|
On August 08 2013 09:06 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:05 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:04 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 08:56 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:51 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:50 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:43 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:32 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:21 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
[quote]
Communicating limitations beforehand and using safewords is how I kink. If I'm in the "dominant" position and don't care about feeling like a glorified sex toy for a while, I'll agree to only doing what they say they want done without deviation. However, since that quickly leaves me feeling distant and inhuman, I don't do it very much. There's an awful lot of abuse within the scene where people tick the boxes and do whatever the fuck they like because it's damn near impossible to prosecute. Once you let someone tie you up the law pretty much assumes you've abdicated your body to them, even if you prenegotiated the scene. It's bullshit and it's really, really rapey and there is a moral obligation on whoever has the power to protect their partner. That means that if you're doing a no safeword scene (would not recommend) you do not venture outside prenegotiated acts, if they go incommunicative (so headspaced they are unable to utter the safeword) you safeword for them if in doubt, if they consent while headspaced but you have reason to doubt it you ignore it. Above all you protect your partner and yourself from harm. And they do the same, ensuring that you're not over your head, that you know what they want and so forth. It is not enough to have an excuse for your behaviour. When shit goes wrong people get hurt, you don't want to be able to go "yeah but they didn't safeword so I thought it was fine", you want shit not to go wrong. What that means is that you understand that you have a responsibility for the wellbeing of your partner, you need to understand the limitations of the system of consent and act beyond them to protect your partner. Everything you have said tonight about it not being your responsibility, about their actions during signalling consent, about having to explicitly rule things out, the overriding their wishes because you know better and the rest of it paints you as a predator. You have shown a fundamental failure to understand that consent is a tool designed to protect people, that the goal is not to do harm, not simply to cover your own ass. Your approach to sex is selfish and abusive, your approach to consent is to treat it like an obstacle, your approach to shit going wrong is "that's their issue", you are a predator. You're making a lot of declarations about my approach to a lot of things because I guess you have some sense of superiority and you're setting me up to be someone to speak against just so you can reify your own personal moral compass. You've gone all over the board with this thing when my basis of conversation has been the passionate hookup with no intention of ever speaking to someone again. If the goal is to prevent harm and enhance enjoyment. I am in no wrong here. "they didn't know they wouldn't have consented to it so no harm was done" Even if we ignore the possibility they'll find out, that's still not up to you and could just as easily be used to justify raping passed out drunk girls. But let's not ignore that possibility. Do you understand that you are doing harm to someone who fucks you if your status gets out and his friends are transphobic bullies? That he signed up for a night of fun with a cis girl and what he got was a lifetime of "you fucked a guy" jibes. I'm not doing harm. His transphobic friend bullies are doing the harm. STOP MAKING ME RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW OTHER PEOPLE FEEL AND ACT. PLEASE. And yet you could have stopped it. You knew you were doing it. You knew it was possible. But you wanted to get laid and you had an excuse ready and according to your very limited moral principles that was all you needed. Fuck that guy. It is not enough to have an excuse. You should want to protect your partner. You have the potential to do harm. You recognise that you have the potential to do harm. You should act accordingly. No. I am not inherently harmful or dangerous. How all of you interpret me is.Look. When I'm hooking up with someone, I'm not stressing over "but what if his friends 'find out' about me?" That is not my responsibility or obligation to go *that deep* into considering someone else's life situation. It is neither my fault or my problem or my issue how someone's friend's or family's bigotries play into the scheme. Are you serious with this? I am actually pretty sure that everyone in the past 10 pages have stated quite specifically otherwise. Sleeping with a transgender is however harmful to a person not wanting to sleep with a transgender due to his reasons. When such a person agrees to sleep with a transgender under the reasonable (due to the extreme rarity which transgenderism is) assumption that the transgender is cis, and the transgender does not correct this assumption, the transgender is indeed acting immoral. This is no different than someone not wanting to sleep with red-bearded men and me, being cleanly shaven, not disclosing that I grow out a red beard (for this analogy to hold you will have to imagine that having a red beard is as rare as transgenderism). If the person for whatever illogical reason does not want to sleep with you, it is not okay to not disclose that information. It's also not your responsibility to find out if the have a thing against red-bearded people if they don't even suggest that they do. If a major proportion of the population does - yes it is. It sucks that we as a society haven't developed further, but that is the case with transgenderism. EDIT: @ above post by Shinosai: I have no idea about why you didn't hear back, but when I was looking for roommates I didn't hear back from 9/10 places - and I am a heterosexual, white male doctor. It hardly gets more respectable on paper.
It's different, though. When I identified as a white male, if someone went out of the way to reply to my ad, they would come see the place or at least ask some additional questions about the room. As a trans person, people would literally disappear off the face of the earth the moment I mentioned my status. Not just some people, but pretty much everyone. My original ad said "please be lbgt friendly."
Eventually, I got fed up with it and made an ad that specifically stated I was trans. I got very few responses, but the people I did hear from were ok with it.
|
On August 08 2013 08:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 08:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:32 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:21 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:17 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 08:14 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:53 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:48 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:46 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 07:45 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
[quote]
I would contend that me being called a "predator" and a "rapist" is more slut-shaming than me enjoying being a slut with someone else being a slut. What? That makes no sense, and you know it makes no sense. Please make sense. It makes sense because all I do is enjoy my sexuality by the same standards and practices reasonably assumable as everyone else, but I'm in the wrong for doing so. No. The standard I hold you to is universal. It's a standard I have built from fetish scenes in which predators are pretty common and do an awful lot of very rapey stuff. If you suspect the other person doesn't want you to do X then you check. If they're really headspaced and you have reason to doubt their answer then you ignore their yes and stop the scene anyway. You protect your partner. You are in the wrong for doing it because you are acting like being trans isn't a big deal when to a lot of people it is. Those people still have rights. You can want to be cis all you want but you are not and never will be and for those people, that is an issue. You are in the wrong for having a predatory approach to those people. You lost the birth lottery, you were born trans and that sucks for you but that does not give you the right to go "if I wasn't trans this behaviour would be fine therefore it's fine". Those people have rights and you need to understand that and respect them. The kink scene is not the same as a vanilla hook up and I'm pretty sure you know this. "Those people" have the right to tell me they don't want to have sex with someone they consider to be transsexual. They have the right to speak up. They do not have the right to make me responsible for their feelings. That's called entitlement. Isn't that the exact opposite of how the kink scene works? You have to constantly and especially aware of other people's feelings because you are even more responsible than usual. Come on, how do you not consider yourself a predator after typing that? Communicating limitations beforehand and using safewords is how I kink. If I'm in the "dominant" position and don't care about feeling like a glorified sex toy for a while, I'll agree to only doing what they say they want done without deviation. However, since that quickly leaves me feeling distant and inhuman, I don't do it very much. There's an awful lot of abuse within the scene where people tick the boxes and do whatever the fuck they like because it's damn near impossible to prosecute. Once you let someone tie you up the law pretty much assumes you've abdicated your body to them, even if you prenegotiated the scene. It's bullshit and it's really, really rapey and there is a moral obligation on whoever has the power to protect their partner. That means that if you're doing a no safeword scene (would not recommend) you do not venture outside prenegotiated acts, if they go incommunicative (so headspaced they are unable to utter the safeword) you safeword for them if in doubt, if they consent while headspaced but you have reason to doubt it you ignore it. Above all you protect your partner and yourself from harm. And they do the same, ensuring that you're not over your head, that you know what they want and so forth. It is not enough to have an excuse for your behaviour. When shit goes wrong people get hurt, you don't want to be able to go "yeah but they didn't safeword so I thought it was fine", you want shit not to go wrong. What that means is that you understand that you have a responsibility for the wellbeing of your partner, you need to understand the limitations of the system of consent and act beyond them to protect your partner. Everything you have said tonight about it not being your responsibility, about their actions during signalling consent, about having to explicitly rule things out, the overriding their wishes because you know better and the rest of it paints you as a predator. You have shown a fundamental failure to understand that consent is a tool designed to protect people, that the goal is not to do harm, not simply to cover your own ass. Your approach to sex is selfish and abusive, your approach to consent is to treat it like an obstacle, your approach to shit going wrong is "that's their issue", you are a predator. You're making a lot of declarations about my approach to a lot of things because I guess you have some sense of superiority and you're setting me up to be someone to speak against just so you can reify your own personal moral compass. You've gone all over the board with this thing when my basis of conversation has been the passionate hookup with no intention of ever speaking to someone again. If the goal is to prevent harm and enhance enjoyment. I am in no wrong here. "they didn't know they wouldn't have consented to it so no harm was done" Even if we ignore the possibility they'll find out, that's still not up to you and could just as easily be used to justify raping passed out drunk girls. But let's not ignore that possibility. Do you understand that you are doing harm to someone who fucks you if your status gets out and his friends are transphobic bullies? That he signed up for a night of fun with a cis girl and what he got was a lifetime of "you fucked a guy" jibes.
