|
United States43584 Posts
On August 08 2013 09:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:34 Caihead wrote: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:
[quote]
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".
Obviously he meant trans status there.
|
On August 08 2013 09:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:31 RaspberrySC2 wrote: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.
Maybe the problem is that I'm so surrounded by open and loving people that this kind of concern for fear and prejudice just doesn't come up.
I still think you don't have any understanding of the one-night stand outside of maybe a public kink dungeon play party, though.
|
On August 08 2013 09:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:34 Caihead wrote: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:
[quote]
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".
That's not descriptive enough though, people would want to know if you are a homosexual woman or a heterosexual woman or a bisexual woman, same with your trans status. Hell, lots of the times people expect much more intricate and personal details than that. I don't understand why something which should be common courtesy to establishing trust and a functional relationship is being debated over.
On August 08 2013 09:39 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:35 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:31 RaspberrySC2 wrote: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. Maybe the problem is that I'm so surrounded by open and loving people that this kind of concern for fear and prejudice just doesn't come up. I still think you don't have any understanding of the one-night stand outside of maybe a public kink dungeon play party, though.
If you do place yourself in that sort of a community, you have already given or received consent to a specific degree simply by being accepted into it. In which case why would this problem come up? Open and loving people aren't irrational or blindly trusting, being open means maximizing communication, not hiding undisclosed information.
|
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.
Of course you can't fully know whether or not something is of particular issue to a certain person or not but it's still your responsibility to disclose some things that may be for that particular context. Such things may run from marital status, particular kinks, venereal diseases, sexual identity, etc. The simple fact that one cannot completely know the other doesn't relieve you of responsibility to try your best. Rejecting this ground of person-to-person disclosure makes ethics impossible. I don't care for sexual moral precepts as if certain forms of sex is wrong or whathaveyou (for example, demonizing homosexuality, open relationships, etc.) but the ethics of the person-to-person disclosure is mandatory, honestly. Unless you're really okay with actively perpetrating the game of power politics while also being victimized by it.
|
On August 08 2013 09:39 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:35 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:31 RaspberrySC2 wrote: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. Maybe the problem is that I'm so surrounded by open and loving people that this kind of concern for fear and prejudice just doesn't come up. I still think you don't have any understanding of the one-night stand outside of maybe a public kink dungeon play party, though.
Whats a public kink dungeon play party?
|
United States43584 Posts
On August 08 2013 09:39 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:35 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:31 RaspberrySC2 wrote: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. Maybe the problem is that I'm so surrounded by open and loving people that this kind of concern for fear and prejudice just doesn't come up. I still think you don't have any understanding of the one-night stand outside of maybe a public kink dungeon play party, though.
If that is genuinely true, that everyone you encounter is obviously fine with trans people, then sure, you have no need to disclose. My system isn't out to get trans people, it wasn't invented with trans people in mind.
|
On August 08 2013 09:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:34 Caihead wrote: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:
[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. 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". Obviously he meant trans status there.
No, not "obviously".
There are as many genders as there are people who experience them. The binary of man and woman is merely a very vague way of communicating a complex idea. Any assumptions made after that are biased and unfounded. If someone wants to make clarifications as to what a person's identified gender means to them, they are more than free and welcome to. If they don't, then they have accepted the label and any assumptions they make about that person's identity based off of that are just that: assumptions. Thus, it is their own fault for not clarifying and potentially having their expectations not met.
|
United States43584 Posts
On August 08 2013 09:42 TheFish7 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:39 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:35 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:31 RaspberrySC2 wrote: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. Maybe the problem is that I'm so surrounded by open and loving people that this kind of concern for fear and prejudice just doesn't come up. I still think you don't have any understanding of the one-night stand outside of maybe a public kink dungeon play party, though. Whats a public kink dungeon play party?
It's a fetish thing. Basically no strings attached fetish play that is open to the public (as opposed to being invite only within a group). Personally I think it's a bad idea, especially when combined with alcohol. Kink play depends upon extensive communication and familiarity to be both good and safe.
|
On August 08 2013 09:39 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:34 Caihead wrote: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:
[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. 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". That's not descriptive enough though, people would want to know if you are a homosexual woman or a heterosexual woman or a bisexual woman, same with your trans status. Hell, lots of the times people expect much more intricate and personal details than that. I don't understand why something which should be common courtesy to establishing trust and a functional relationship is being debated over. Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:39 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:35 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:31 RaspberrySC2 wrote: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. Maybe the problem is that I'm so surrounded by open and loving people that this kind of concern for fear and prejudice just doesn't come up. I still think you don't have any understanding of the one-night stand outside of maybe a public kink dungeon play party, though. If you do place yourself in that sort of a community, you have already given or received consent to a specific degree simply by being accepted into it. In which case why would this problem come up? Open and loving people aren't irrational or blindly trusting, being open means maximizing communication, not hiding undisclosed information.
