie is unintentionally amazing. Where is it on a scale of Banal trash Transformers by Michael Bay to The Perfection that isThe Room? | ||
|
KwarK
United States43262 Posts
On September 10 2017 07:37 KwarK wrote: I watched 50 Shades Darker. It's a "The Room" level unintentional comedy. It's like they filmed five different movies, one of them a psychological thriller about a mentally disturbed ex, one of them about a "Secret of my Success" 80s style corporate feel good movie, one of them a vintage Channel 5 late night softcore porno, one of them a Meg Ryan 90s style relationship movie, and one of them a high octane action movie about the rivalry between a venture capitalist and a book publisher. Then they just cut them all together into a movie that is somehow way too long and yet still doesn't explain any part of what is happening. I highly recommend you watch it before I spoil the best parts but if not then here's what happens + Show Spoiler [the plot] + Book store Erin Brockovich shows up at her new job with her new boss and aces it. However low budget Jessica Jones shows up and is kind of weird. Also her ex is stalking her and sending her gifts. Her best friend takes a bunch of creepshots of her and turns them into an art exhibition, despite the fact that she's trying to keep a low profile because of the stalker ex. She's like "this is totally uncool" and he's like "I knew you'd say that which is why I did all of this without your consent" and then the stalker ex shows up and buys all the creepshots so the friend makes a lot of money and that's all apparently okay. The stalker ex says "just go to dinner with me, I won't do anything" and she agrees and then the moment they're alone he pushes her into a dark ally and holds her against a wall while he gropes her. Then she's like "not cool" and he says "just go to dinner with me, I won't do anything" and she agrees again. Then at the restaurant he's a dick to the wait staff to show how dominant he is and she's into that so he gives her a new Macbook and iPhone. Meanwhile in the distance Jessica Jones is watching and waiting for her cue to start the psychological thriller movie. Work is going really well and her boss is super impressed by her work ethic and intelligence and trusts her recommendations. Looks like she's moving up in the corporate world. But she wants to get there based upon her own ability, not because of her rich stalker. Also she's with the stalker now because he texted her new iPhone and she was like "well it is a new iPhone, whatever". An intense rivalry between her billionaire stalker boyfriend and her book publishing boss starts off. The billionaire is super rude and she's all like "that's my boss, you can't be like that, I care about my job" and he's all like "actually I can because I'm rich". This will spin off into it's own separate action movie. The Meg Ryan romance movie is going well, she invites the billionaire back to her house and makes him try to cook dinner but he sucks at it and it's whatever. Then they fuck. Oh shit, Jessica Jones is back! Never mind, she's gone again. The romance movie has a weird act 2 twist where there is a misunderstanding due to his older weird ex lady and they break up for a bit because they have to go to a masquerade ball together. But it's cool because a gay Italian hairdresser shows up and they make peace and get all dressed up because the entire romance movie has to fit in 30 minutes flat to make time for all the rest of it. Out of nowhere we get some kind of softcore porn movie. Literally more nudity in the Baywatch movie starring The Rock. Then straight back to the romance movie. Weird older ex lady shows up again and starts literally the same shit as she did before all over again. What will become of it this time? Nobody knows! Jessica Jones has been smashing her car. Now we're on a boat! We do the Titanic thing and the main lady gets behind the wheel of the boat and she's all like "I can't steer the boat, it's too hard" so the billionaire stands behind her and helps her understand how a wheel works even though they're alone in the middle of the sea and there is literally nothing they could crash into and eventually she's all like "I'm doing it, I'm doing it, I'm the captain" and that gives her the confidence to renew her career with new energy. And she's back at work and she's all like "actually I read this and it makes me think that" and her boss is all like "yeah but your boyfriend sucks so fuck you" and she can't get ahead in the world. Will she be able to overcome the personal and professional conflicts in the competitive world of publishing? Nobody knows! And we're back to the softcore porn. Her boss threatens her to get back at her boyfriend and we're in full on action movie now. Will a fight break out? No! How will they resolve this? What even is this? Nobody knows. Scene over. She shows up wearing her Erin Brockovich hat and her boss is missing so she has to step into his shoes and she apparently knows all the numbers and has all the graphs and she completely wows the board. Looks like she's a strong woman making it in the difficult male dominated world of publishing. I wonder how that'll turn out. (literally never mentioned again) (but the movie is not even half way over) Meg Ryan romance movie resumes again kinda? Wait, no, this is actually the softcore porn movie. You can