Comparing a trans person having sex to raping drunk girls. Wow....
|
On August 08 2013 09:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:05 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:04 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 08:56 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:51 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:50 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:43 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:32 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:21 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
[quote]
Communicating limitations beforehand and using safewords is how I kink. If I'm in the "dominant" position and don't care about feeling like a glorified sex toy for a while, I'll agree to only doing what they say they want done without deviation. However, since that quickly leaves me feeling distant and inhuman, I don't do it very much. There's an awful lot of abuse within the scene where people tick the boxes and do whatever the fuck they like because it's damn near impossible to prosecute. Once you let someone tie you up the law pretty much assumes you've abdicated your body to them, even if you prenegotiated the scene. It's bullshit and it's really, really rapey and there is a moral obligation on whoever has the power to protect their partner. That means that if you're doing a no safeword scene (would not recommend) you do not venture outside prenegotiated acts, if they go incommunicative (so headspaced they are unable to utter the safeword) you safeword for them if in doubt, if they consent while headspaced but you have reason to doubt it you ignore it. Above all you protect your partner and yourself from harm. And they do the same, ensuring that you're not over your head, that you know what they want and so forth. It is not enough to have an excuse for your behaviour. When shit goes wrong people get hurt, you don't want to be able to go "yeah but they didn't safeword so I thought it was fine", you want shit not to go wrong. What that means is that you understand that you have a responsibility for the wellbeing of your partner, you need to understand the limitations of the system of consent and act beyond them to protect your partner. Everything you have said tonight about it not being your responsibility, about their actions during signalling consent, about having to explicitly rule things out, the overriding their wishes because you know better and the rest of it paints you as a predator. You have shown a fundamental failure to understand that consent is a tool designed to protect people, that the goal is not to do harm, not simply to cover your own ass. Your approach to sex is selfish and abusive, your approach to consent is to treat it like an obstacle, your approach to shit going wrong is "that's their issue", you are a predator. You're making a lot of declarations about my approach to a lot of things because I guess you have some sense of superiority and you're setting me up to be someone to speak against just so you can reify your own personal moral compass. You've gone all over the board with this thing when my basis of conversation has been the passionate hookup with no intention of ever speaking to someone again. If the goal is to prevent harm and enhance enjoyment. I am in no wrong here. "they didn't know they wouldn't have consented to it so no harm was done" Even if we ignore the possibility they'll find out, that's still not up to you and could just as easily be used to justify raping passed out drunk girls. But let's not ignore that possibility. Do you understand that you are doing harm to someone who fucks you if your status gets out and his friends are transphobic bullies? That he signed up for a night of fun with a cis girl and what he got was a lifetime of "you fucked a guy" jibes. I'm not doing harm. His transphobic friend bullies are doing the harm. STOP MAKING ME RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW OTHER PEOPLE FEEL AND ACT. PLEASE. And yet you could have stopped it. You knew you were doing it. You knew it was possible. But you wanted to get laid and you had an excuse ready and according to your very limited moral principles that was all you needed. Fuck that guy. It is not enough to have an excuse. You should want to protect your partner. You have the potential to do harm. You recognise that you have the potential to do harm. You should act accordingly. No. I am not inherently harmful or dangerous. How all of you interpret me is.Look. When I'm hooking up with someone, I'm not stressing over "but what if his friends 'find out' about me?" That is not my responsibility or obligation to go *that deep* into considering someone else's life situation. It is neither my fault or my problem or my issue how someone's friend's or family's bigotries play into the scheme. Are you serious with this? I am actually pretty sure that everyone in the past 10 pages have stated quite specifically otherwise. Sleeping with a transgender is however harmful to a person not wanting to sleep with a transgender due to his reasons. When such a person agrees to sleep with a transgender under the reasonable (due to the extreme rarity which transgenderism is) assumption that the transgender is cis, and the transgender does not correct this assumption, the transgender is indeed acting immoral. This is no different than someone not wanting to sleep with red-bearded men and me, being cleanly shaven, not disclosing that I grow out a red beard (for this analogy to hold you will have to imagine that having a red beard is as rare as transgenderism). If the person for whatever illogical reason does not want to sleep with you, it is not okay to not disclose that information. It's also not your responsibility to find out if the have a thing against red-bearded people if they don't even suggest that they do. So you have an excuse if they do have a thing against them, even if most people do and you knew most people do. And if you have an excuse for your behaviour then you are above reproach and not in the least bit predatory, even if someone got hurt and you could have stopped it but chose not to because you wanted to get off.
Most of the time, I don't get off. I'm a giver.