I'm not the one with the problems.
Actually, I don't think anyone in here actually has this problem. It's a discussion about hypothetical "should" when two people from different backgrounds make assumptions.
|
On August 08 2013 09:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:42 TheFish7 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:39 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:35 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:31 RaspberrySC2 wrote: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. Maybe the problem is that I'm so surrounded by open and loving people that this kind of concern for fear and prejudice just doesn't come up. I still think you don't have any understanding of the one-night stand outside of maybe a public kink dungeon play party, though. Whats a public kink dungeon play party? It's a fetish thing. Basically no strings attached fetish play that is open to the public (as opposed to being invite only within a group). Personally I think it's a bad idea, especially when combined with alcohol. Kink play depends upon extensive communication and familiarity to be both good and safe.
The local public dungeon denies entry to inebriated individuals and kicks out anyone on the premises determined to be inebriated (outside of endorphin rushes, of course). Personally, I generally feel safer in a public dungeon setting if I'm playing with someone for the first time because it ensures that my boundaries and safe words are respected as there are other people around to intervene if they are not.
|
United States43584 Posts
On August 08 2013 09:51 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:47 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:42 TheFish7 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:39 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:35 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:31 RaspberrySC2 wrote: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. Maybe the problem is that I'm so surrounded by open and loving people that this kind of concern for fear and prejudice just doesn't come up. I still think you don't have any understanding of the one-night stand outside of maybe a public kink dungeon play party, though. Whats a public kink dungeon play party? It's a fetish thing. Basically no strings attached fetish play that is open to the public (as opposed to being invite only within a group). Personally I think it's a bad idea, especially when combined with alcohol. Kink play depends upon extensive communication and familiarity to be both good and safe. The local public dungeon denies entry to inebriated individuals and kicks out anyone on the premises determined to be inebriated (outside of endorphin rushes, of course). Personally, I generally feel safer in a public dungeon setting if I'm playing with someone for the first time because it ensures that my boundaries and safe words are respected as there are other people around to intervene if they are not.
Would you rather it did not enforce the alcohol rule? After all, those people still consent (assuming they're not passed out etc) and it's not your responsibility to decide whether or not they've had too much to decide what is good for them. It's a perfect example of the thing with the power, in this case the owners of the dungeon, going beyond their responsibility in order to prevent harm.
|
On August 08 2013 09:46 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:37 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:34 Caihead wrote: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:
[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. 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". Obviously he meant trans status there. No, not "obviously". There are as many genders as there are people who experience them. The binary of man and woman is merely a very vague way of communicating a complex idea. Any assumptions made after that are biased and unfounded. If someone wants to make clarifications as to what a person's identified gender means to them, they are more than free and welcome to. If they don't, then they have accepted the label and any assumptions they make about that person's identity based off of that are just that: assumptions. Thus, it is their own fault for not clarifying and potentially having their expectations not met.
If your social agenda is to communicate complex ideas and a non-binary sexuality and promote that communication be my guest, millions of people around the world are doing that, including myself. But while we don't have that system yet you have to disclose because it's not understanding that can be taken for granted. If the general population doesn't have specific knowledge to be responsible then it becomes your responsibility to specifically disclose that knowledge to them, especially if you want to engage in a mutual relationship.
Is that fair? No. But it's no different from what we expect from people with knowledge beyond the current state of others, educators, elders, parents, partners, etc, we are all expected to disclose information which we have the understanding that the other party might need to function properly. We have both moral and legal codes and laws which penalizes those who do not disclose information when they have the necessary oversight and knowledge to understand a situation to the party that doesn't, this is no different.
|
On August 08 2013 09:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:51 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:47 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:42 TheFish7 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:39 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:35 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:31 RaspberrySC2 wrote: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. Maybe the problem is that I'm so surrounded by open and loving people that this kind of concern for fear and prejudice just doesn't come up. I still think you don't have any understanding of the one-night stand outside of maybe a public kink dungeon play party, though. Whats a public kink dungeon play party? It's a fetish thing. Basically no strings attached fetish play that is open to the public (as opposed to being invite only within a group). Personally I think it's a bad idea, especially when combined with alcohol. Kink play depends upon extensive communication and familiarity to be both good and safe. The local public dungeon denies entry to inebriated individuals and kicks out anyone on the premises determined to be inebriated (outside of endorphin rushes, of course). Personally, I generally feel safer in a public dungeon setting if I'm playing with someone for the first time because it ensures that my boundaries and safe words are respected as there are other people around to intervene if they are not. Would you rather it did not enforce the alcohol rule? After all, those people still consent (assuming they're not passed out etc) and it's not your responsibility to decide whether or not they've had too much to decide what is good for them. It's a perfect example of the thing with the power, in this case the owners of the dungeon, going beyond their responsibility in order to prevent harm.