tell because there's a ten minute sexy strip snooker scene. HOLY SHIT! DISCOUNT JESSICA JONES IS HERE AND SHE HAS A GUN! It's been 45 minutes since she was last even referenced. I was not ready for this. She's crazy and she's jealous and she's firing her gun and it's all happening! The movie just got super dark and literally nothing that has happened up to this point makes any part of this tonally appropriate. Apparently JJ is in a hospital now and is never mentioned again. So I guess that's the psychological thriller minimovie over. But now we have a second act 2 misunderstanding in the romance storyline where she's all upset because of the being shot at thing. It's cool though because the billionaire is like "why don't you draw on me with lipstick" and then she gets her tits out. This relationship drama is getting to be too much though. I'm all like "will they make it as a couple" and they keep breaking up and getting back together over and over and the suspense is killing me. I wonder if she'll make it in the world of publishing. I wonder what happened to his rival. Oh wow, he just asked her to marry him. But before she could answer he explained that he had to go fly a helicopter into a volcano for business reasons. I sure hope nothing goes wrong with that. Oh no! His rival, the book publishing fiction editor shot down the helicopter and it's crashing into the volcano!!!! What is even happening right now? Will he survive? Will they still get married? Will the billionaire have to resort to survival cannibalism? Next scene the billionaire shows up and says it's fine and the crash wasn't so bad and he got rescued so don't even worry about it. And we don't. It's literally never referred to again. The entire thing happened off camera and was described afterwards the way I just did. Action movie over.... or is it!? Time to wind up the romance movie. They're getting married. Oh no! Remember that older ex lady from 90 minutes ago who started the first of the two identical act 2 dramatic breakups? She's back! And she's not happy about the news that they're getting married. But the main character throws a drink at her and then the billionaire's mother shows up and bitchslaps her and that's the feel good conclusion to the romance arc and now we're getting a proposal under fireworks, even though they've already gotten engaged and announced it all. But in the distance the book editor is watching, and he's out for blood. End movie. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 10 2017 10:23 KwarK wrote: He doesn't rape her, he just stalks, threatens, and manipulates her until she goes along with it because she's an innocent virgin acting in a way that no actual human would ever act because fiction. And you are stupid if you think that a "consent contract" means that any sex that follows it is consensual. The two words don't make sense together, consent cannot be contractually granted. You're the one who brought it up as if it were a real thing. wait explicit consent is not a real thing anymore? how is any consent (explicit or implicit) possible then? was her signing the contract not an at least provisional grant of explicit consent? and where did she say no or revoke consent in a clear way before or during any of the sex? it may be there but i cant find it. i find your thinking on this to be entirely unsatisfactory and i resent being asked every second post whether i really believe incredibly stupid things with the implication that rape is ok. mr "i dont want to kink shame but fifty shades is just about rape and people need to ask for explicit permission" | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 10 2017 10:26 Plansix wrote: My guy, I have not read the book. A friend told me about that part and she also said the book is terrible. I also remember reading about it in several articles. One of which I linked that fully details why the book is terrible about consent: + Show Spoiler + In interviews, practitioners said they like kink and BDSM for lots of reasons: For some, pain releases the same kind of endorphins you might feel after running 10 miles, or after orgasm. Some enjoy the intense power dynamics involved in being completely dominant over or submissive to someone else. People might have fetishes for certain objects, like shoes or leather, which they feel the need to engage with in order to be sexually satisfied. If this is what people like to do, how they figure out who they are as a person, and they do it safely, intentionally, and with respect to the deliberate mores established in the kink community, that’s one thing. But that is not how the kink is portrayed in Fifty Shades. For all the talk of nipple clamps and butt plugs, BDSM is actually presented as a pathology, not a path to pleasure. Toward the middle of the first book, when Christian hands Ana a list of possible activities they might partake in, she reacts with shock—and, to an extent, a disgust that she never gets over. As Ana takes her first tour through the Red Room of Pain, she thinks to herself: “He likes to hurt women. The thought depresses me.” By the end of the third book, Christian gives up on being in a dominant/submissive relationship with Ana—his sexual preferences were a way of coping with childhood abuse, he realizes, and now that he has Ana, he doesn’t have to be that way any more. As Mitchell Kaplan, the bookseller in Florida, put it, it’s a story of redemption—meaning, of course, that Christian is redeemed from his deviant sexuality. The books are bad. Like super bad. ok so just so we are clear: he doesnt ignore her safe word in the book, and as far as we know she never explicitly revokes consent after granting it? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