In any case, I don't think you understand what a casual encounter actually is and what the expectations are. Having your feelings considered in any context other than enjoying the companionship of another person for a few hours is not part of those expectations.
|
United States41959 Posts
On August 08 2013 09:15 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 08:43 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:32 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:21 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:17 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 08:14 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:53 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:48 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:46 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
What? That makes no sense, and you know it makes no sense. Please make sense. It makes sense because all I do is enjoy my sexuality by the same standards and practices reasonably assumable as everyone else, but I'm in the wrong for doing so. No. The standard I hold you to is universal. It's a standard I have built from fetish scenes in which predators are pretty common and do an awful lot of very rapey stuff. If you suspect the other person doesn't want you to do X then you check. If they're really headspaced and you have reason to doubt their answer then you ignore their yes and stop the scene anyway. You protect your partner. You are in the wrong for doing it because you are acting like being trans isn't a big deal when to a lot of people it is. Those people still have rights. You can want to be cis all you want but you are not and never will be and for those people, that is an issue. You are in the wrong for having a predatory approach to those people. You lost the birth lottery, you were born trans and that sucks for you but that does not give you the right to go "if I wasn't trans this behaviour would be fine therefore it's fine". Those people have rights and you need to understand that and respect them. The kink scene is not the same as a vanilla hook up and I'm pretty sure you know this. "Those people" have the right to tell me they don't want to have sex with someone they consider to be transsexual. They have the right to speak up. They do not have the right to make me responsible for their feelings. That's called entitlement. Isn't that the exact opposite of how the kink scene works? You have to constantly and especially aware of other people's feelings because you are even more responsible than usual. Come on, how do you not consider yourself a predator after typing that? Communicating limitations beforehand and using safewords is how I kink. If I'm in the "dominant" position and don't care about feeling like a glorified sex toy for a while, I'll agree to only doing what they say they want done without deviation. However, since that quickly leaves me feeling distant and inhuman, I don't do it very much. There's an awful lot of abuse within the scene where people tick the boxes and do whatever the fuck they like because it's damn near impossible to prosecute. Once you let someone tie you up the law pretty much assumes you've abdicated your body to them, even if you prenegotiated the scene. It's bullshit and it's really, really rapey and there is a moral obligation on whoever has the power to protect their partner. That means that if you're doing a no safeword scene (would not recommend) you do not venture outside prenegotiated acts, if they go incommunicative (so headspaced they are unable to utter the safeword) you safeword for them if in doubt, if they consent while headspaced but you have reason to doubt it you ignore it. Above all you protect your partner and yourself from harm. And they do the same, ensuring that you're not over your head, that you know what they want and so forth. It is not enough to have an excuse for your behaviour. When shit goes wrong people get hurt, you don't want to be able to go "yeah but they didn't safeword so I thought it was fine", you want shit not to go wrong. What that means is that you understand that you have a responsibility for the wellbeing of your partner, you need to understand the limitations of the system of consent and act beyond them to protect your partner. Everything you have said tonight about it not being your responsibility, about their actions during signalling consent, about having to explicitly rule things out, the overriding their wishes because you know better and the rest of it paints you as a predator. You have shown a fundamental failure to understand that consent is a tool designed to protect people, that the goal is not to do harm, not simply to cover your own ass. Your approach to sex is selfish and abusive, your approach to consent is to treat it like an obstacle, your approach to shit going wrong is "that's their issue", you are a predator. You're making a lot of declarations about my approach to a lot of things because I guess you have some sense of superiority and you're setting me up to be someone to speak against just so you can reify your own personal moral compass. You've gone all over the board with this thing when my basis of conversation has been the passionate hookup with no intention of ever speaking to someone again. If the goal is to prevent harm and enhance enjoyment. I am in no wrong here. "they didn't know they wouldn't have consented to it so no harm was done" Even if we ignore the possibility they'll find out, that's still not up to you and could just as easily be used to justify raping passed out drunk girls. But let's not ignore that possibility. Do you understand that you are doing harm to someone who fucks you if your status gets out and his friends are transphobic bullies? That he signed up for a night of fun with a cis girl and what he got was a lifetime of "you fucked a guy" jibes. Comparing a trans person having sex to raping drunk girls. Wow....
No, read what I actually wrote.
I explained why the "they didn't know so no harm was done" defence isn't a defence.
|
On August 08 2013 09:13 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:09 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:06 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 09:05 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:04 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 08:56 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:51 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:50 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:43 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
[quote]
You're making a lot of declarations about my approach to a lot of things because I guess you have some sense of superiority and you're setting me up to be someone to speak against just so you can reify your own personal moral compass. You've gone all over the board with this thing when my basis of conversation has been the passionate hookup with no intention of ever speaking to someone again. If the goal is to prevent harm and enhance enjoyment. I am in no wrong here. "they didn't know they wouldn't have consented to it so no harm was done" Even if we ignore the possibility they'll find out, that's still not up to you and could just as easily be used to justify raping passed out drunk girls. But let's not ignore that possibility. Do you understand that you are doing harm to someone who fucks you if your status gets out and his friends are transphobic bullies? That he signed up for a night of fun with a cis girl and what he got was a lifetime of "you fucked a guy" jibes. I'm not doing harm. His transphobic friend bullies are doing the harm. STOP MAKING ME RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW OTHER PEOPLE FEEL AND ACT. PLEASE. And yet you could have stopped it. You knew you were doing it. You knew it was possible. But you wanted to get laid and you had an excuse ready and according to your very limited moral principles that was all you needed. Fuck that guy. It is not enough to have an excuse. You should want to protect your partner. You have the potential to do harm. You recognise that you have the potential to do harm. You should act accordingly. No. I am not inherently harmful or dangerous. How all of you interpret me is.Look. When I'm hooking up with someone, I'm not stressing over "but what if his friends 'find out' about me?" That is not my responsibility or obligation to go *that deep* into considering someone else's life situation. It is neither my fault or my problem or my issue how someone's friend's or family's bigotries play into the scheme. Are you serious with this? I am actually pretty sure that everyone in the past 10 pages have stated quite specifically otherwise. Sleeping with a transgender is however harmful to a person not wanting to sleep with a transgender due to his reasons. When such a person agrees to sleep with a transgender under the reasonable (due to the extreme rarity which transgenderism is) assumption that the transgender is cis, and the transgender does not correct this assumption, the transgender is indeed acting immoral. This is no different than someone not wanting to sleep with red-bearded men and me, being cleanly shaven, not disclosing that I grow out a red beard (for this analogy to hold you will have to imagine that having a red beard is as rare as transgenderism). If the person for whatever illogical reason does not want to sleep with you, it is not okay to not disclose that information. It's also not your responsibility to find out if the have a thing against red-bearded people if they don't even suggest that they do. If a major proportion of the population does - yes it is. It sucks that we as a society haven't developed further, but that is the case with transgenderism. EDIT: @ above post by Shinosai: I have no idea about why you didn't hear back, but when I was looking for roommates I didn't hear back from 9/10 places - and I am a heterosexual, white male doctor. It hardly gets more respectable on paper. I'm not responsible for society's prejudices. Stop trying to make me. I am not trying to make you responsible for society's prejudice. I am trying to make you responsible that the sex you enjoy is consensual.
...which requires me to be responsible for prejudice.
*edit*
By your definition that I have to clarify if they have something against trans people beforehand by assuming that they might.
No.
|
On August 08 2013 09:00 Caihead wrote:
Hey RaspberrySC2, what if your partner rejects you simply because you were born ugly, or not well endowed, or in a poor financial situation, or a billion other reasons that people base their consent on arbitrarily, many of which have nothing to do with sexuality? Even if their rationality is flawed and prejudiced, it's still their right to consent and your responsibility to adhere to it, this applies regardless of what their rationality is. If you can not convince them in a moral manner through communication then you have to disengage.
It sucks to have limited choices and to not be able to be fulfilled or reaffirmed, but that's the reality of the situation in any social relationship.