That's an assumption. I think they are moreso just covering their ass. The dungeon is a business and one that rides the line of what is legal. They have no interest in giving the police any reason to come to their doorstep.
That said, I do not, on a fundamental level, believe it is the moral responsibility of the owners of the dungeon to enforce any drug or alcohol rules.
|
United States43584 Posts
On August 08 2013 10:03 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:56 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:51 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:47 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:42 TheFish7 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:39 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:35 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:31 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:25 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:24 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
[quote]
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. Maybe the problem is that I'm so surrounded by open and loving people that this kind of concern for fear and prejudice just doesn't come up. I still think you don't have any understanding of the one-night stand outside of maybe a public kink dungeon play party, though. Whats a public kink dungeon play party? It's a fetish thing. Basically no strings attached fetish play that is open to the public (as opposed to being invite only within a group). Personally I think it's a bad idea, especially when combined with alcohol. Kink play depends upon extensive communication and familiarity to be both good and safe. The local public dungeon denies entry to inebriated individuals and kicks out anyone on the premises determined to be inebriated (outside of endorphin rushes, of course). Personally, I generally feel safer in a public dungeon setting if I'm playing with someone for the first time because it ensures that my boundaries and safe words are respected as there are other people around to intervene if they are not. Would you rather it did not enforce the alcohol rule? After all, those people still consent (assuming they're not passed out etc) and it's not your responsibility to decide whether or not they've had too much to decide what is good for them. It's a perfect example of the thing with the power, in this case the owners of the dungeon, going beyond their responsibility in order to prevent harm. That's an assumption. I think they are moreso just covering their ass. The dungeon is a business and one that rides the line of what is legal. They have no interest in giving the police any reason to come to their doorstep. That said, I do not, on a fundamental level, believe it is the moral responsibility of the owners of the dungeon to enforce any drug or alcohol rules.
What if someone collapsed on train tracks while you were watching. Do you believe you have a moral responsibility to pull them off of the tracks? Their collapse is their responsibility.
|
On August 08 2013 10:00 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:46 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:37 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:34 Caihead wrote: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:
[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. 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". Obviously he meant trans status there. No, not "obviously". There are as many genders as there are people who experience them. The binary of man and woman is merely a very vague way of communicating a complex idea. Any assumptions made after that are biased and unfounded. If someone wants to make clarifications as to what a person's identified gender means to them, they are more than free and welcome to. If they don't, then they have accepted the label and any assumptions they make about that person's identity based off of that are just that: assumptions. Thus, it is their own fault for not clarifying and potentially having their expectations not met. If your social agenda is to communicate complex ideas and a non-binary sexuality and promote that communication be my guest, millions of people around the world are doing that, including myself. But while we don't have that system yet you have to disclose because it's not understanding that can be taken for granted. If the general population doesn't have specific knowledge to be responsible then it becomes your responsibility to specifically disclose that knowledge to them, especially if you want to engage in a mutual relationship. Is that fair? No. But it's no different from what we expect from people with knowledge beyond the current state of others, educators, elders, parents, partners, etc, we are all expected to disclose information which we have the understanding that the other party might need to function properly. We have both moral and legal codes and laws which penalizes those who do not disclose information when they have the necessary oversight and knowledge to understand a situation to the party that doesn't, this is no different.
I don't have a social agenda other than maybe personal freedom and responsibility - maybe.
Secondly, my gender has no influence on another person's ability to function.
Thirdly, you're conflating one-night-stands and relationships. I'm talking from the perspective of one-night-stands.
|
On August 08 2013 10:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 10:03 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:56 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:51 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:47 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:42 TheFish7 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:39 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:35 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:31 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:25 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. Maybe the problem is that I'm so surrounded by open and loving people that this kind of concern for fear and prejudice just doesn't come up. I still think you don't have any understanding of the one-night stand outside of maybe a public kink dungeon play party, though. Whats a public kink dungeon play party? It's a fetish thing. Basically no strings attached fetish play that is open to the public (as opposed to being invite only within a group). Personally I think it's a bad idea, especially when combined with alcohol. Kink play depends upon extensive communication and familiarity to be both good and safe. The local public dungeon denies entry to inebriated individuals and kicks out anyone on the premises determined to be inebriated (outside of endorphin rushes, of course). Personally, I generally feel safer in a public dungeon setting if I'm playing with someone for the first time because it ensures that my boundaries and safe words are respected as there are other people around to intervene if they are not. Would you rather it did not enforce the alcohol rule? After all, those people still consent (assuming they're not passed out etc) and it's not your responsibility to decide whether or not they've had too much to decide what is good for them. It's a perfect example of the thing with the power, in this case the owners of the dungeon, going beyond their responsibility in order to prevent harm. That's an assumption. I think they are moreso just covering their ass. The dungeon is a business and one that rides the line of what is legal. They have no interest in giving the police any reason to come to their doorstep. That said, I do not, on a fundamental level, believe it is the moral responsibility of the owners of the dungeon to enforce any drug or alcohol rules. What if someone collapsed on train tracks while you were watching. Do you believe you have a moral responsibility to pull them off of the tracks? Their collapse is their responsibility.