A jury has ruled that a real estate developer broke the law by destroying a swath of graffiti art in New York City, in a verdict that could provide legal protections for street artists across the US. The federal jury made its decision after a group of artists sued Jerry Wolkoff, who painted over their work at the 5Pointz building in Queens, New York City, in November 2013. 5Pointz, a former factory owned by Wolkoff, was a haven for graffiti artists from around the world and became a prominent tourist attraction. Wolkoff had given the artists permission to use the building as a canvas for “aerosol art” and the building was covered in multicolored murals and tags. But in 2013, when Wolkoff decided to demolish the building and replace it with apartments, he whitewashed the graffiti art in the dead of night. On Wednesday the jury decided that the artists’ work was legally protected under the Visual Artists Rights Act (Vara), and that meant that Wolkoff had broken the law. It was the first time graffiti, or “aerosol art” had been given that protection under federal law, potentially meaning thousands of graffiti murals across the country could now be preserved. “It confirms that aerosol art is the same as any other fine artist,” said Eric Baum, the lawyer who represented the 21 artists who sued Wolkoff. “And that the artist deserves dignity and respect.” Baum, said a jury had never determined the issue before, and that it could have far-reaching implications. “It’s a federal statute. So it doesn’t just apply in NY, it applies throughout the country.” The legal team had to prove the artists’ work was of “recognized stature” – rising to the level of merit under Vara, a 1990 law that affords artists legal protection over their work, irrespective of who owns or holds the copyright to the piece. In court Baum pointed to the artists’ years of experience and recognition within their field as proof of the merit of their work. Although the jury’s decision is a boost for the 5Pointz artists, the issue is not yet resolved. The judge in the case will now make his own decision, Baum said, which will take into account the jury’s verdict, but could reach a different conclusion. A legal precedent – which artists elsewhere could then use to protect their work – will only be set if the judge comes to the same decision as the jury. In the case Baum pointed to the 5Pointz artists’ years of experience and recognition within their field, but he said even an amateur graffiti artist could potentially have their work protected under the federal statute. “You could have an expert determine that the work of an amateur rises to the level of merit under Vara that would then provide protection,” he said. “You’re supposed to look at the artwork. Looking at the artist’s background is only one factor.” Wolkoff bought the 5Pointz building, which once housed a factory that manufactured water meters, in the 1970s. He gave artists permission to create murals on the building but said he had told them he always intended to demolish it. In 2013 he finally put those plans into action and drew up plans to raze the building and create an apartment complex. But the way he carried out those plans caused uproar. On the night of 19 November artists found the building had been almost entirely covered in white paint, blotting out art that had been painstakingly painted over the years. Kate Lucas, a lawyer with Grossman LLP, which works in the art-law field, said one consequence of the case would be to make graffiti artists – and property owners – aware of the need to set out agreements on ownership and rights to graffiti upfront. “Graffiti is hot property as art now. And if you’re a property owner who is interested in having graffiti in your courtyard or a mural on your wall or someone who’s going to decorate pieces of your property, the parties can avert a lot of problems by proactively on the front end of the project laying out what their rights and obligations are going to be,” Lucas said. “And an artist can consider: ‘What’s it worth to me to give up this control over the future of my work?’ Instead of having to put a price on that after the fact, which is what we’re seeing here.” Source | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 10 2017 10:32 IgnE wrote: ok so just so we are clear: he doesnt ignore her safe word in the book, and as far as we know she never explicitly revokes consent after granting it? She is in a deeply unhealthy abusive relationship and fears to revoke consent because of that. The series is about abuse and how what he does to her is abusive. He communicates with her so poorly that her attempts to show she isn't comfortable don't stop him. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43262 Posts