So are you saying that before engaging in sex someone should have to "disclose" that they are not well endowed? Or that they are poor? I am confused. Who would argue that consent isn't necessary. Of course you can't force sex on someone.
|
On August 08 2013 09:14 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:06 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 09:05 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:04 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 08:56 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:51 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:50 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:43 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:32 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
There's an awful lot of abuse within the scene where people tick the boxes and do whatever the fuck they like because it's damn near impossible to prosecute. Once you let someone tie you up the law pretty much assumes you've abdicated your body to them, even if you prenegotiated the scene. It's bullshit and it's really, really rapey and there is a moral obligation on whoever has the power to protect their partner. That means that if you're doing a no safeword scene (would not recommend) you do not venture outside prenegotiated acts, if they go incommunicative (so headspaced they are unable to utter the safeword) you safeword for them if in doubt, if they consent while headspaced but you have reason to doubt it you ignore it. Above all you protect your partner and yourself from harm. And they do the same, ensuring that you're not over your head, that you know what they want and so forth.
It is not enough to have an excuse for your behaviour. When shit goes wrong people get hurt, you don't want to be able to go "yeah but they didn't safeword so I thought it was fine", you want shit not to go wrong. What that means is that you understand that you have a responsibility for the wellbeing of your partner, you need to understand the limitations of the system of consent and act beyond them to protect your partner.
Everything you have said tonight about it not being your responsibility, about their actions during signalling consent, about having to explicitly rule things out, the overriding their wishes because you know better and the rest of it paints you as a predator. You have shown a fundamental failure to understand that consent is a tool designed to protect people, that the goal is not to do harm, not simply to cover your own ass. Your approach to sex is selfish and abusive, your approach to consent is to treat it like an obstacle, your approach to shit going wrong is "that's their issue", you are a predator. You're making a lot of declarations about my approach to a lot of things because I guess you have some sense of superiority and you're setting me up to be someone to speak against just so you can reify your own personal moral compass. You've gone all over the board with this thing when my basis of conversation has been the passionate hookup with no intention of ever speaking to someone again. If the goal is to prevent harm and enhance enjoyment. I am in no wrong here. "they didn't know they wouldn't have consented to it so no harm was done" Even if we ignore the possibility they'll find out, that's still not up to you and could just as easily be used to justify raping passed out drunk girls. But let's not ignore that possibility. Do you understand that you are doing harm to someone who fucks you if your status gets out and his friends are transphobic bullies? That he signed up for a night of fun with a cis girl and what he got was a lifetime of "you fucked a guy" jibes. I'm not doing harm. His transphobic friend bullies are doing the harm. STOP MAKING ME RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW OTHER PEOPLE FEEL AND ACT. PLEASE. And yet you could have stopped it. You knew you were doing it. You knew it was possible. But you wanted to get laid and you had an excuse ready and according to your very limited moral principles that was all you needed. Fuck that guy. It is not enough to have an excuse. You should want to protect your partner. You have the potential to do harm. You recognise that you have the potential to do harm. You should act accordingly. No. I am not inherently harmful or dangerous. How all of you interpret me is.Look. When I'm hooking up with someone, I'm not stressing over "but what if his friends 'find out' about me?" That is not my responsibility or obligation to go *that deep* into considering someone else's life situation. It is neither my fault or my problem or my issue how someone's friend's or family's bigotries play into the scheme. Are you serious with this? I am actually pretty sure that everyone in the past 10 pages have stated quite specifically otherwise. Sleeping with a transgender is however harmful to a person not wanting to sleep with a transgender due to his reasons. When such a person agrees to sleep with a transgender under the reasonable (due to the extreme rarity which transgenderism is) assumption that the transgender is cis, and the transgender does not correct this assumption, the transgender is indeed acting immoral. This is no different than someone not wanting to sleep with red-bearded men and me, being cleanly shaven, not disclosing that I grow out a red beard (for this analogy to hold you will have to imagine that having a red beard is as rare as transgenderism). If the person for whatever illogical reason does not want to sleep with you, it is not okay to not disclose that information. It's also not your responsibility to find out if the have a thing against red-bearded people if they don't even suggest that they do. If a major proportion of the population does - yes it is. It sucks that we as a society haven't developed further, but that is the case with transgenderism. EDIT: @ above post by Shinosai: I have no idea about why you didn't hear back, but when I was looking for roommates I didn't hear back from 9/10 places - and I am a heterosexual, white male doctor. It hardly gets more respectable on paper. It's different, though. When I identified as a white male, if someone went out of the way to reply to my ad, they would come see the place or at least ask some additional questions about the room. As a trans person, people would literally disappear off the face of the earth the moment I mentioned my status. Not just some people, but pretty much everyone. My original ad said "please be lbgt friendly." Eventually, I got fed up with it and made an ad that specifically stated I was trans. I got very few responses, but the people I did hear from were ok with it.
As I said, I had no idea about how it all unfolded - thank you for expanding 
|
On August 08 2013 09:16 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:13 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 09:09 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:06 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 09:05 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:04 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 08:56 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:51 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:50 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:43 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
"they didn't know they wouldn't have consented to it so no harm was done"
Even if we ignore the possibility they'll find out, that's still not up to you and could just as easily be used to justify raping passed out drunk girls. But let's not ignore that possibility. Do you understand that you are doing harm to someone who fucks you if your status gets out and his friends are transphobic bullies? That he signed up for a night of fun with a cis girl and what he got was a lifetime of "you fucked a guy" jibes. I'm not doing harm. His transphobic friend bullies are doing the harm. STOP MAKING ME RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW OTHER PEOPLE FEEL AND ACT. PLEASE. And yet you could have stopped it. You knew you were doing it. You knew it was possible. But you wanted to get laid and you had an excuse ready and according to your very limited moral principles that was all you needed. Fuck that guy. It is not enough to have an excuse. You should want to protect your partner. You have the potential to do harm. You recognise that you have the potential to do harm. You should act accordingly. No. I am not inherently harmful or dangerous. How all of you interpret me is.Look. When I'm hooking up with someone, I'm not stressing over "but what if his friends 'find out' about me?" That is not my responsibility or obligation to go *that deep* into considering someone else's life situation. It is neither my fault or my problem or my issue how someone's friend's or family's bigotries play into the scheme. Are you serious with this? I am actually pretty sure that everyone in the past 10 pages have stated quite specifically otherwise. Sleeping with a transgender is however harmful to a person not wanting to sleep with a transgender due to his reasons. When such a person agrees to sleep with a transgender under the reasonable (due to the extreme rarity which transgenderism is) assumption that the transgender is cis, and the transgender does not correct this assumption, the transgender is indeed acting immoral. This is no different than someone not wanting to sleep with red-bearded men and me, being cleanly shaven, not disclosing that I grow out a red beard (for this analogy to hold you will have to imagine that having a red beard is as rare as transgenderism). If the person for whatever illogical reason does not want to sleep with you, it is not okay to not disclose that information. It's also not your responsibility to find out if the have a thing against red-bearded people if they don't even suggest that they do. If a major proportion of the population does - yes it is. It sucks that we as a society haven't developed further, but that is the case with transgenderism. EDIT: @ above post by Shinosai: I have no idea about why you didn't hear back, but when I was looking for roommates I didn't hear back from 9/10 places - and I am a heterosexual, white male doctor. It hardly gets more respectable on paper. I'm not responsible for society's prejudices. Stop trying to make me. I am not trying to make you responsible for society's prejudice. I am trying to make you responsible that the sex you enjoy is consensual. ...which requires me to be responsible for prejudice. No.
How is that equivalent, loads of people might reject you on the basis of a billion other things. Prejudice is uninformed bias, some people simply do not like certain formats of sex, that's personal preference. They could be the most informed experts in the world about sexuality but not enjoy having sex with a transsexual partner and thus they require you to disclose and consent on that basis.
On August 08 2013 09:16 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:00 Caihead wrote:
Hey RaspberrySC2, what if your partner rejects you simply because you were born ugly, or not well endowed, or in a poor financial situation, or a billion other reasons that people base their consent on arbitrarily, many of which have nothing to do with sexuality? Even if their rationality is flawed and prejudiced, it's still their right to consent and your responsibility to adhere to it, this applies regardless of what their rationality is. If you can not convince them in a moral manner through communication then you have to disengage.
It sucks to have limited choices and to not be able to be fulfilled or reaffirmed, but that's the reality of the situation in any social relationship. So are you saying that before engaging in sex someone should have to "disclose" that they are not well endowed? Or that they are poor? I am confused. Who would argue that consent isn't necessary. Of course you can't force sex on someone.
No, I'm saying that any individual has the right to reject you on any arbitrary basis should they ask you to disclose that information.
|
United States41959 Posts
On August 08 2013 09:16 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:00 Caihead wrote:
Hey RaspberrySC2, what if your partner rejects you simply because you were born ugly, or not well endowed, or in a poor financial situation, or a billion other reasons that people base their consent on arbitrarily, many of which have nothing to do with sexuality? Even if their rationality is flawed and prejudiced, it's still their right to consent and your responsibility to adhere to it, this applies regardless of what their rationality is. If you can not convince them in a moral manner through communication then you have to disengage.
It sucks to have limited choices and to not be able to be fulfilled or reaffirmed, but that's the reality of the situation in any social relationship. So are you saying that before engaging in sex someone should have to "disclose" that they are not well endowed? Or that they are poor? I am confused. Who would argue that consent isn't necessary. Of course you can't force sex on someone.
Poorly endowed will become apparent. Trans status does not.
If wealth is assumed to be the reason for consent, for example sex with a girl presumed to be a gold digger, I would argue yes. If you know she doesn't want to have sex with someone of your wealth but that she's misjudged the situation the moral thing is to disclose.
|
On August 08 2013 09:10 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:07 Smat wrote:On August 08 2013 07:47 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:45 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:42 farvacola wrote:On August 08 2013 07:40 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:36 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:17 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
[quote]
Bolded for emphasis. Who better knows ourselves than ourselves? Your reality is not mine. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me. I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing. I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups. The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups. "Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense." My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Stop painting me as someone afraid of sex with a trans person. I am not. The numbers are a fact. It'd be easier for you if they weren't, but they are, and you know they are and it makes your behaviour inexcusable. There is a colossal imbalance in the information between the parties. Your partner knows that he shares criteria with, for the purpose of argument, 50% of people. You know you have a condition which affects roughly 0.01% of people. This means you are going into this with a 50% chance of violating someone if you do nothing whereas they are going into this with a 0.01% chance of being violated. If you know these numbers (hypothetical, just for the example) and you go "fuck it, that's their problem if they didn't want to have sex with a trans person", you're a predator. You know there is a reasonable chance that your partner does not want this but because you do want it you simply choose not to address that. This isn't a "I shouldn't have to" or a "it's not fair" or anything else. Whining about how you shouldn't have to doesn't chance shit, you're not trying to tick boxes, you're trying to protect the individuals involved from something they do not want. This is a moral obligation. Do you understand that sex with someone who doesn't want sex with you (but doesn't know) is a bad thing? Can you at least get that? You're taking this too personally. I've never said that you, personally, are afraid to have sex with a trans person. If this was personal, I know *I* wouldn't want to have sex with you even if you for some reason wanted to have it with me. I get it if they clarify first. If they already have their mouth on my genitals or their penis in me, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they want it. This is the definition of slut shaming.....particularly sinc you keep referencing clubs and places where alcohol and drugs are common. I would contend that me being called a "predator" and a "rapist" is more slut-shaming than me enjoying being a slut with someone else being a slut. I'm a very sex positive feminist and have absolutely no issue with sluts. I love sluts, sluttiness and all things positive and sexual. You, however, are a predator. Not because I think your behaviour is slutty but because of your cavalier attitude to whether or not they want to have sex with you. You are still arguing in this thread? You really went off the deep end in this thread dude. If two people want to have sex with each other, let them have sex. Stop calling someone a predator for consensual sex, its so weird. If you don't even understand the argument, perhaps you should stay out? The entire point is that the sex is not consensual.
Why are they having sex then if its not consensual? Wouldn't the person who doesn't want to consent to sex, just you know, not have sex?