On November 10 2017 10:31 IgnE wrote: wait explicit consent is not a real thing anymore? how is any consent (explicit or implicit) possible then? was her signing the contract not an at least provisional grant of explicit consent? and where did she say no or revoke consent in a clear way before or during any of the sex? it may be there but i cant find it. i find your thinking on this to be entirely unsatisfactory and i resent being asked every second post whether i really believe incredibly stupid things with the implication that rape is ok. mr "i dont want to kink shame but fifty shades is just about rape and people need to ask for explicit permission" I'm not seeing how you're getting from "consent cannot be contractually obligated" to "explicit consent isn't a thing". Consent is an active state that can be terminated at will by either party. Signing the meaningless contract (which again, she didn't do before they fucked) may indicate an intent to actively consent later, but it certainly doesn't guarantee it. A provisional grant of consent doesn't really make any kind of sense, that's not how it works. As for kink shaming, you'd struggle to find anyone more kink friendly to me. It's just that Fifty Shades is super unpopular in the kink community. Do you now see why there can't be such a thing as "an airtight consent contract"? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 10 2017 10:37 KwarK wrote: I'm not seeing how you're getting from "consent cannot be contractually obligated" to "explicit consent isn't a thing". Consent is an active state that can be terminated at will by either party. Signing the meaningless contract (which again, she didn't do before they fucked) may indicate an intent to actively consent later, but it certainly doesn't guarantee it. A provisional grant of consent doesn't really make any kind of sense, that's not how it works. As for kink shaming, you'd struggle to find anyone more kink friendly to me. It's just that Fifty Shades is super unpopular in the kink community. thats precisely how it works. consent is assumed until negatived later. you dont ask for explicit consent to touch your partner every time you do it right? nor can you read their mind. consent is assumed until told otherwise. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43262 Posts
On November 10 2017 10:44 IgnE wrote: thats precisely how it works. consent is assumed until negatived later. you dont ask for explicit consent to touch your partner every time you do it right? nor can you read their mind. consent is assumed until told otherwise. It doesn't come in blocks or grants, it's a state. Also no, as a rule non consent is assumed until told otherwise. That's pretty fundamental actually. That's literally how it works. If you assume consent until negated you're gonna end up raping some people. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
are you telling me that you always ask for explicit consent every time you touch your girlfriend? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11372 Posts
On November 09 2017 18:29 Biff The Understudy wrote: If you want one thing about generation wealth, it’s to level it as much as possible. First of all, there is no inherent merit in having been born rich. So what you ask for is for this inequality of birth to get worse and worse as generations passes because in a capitalist system, money makes more money. I am for a very progressive inheritance tax. Next to nothing if you just own a house, to something like half and over if you are a billionaire. I don’t find it so unfair that one “only” start in life with half a billion dollar, having done nothing for it, and I consider the growth of inequalities the one biggest challenge western societies are facing. There is great merit in incentivizing workers to make great sacrifices to build up wealth for their progeny. That is a powerful motivator for which many people will move mountains if they think their children will be better off from themselves. However, the wastrel inheritors is not such a large concern as you might otherwise think. Financial stupidity is a great equalizer. I believe 70% of families lose their wealth by the second generation. Less than 10% actually pass on a family business to their grandchildren. The percentage that inherits from the grandchildren is even less. So it seems by three or four generations, all the wealth built up by the first hardworking generation is completely destroyed. The families that do not, who have somehow beaten the odds, must be doing something right in training up their children and grandchildren on how to maintain and then build upon that inherited wealth. It's a small minority that can actually figure out how to pass down wealth generationally, I think that's laudable, not something to destroy. Financial stupidity will wreak havoc on the majority. The government need not help. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  40380Calm  2945Rain 2369Sea  1717firebathero 455Rush 104Hyun 93Dewaltoss 71hero 57Backho 54[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games FrodaN1499 hiko636 Beastyqt577 ceh9501 Lowko347 Mlord345 RotterdaM221 KnowMe213 ArmadaUGS130 Sick109 Liquid`VortiX103 XaKoH  89Trikslyr58 Chillindude12 |
|
BSL: GosuLeague
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
SHIN vs TriGGeR
herO vs Reynor
Maru vs MaxPax
WardiTV Korean Royale
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
WardiTV Korean Royale
IPSL
Julia vs Artosis
JDConan vs DragOn
BSL 21
TerrOr vs Aeternum
HBO vs Kyrie
RSL Revival
Wardi Open
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