|
On August 08 2013 09:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:15 Smat wrote:On August 08 2013 08:43 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:32 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:21 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:17 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 08:14 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:53 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:48 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
[quote]
It makes sense because all I do is enjoy my sexuality by the same standards and practices reasonably assumable as everyone else, but I'm in the wrong for doing so. No. The standard I hold you to is universal. It's a standard I have built from fetish scenes in which predators are pretty common and do an awful lot of very rapey stuff. If you suspect the other person doesn't want you to do X then you check. If they're really headspaced and you have reason to doubt their answer then you ignore their yes and stop the scene anyway. You protect your partner. You are in the wrong for doing it because you are acting like being trans isn't a big deal when to a lot of people it is. Those people still have rights. You can want to be cis all you want but you are not and never will be and for those people, that is an issue. You are in the wrong for having a predatory approach to those people. You lost the birth lottery, you were born trans and that sucks for you but that does not give you the right to go "if I wasn't trans this behaviour would be fine therefore it's fine". Those people have rights and you need to understand that and respect them. The kink scene is not the same as a vanilla hook up and I'm pretty sure you know this. "Those people" have the right to tell me they don't want to have sex with someone they consider to be transsexual. They have the right to speak up. They do not have the right to make me responsible for their feelings. That's called entitlement. Isn't that the exact opposite of how the kink scene works? You have to constantly and especially aware of other people's feelings because you are even more responsible than usual. Come on, how do you not consider yourself a predator after typing that? Communicating limitations beforehand and using safewords is how I kink. If I'm in the "dominant" position and don't care about feeling like a glorified sex toy for a while, I'll agree to only doing what they say they want done without deviation. However, since that quickly leaves me feeling distant and inhuman, I don't do it very much. There's an awful lot of abuse within the scene where people tick the boxes and do whatever the fuck they like because it's damn near impossible to prosecute. Once you let someone tie you up the law pretty much assumes you've abdicated your body to them, even if you prenegotiated the scene. It's bullshit and it's really, really rapey and there is a moral obligation on whoever has the power to protect their partner. That means that if you're doing a no safeword scene (would not recommend) you do not venture outside prenegotiated acts, if they go incommunicative (so headspaced they are unable to utter the safeword) you safeword for them if in doubt, if they consent while headspaced but you have reason to doubt it you ignore it. Above all you protect your partner and yourself from harm. And they do the same, ensuring that you're not over your head, that you know what they want and so forth. It is not enough to have an excuse for your behaviour. When shit goes wrong people get hurt, you don't want to be able to go "yeah but they didn't safeword so I thought it was fine", you want shit not to go wrong. What that means is that you understand that you have a responsibility for the wellbeing of your partner, you need to understand the limitations of the system of consent and act beyond them to protect your partner. Everything you have said tonight about it not being your responsibility, about their actions during signalling consent, about having to explicitly rule things out, the overriding their wishes because you know better and the rest of it paints you as a predator. You have shown a fundamental failure to understand that consent is a tool designed to protect people, that the goal is not to do harm, not simply to cover your own ass. Your approach to sex is selfish and abusive, your approach to consent is to treat it like an obstacle, your approach to shit going wrong is "that's their issue", you are a predator. You're making a lot of declarations about my approach to a lot of things because I guess you have some sense of superiority and you're setting me up to be someone to speak against just so you can reify your own personal moral compass. You've gone all over the board with this thing when my basis of conversation has been the passionate hookup with no intention of ever speaking to someone again. If the goal is to prevent harm and enhance enjoyment. I am in no wrong here. "they didn't know they wouldn't have consented to it so no harm was done" Even if we ignore the possibility they'll find out, that's still not up to you and could just as easily be used to justify raping passed out drunk girls. But let's not ignore that possibility. Do you understand that you are doing harm to someone who fucks you if your status gets out and his friends are transphobic bullies? That he signed up for a night of fun with a cis girl and what he got was a lifetime of "you fucked a guy" jibes. Comparing a trans person having sex to raping drunk girls. Wow.... No, read what I actually wrote. I explained why the "they didn't know so no harm was done" defence isn't a defence.
That also assumes inebriation and not just a lack of education. How many standards do we put on people of sound mind and body before we deem them engaging in sexual behavior "adequately informed" and moral?
|
Withholding things that may be vital information is trickery and it really isn't any different from lying in a political sense. Anything else is just semantics, really.
|
United States41959 Posts
On August 08 2013 09:19 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:10 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 09:07 Smat wrote:On August 08 2013 07:47 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:45 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:42 farvacola wrote:On August 08 2013 07:40 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:36 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 07:29 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:19 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
It doesn't matter what you know. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you because they think you're a bear, even though it's a ridiculous assumption, you don't get to simply force yourself on them because you know you're not. How are you not getting this? You keep repeating "I know their criteria for consent better than they do", it's no different from "she said "no" but I knew she wanted it". Literally no different. No, I don't know their criteria for consent because they haven't told me. I will state, however, that if they are groping me and grinding their penis into my ass, it is not my responsibility to be the one who comes out of the moment to clarify that they know what they are doing. I can't stress this enough: I am not responsible for knowing someone else's hangups. The numbers can be invoked all you want. It's fundamentally dishonest and unequal to place the responsibility of determining a person's understanding and interpretation of reality on me especially when the determination of what is relevant and irrelevant is arbitrarily determined by each individual. If there is honest equality, each individual is responsible for declaring their own hangups. "Reasonable assumption" has the same fallacies of "common sense." My interest is reality. Your's is protecting your imagination. Stop painting me as someone afraid of sex with a trans person. I am not. The numbers are a fact. It'd be easier for you if they weren't, but they are, and you know they are and it makes your behaviour inexcusable. There is a colossal imbalance in the information between the parties. Your partner knows that he shares criteria with, for the purpose of argument, 50% of people. You know you have a condition which affects roughly 0.01% of people. This means you are going into this with a 50% chance of violating someone if you do nothing whereas they are going into this with a 0.01% chance of being violated. If you know these numbers (hypothetical, just for the example) and you go "fuck it, that's their problem if they didn't want to have sex with a trans person", you're a predator. You know there is a reasonable chance that your partner does not want this but because you do want it you simply choose not to address that. This isn't a "I shouldn't have to" or a "it's not fair" or anything else. Whining about how you shouldn't have to doesn't chance shit, you're not trying to tick boxes, you're trying to protect the individuals involved from something they do not want. This is a moral obligation. Do you understand that sex with someone who doesn't want sex with you (but doesn't know) is a bad thing? Can you at least get that? You're taking this too personally. I've never said that you, personally, are afraid to have sex with a trans person. If this was personal, I know *I* wouldn't want to have sex with you even if you for some reason wanted to have it with me. I get it if they clarify first. If they already have their mouth on my genitals or their penis in me, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they want it. This is the definition of slut shaming.....particularly sinc you keep referencing clubs and places where alcohol and drugs are common. I would contend that me being called a "predator" and a "rapist" is more slut-shaming than me enjoying being a slut with someone else being a slut. I'm a very sex positive feminist and have absolutely no issue with sluts. I love sluts, sluttiness and all things positive and sexual. You, however, are a predator. Not because I think your behaviour is slutty but because of your cavalier attitude to whether or not they want to have sex with you. You are still arguing in this thread? You really went off the deep end in this thread dude. If two people want to have sex with each other, let them have sex. Stop calling someone a predator for consensual sex, its so weird. If you don't even understand the argument, perhaps you should stay out? The entire point is that the sex is not consensual. Why are they having sex then if its not consensual? Wouldn't the person who doesn't want to consent to sex, just you know, not have sex?
No, because they lack information they would deem vital to the decision.
|
On August 08 2013 09:16 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:13 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 09:09 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:06 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 09:05 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:04 Ghostcom wrote:On August 08 2013 08:56 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:51 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:50 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:43 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
"they didn't know they wouldn't have consented to it so no harm was done"
Even if we ignore the possibility they'll find out, that's still not up to you and could just as easily be used to justify raping passed out drunk girls. But let's not ignore that possibility. Do you understand that you are doing harm to someone who fucks you if your status gets out and his friends are transphobic bullies? That he signed up for a night of fun with a cis girl and what he got was a lifetime of "you fucked a guy" jibes. I'm not doing harm. His transphobic friend bullies are doing the harm. STOP MAKING ME RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW OTHER PEOPLE FEEL AND ACT. PLEASE. And yet you could have stopped it. You knew you were doing it. You knew it was possible. But you wanted to get laid and you had an excuse ready and according to your very limited moral principles that was all you needed. Fuck that guy. It is not enough to have an excuse. You should want to protect your partner. You have the potential to do harm. You recognise that you have the potential to do harm. You should act accordingly. No. I am not inherently harmful or dangerous. How all of you interpret me is.Look. When I'm hooking up with someone, I'm not stressing over "but what if his friends 'find out' about me?" That is not my responsibility or obligation to go *that deep* into considering someone else's life situation. It is neither my fault or my problem or my issue how someone's friend's or family's bigotries play into the scheme. Are you serious with this? I am actually pretty sure that everyone in the past 10 pages have stated quite specifically otherwise. Sleeping with a transgender is however harmful to a person not wanting to sleep with a transgender due to his reasons. When such a person agrees to sleep with a transgender under the reasonable (due to the extreme rarity which transgenderism is) assumption that the transgender is cis, and the transgender does not correct this assumption, the transgender is indeed acting immoral. This is no different than someone not wanting to sleep with red-bearded men and me, being cleanly shaven, not disclosing that I grow out a red beard (for this analogy to hold you will have to imagine that having a red beard is as rare as transgenderism). If the person for whatever illogical reason does not want to sleep with you, it is not okay to not disclose that information. It's also not your responsibility to find out if the have a thing against red-bearded people if they don't even suggest that they do. If a major proportion of the population does - yes it is. It sucks that we as a society haven't developed further, but that is the case with transgenderism. EDIT: @ above post by Shinosai: I have no idea about why you didn't hear back, but when I was looking for roommates I didn't hear back from 9/10 places - and I am a heterosexual, white male doctor. It hardly gets more respectable on paper. I'm not responsible for society's prejudices. Stop trying to make me. I am not trying to make you responsible for society's prejudice. I am trying to make you responsible that the sex you enjoy is consensual. ...which requires me to be responsible for prejudice. No.
Yes - life sucks and it is tough shit. I agree completely that it sucks. I am also responsible for making sure that it does not seem like I am raping girls by having sex with someone who is too drunk. Or if I am led to believe that they don't want to have sex with me for any other reason, but would if I did not disclose said reason - however stupid it might seem to me. I have walked away from sex with girls who weren't interested in sex with a non-religious person. The thing is that transgender are rare and at the same time a dealbreaker for a sadly large amount of people. So unless you are in San Francisco or at a gay bar where people will know that it is an actual possibility they are simply never going to inquire about it. The onus is then morally on you.
|
On August 08 2013 09:22 koreasilver wrote:
Withholding things that may be vital information is trickery and it really isn't any different from lying in a political sense. Anything else is just semantics, really.
Determining what is "vital information" without being told by the concerned party is guesswork that can only be explored by assuming there is a problem.
|
United States41959 Posts
On August 08 2013 09:24 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:22 koreasilver wrote:
Withholding things that may be vital information is trickery and it really isn't any different from lying in a political sense. Anything else is just semantics, really. Determining what is "vital information" without being told by the concerned party is guesswork that can only be explored by assuming there is a problem.
Which unfortunately, due to societal factors outside of your control, will often be a reasonable assumption. In those times at which it is not then feel free not to disclose. Likewise I will disclose atheist status if I have reason to assume that'll be a dealbreaker, even if they don't ask.
|
On August 08 2013 09:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:24 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:22 koreasilver wrote:
Withholding things that may be vital information is trickery and it really isn't any different from lying in a political sense. Anything else is just semantics, really. Determining what is "vital information" without being told by the concerned party is guesswork that can only be explored by assuming there is a problem. Which unfortunately, due to societal factors outside of your control, will often be a reasonable assumption. In those times at which it is not then feel free not to disclose. Likewise I will disclose atheist status if I have reason to assume that'll be a dealbreaker, even if they don't ask.
You may feel that that is a reasonable assumption.
I don't. It's not fair to call me a predator and a rapist because I choose not to assume that my potential partners who have made no indication that they are prejudiced or otherwise not ok with having a sexual experience with a trans person actually is. Just like you with atheism. Often, it just doesn't come up and there's no reason to assume that it is a dealbreaker.
|
On August 08 2013 09:20 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:16 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:15 Smat wrote:On August 08 2013 08:43 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:32 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:21 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:17 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 08:14 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 07:53 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
No. The standard I hold you to is universal. It's a standard I have built from fetish scenes in which predators are pretty common and do an awful lot of very rapey stuff. If you suspect the other person doesn't want you to do X then you check. If they're really headspaced and you have reason to doubt their answer then you ignore their yes and stop the scene anyway. You protect your partner.
You are in the wrong for doing it because you are acting like being trans isn't a big deal when to a lot of people it is. Those people still have rights. You can want to be cis all you want but you are not and never will be and for those people, that is an issue. You are in the wrong for having a predatory approach to those people. You lost the birth lottery, you were born trans and that sucks for you but that does not give you the right to go "if I wasn't trans this behaviour would be fine therefore it's fine". Those people have rights and you need to understand that and respect them. The kink scene is not the same as a vanilla hook up and I'm pretty sure you know this. "Those people" have the right to tell me they don't want to have sex with someone they consider to be transsexual. They have the right to speak up. They do not have the right to make me responsible for their feelings. That's called entitlement. Isn't that the exact opposite of how the kink scene works? You have to constantly and especially aware of other people's feelings because you are even more responsible than usual. Come on, how do you not consider yourself a predator after typing that? Communicating limitations beforehand and using safewords is how I kink. If I'm in the "dominant" position and don't care about feeling like a glorified sex toy for a while, I'll agree to only doing what they say they want done without deviation. However, since that quickly leaves me feeling distant and inhuman, I don't do it very much. There's an awful lot of abuse within the scene where people tick the boxes and do whatever the fuck they like because it's damn near impossible to prosecute. Once you let someone tie you up the law pretty much assumes you've abdicated your body to them, even if you prenegotiated the scene. It's bullshit and it's really, really rapey and there is a moral obligation on whoever has the power to protect their partner. That means that if you're doing a no safeword scene (would not recommend) you do not venture outside prenegotiated acts, if they go incommunicative (so headspaced they are unable to utter the safeword) you safeword for them if in doubt, if they consent while headspaced but you have reason to doubt it you ignore it. Above all you protect your partner and yourself from harm. And they do the same, ensuring that you're not over your head, that you know what they want and so forth. It is not enough to have an excuse for your behaviour. When shit goes wrong people get hurt, you don't want to be able to go "yeah but they didn't safeword so I thought it was fine", you want shit not to go wrong. What that means is that you understand that you have a responsibility for the wellbeing of your partner, you need to understand the limitations of the system of consent and act beyond them to protect your partner. Everything you have said tonight about it not being your responsibility, about their actions during signalling consent, about having to explicitly rule things out, the overriding their wishes because you know better and the rest of it paints you as a predator. You have shown a fundamental failure to understand that consent is a tool designed to protect people, that the goal is not to do harm, not simply to cover your own ass. Your approach to sex is selfish and abusive, your approach to consent is to treat it like an obstacle, your approach to shit going wrong is "that's their issue", you are a predator. You're making a lot of declarations about my approach to a lot of things because I guess you have some sense of superiority and you're setting me up to be someone to speak against just so you can reify your own personal moral compass. You've gone all over the board with this thing when my basis of conversation has been the passionate hookup with no intention of ever speaking to someone again. If the goal is to prevent harm and enhance enjoyment. I am in no wrong here. "they didn't know they wouldn't have consented to it so no harm was done" Even if we ignore the possibility they'll find out, that's still not up to you and could just as easily be used to justify raping passed out drunk girls. But let's not ignore that possibility. Do you understand that you are doing harm to someone who fucks you if your status gets out and his friends are transphobic bullies? That he signed up for a night of fun with a cis girl and what he got was a lifetime of "you fucked a guy" jibes. Comparing a trans person having sex to raping drunk girls. Wow.... No, read what I actually wrote. I explained why the "they didn't know so no harm was done" defence isn't a defence. That also assumes inebriation and not just a lack of education. How many standards do we put on people of sound mind and body before we deem them engaging in sexual behavior "adequately informed" and moral?
I would assume as many standards as physically possible, at all times. In reality you want to maximize communication in relationships and raise the bar constantly. If you are talking about standards as in the line you draw from immoral and moral actions that's entirely up to debate, but the current consensus at least is to disclose what specific gender you are, I don't think that's remotely debatable. I don't really see any rationality against disclosing your gender either, purely from a communication and consensual relationship point of view.
On August 08 2013 09:31 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:25 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:24 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:22 koreasilver wrote:
Withholding things that may be vital information is trickery and it really isn't any different from lying in a political sense. Anything else is just semantics, really. Determining what is "vital information" without being told by the concerned party is guesswork that can only be explored by assuming there is a problem. Which unfortunately, due to societal factors outside of your control, will often be a reasonable assumption. In those times at which it is not then feel free not to disclose. Likewise I will disclose atheist status if I have reason to assume that'll be a dealbreaker, even if they don't ask. You may feel that that is a reasonable assumption. I don't. It's not fair to call me a predator and a rapist because I choose not to assume that my potential partners who have made no indication that they are prejudiced or otherwise not ok with having a sexual experience with a trans person actually is. Just like you with atheism. Often, it just doesn't come up and there's no reason to assume that it is a dealbreaker.
Why would there ever be a situation where your sex partner wouldn't want to know what your gender is? Unless you are in an explicitly exploratory relationship, in which case consent is already given.
|
United States41959 Posts
On August 08 2013 09:31 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:25 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:24 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:22 koreasilver wrote:
Withholding things that may be vital information is trickery and it really isn't any different from lying in a political sense. Anything else is just semantics, really. Determining what is "vital information" without being told by the concerned party is guesswork that can only be explored by assuming there is a problem. Which unfortunately, due to societal factors outside of your control, will often be a reasonable assumption. In those times at which it is not then feel free not to disclose. Likewise I will disclose atheist status if I have reason to assume that'll be a dealbreaker, even if they don't ask. You may feel that that is a reasonable assumption. I don't. It's not fair to call me a predator and a rapist because I choose not to assume that my potential partners who have made no indication that they are prejudiced or otherwise not ok with having a sexual experience with a trans person actually is. Just like you with atheism. Often, it just doesn't come up and there's no reason to assume that it is a dealbreaker.
I call you a predator because of the way you defend yourself. Your excuses are typically "I shouldn't have to think about that", "not my responsibility", "who cares if they didn't want it, they don't know", "I know better than them", "it didn't actually hurt them, not really, even if they didn't want it", "I don't owe them that, I'm focussed on me". If you actually do give a shit about your partners then you have failed to represent that, I call you a predator because you have expressed a total disinterest in anyone other than yourself and anything that doesn't get you what you want, you offer lip service towards consent without understanding why it exists or caring about the partner. Your actions are just really inconsiderate, your rationalisations for why you should be allowed to act that way are a string of predatory nonsense.
Go somewhere where the average person is more tolerant or screen your partners better, choosing to disregard it while being aware of it is not a solution to the problem.
|
On August 08 2013 09:34 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:20 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:16 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:15 Smat wrote:On August 08 2013 08:43 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:32 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 08:21 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 08:17 DoubleReed wrote:On August 08 2013 08:14 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
[quote]
The kink scene is not the same as a vanilla hook up and I'm pretty sure you know this.
"Those people" have the right to tell me they don't want to have sex with someone they consider to be transsexual. They have the right to speak up. They do not have the right to make me responsible for their feelings. That's called entitlement. Isn't that the exact opposite of how the kink scene works? You have to constantly and especially aware of other people's feelings because you are even more responsible than usual. Come on, how do you not consider yourself a predator after typing that? Communicating limitations beforehand and using safewords is how I kink. If I'm in the "dominant" position and don't care about feeling like a glorified sex toy for a while, I'll agree to only doing what they say they want done without deviation. However, since that quickly leaves me feeling distant and inhuman, I don't do it very much. There's an awful lot of abuse within the scene where people tick the boxes and do whatever the fuck they like because it's damn near impossible to prosecute. Once you let someone tie you up the law pretty much assumes you've abdicated your body to them, even if you prenegotiated the scene. It's bullshit and it's really, really rapey and there is a moral obligation on whoever has the power to protect their partner. That means that if you're doing a no safeword scene (would not recommend) you do not venture outside prenegotiated acts, if they go incommunicative (so headspaced they are unable to utter the safeword) you safeword for them if in doubt, if they consent while headspaced but you have reason to doubt it you ignore it. Above all you protect your partner and yourself from harm. And they do the same, ensuring that you're not over your head, that you know what they want and so forth. It is not enough to have an excuse for your behaviour. When shit goes wrong people get hurt, you don't want to be able to go "yeah but they didn't safeword so I thought it was fine", you want shit not to go wrong. What that means is that you understand that you have a responsibility for the wellbeing of your partner, you need to understand the limitations of the system of consent and act beyond them to protect your partner. Everything you have said tonight about it not being your responsibility, about their actions during signalling consent, about having to explicitly rule things out, the overriding their wishes because you know better and the rest of it paints you as a predator. You have shown a fundamental failure to understand that consent is a tool designed to protect people, that the goal is not to do harm, not simply to cover your own ass. Your approach to sex is selfish and abusive, your approach to consent is to treat it like an obstacle, your approach to shit going wrong is "that's their issue", you are a predator. You're making a lot of declarations about my approach to a lot of things because I guess you have some sense of superiority and you're setting me up to be someone to speak against just so you can reify your own personal moral compass. You've gone all over the board with this thing when my basis of conversation has been the passionate hookup with no intention of ever speaking to someone again. If the goal is to prevent harm and enhance enjoyment. I am in no wrong here. "they didn't know they wouldn't have consented to it so no harm was done" Even if we ignore the possibility they'll find out, that's still not up to you and could just as easily be used to justify raping passed out drunk girls. But let's not ignore that possibility. Do you understand that you are doing harm to someone who fucks you if your status gets out and his friends are transphobic bullies? That he signed up for a night of fun with a cis girl and what he got was a lifetime of "you fucked a guy" jibes. Comparing a trans person having sex to raping drunk girls. Wow.... No, read what I actually wrote. I explained why the "they didn't know so no harm was done" defence isn't a defence. That also assumes inebriation and not just a lack of education. How many standards do we put on people of sound mind and body before we deem them engaging in sexual behavior "adequately informed" and moral? I would assume as many standards as physically possible, at all times. In reality you want to maximize communication in relationships and raise the bar constantly. If you are talking about standards as in the line you draw from immoral and moral actions that's entirely up to debate, but the current consensus at least is to disclose what specific gender you are, I don't think that's remotely debatable. I don't really see any rationality against disclosing your gender either, purely from a communication and consensual relationship point of view.
That's easy. My gender is "woman".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