Fundamentally, I am not responsible for them.
I'd pull them off and revive them to a point where they can survive. I'd also call an ambulance and I'd leave when the paramedics did not need me.
|
On August 08 2013 10:09 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 10:00 Caihead wrote:On August 08 2013 09:46 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:37 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:34 Caihead wrote: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:
[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. 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". Obviously he meant trans status there. No, not "obviously". There are as many genders as there are people who experience them. The binary of man and woman is merely a very vague way of communicating a complex idea. Any assumptions made after that are biased and unfounded. If someone wants to make clarifications as to what a person's identified gender means to them, they are more than free and welcome to. If they don't, then they have accepted the label and any assumptions they make about that person's identity based off of that are just that: assumptions. Thus, it is their own fault for not clarifying and potentially having their expectations not met. If your social agenda is to communicate complex ideas and a non-binary sexuality and promote that communication be my guest, millions of people around the world are doing that, including myself. But while we don't have that system yet you have to disclose because it's not understanding that can be taken for granted. If the general population doesn't have specific knowledge to be responsible then it becomes your responsibility to specifically disclose that knowledge to them, especially if you want to engage in a mutual relationship. Is that fair? No. But it's no different from what we expect from people with knowledge beyond the current state of others, educators, elders, parents, partners, etc, we are all expected to disclose information which we have the understanding that the other party might need to function properly. We have both moral and legal codes and laws which penalizes those who do not disclose information when they have the necessary oversight and knowledge to understand a situation to the party that doesn't, this is no different. I don't have a social agenda other than maybe personal freedom and responsibility - maybe. Secondly, my gender has no influence on another person's ability to function. Thirdly, you're conflating one-night-stands and relationships. I'm talking from the perspective of one-night-stands.
Another person's ability to function includes their own will and personal preference in how they interact with other human beings.
One night stands just decrease the duration of your responsibility, it doesn't change the fundamentals of it at all, so I don't see why you need to make that distinction. I don't think the attitude that one-night-stands are exempt from interpersonal responsibility has any real philosophical basis aside from hedonism.
|
On August 08 2013 10:16 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 10:09 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 10:00 Caihead wrote:On August 08 2013 09:46 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:37 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:34 Caihead wrote:On August 08 2013 09:20 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:16 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:15 Smat wrote:
[quote]
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". Obviously he meant trans status there. No, not "obviously". There are as many genders as there are people who experience them. The binary of man and woman is merely a very vague way of communicating a complex idea. Any assumptions made after that are biased and unfounded. If someone wants to make clarifications as to what a person's identified gender means to them, they are more than free and welcome to. If they don't, then they have accepted the label and any assumptions they make about that person's identity based off of that are just that: assumptions. Thus, it is their own fault for not clarifying and potentially having their expectations not met. If your social agenda is to communicate complex ideas and a non-binary sexuality and promote that communication be my guest, millions of people around the world are doing that, including myself. But while we don't have that system yet you have to disclose because it's not understanding that can be taken for granted. If the general population doesn't have specific knowledge to be responsible then it becomes your responsibility to specifically disclose that knowledge to them, especially if you want to engage in a mutual relationship. Is that fair? No. But it's no different from what we expect from people with knowledge beyond the current state of others, educators, elders, parents, partners, etc, we are all expected to disclose information which we have the understanding that the other party might need to function properly. We have both moral and legal codes and laws which penalizes those who do not disclose information when they have the necessary oversight and knowledge to understand a situation to the party that doesn't, this is no different. I don't have a social agenda other than maybe personal freedom and responsibility - maybe. Secondly, my gender has no influence on another person's ability to function. Thirdly, you're conflating one-night-stands and relationships. I'm talking from the perspective of one-night-stands. Another person's ability to function includes their own will and personal preference in how they interact with other human beings. One night stands just decrease the duration of your responsibility, it doesn't change the fundamentals of it at all, so I don't see why you need to make that distinction. I don't think the attitude that one-night-stands are exempt from interpersonal responsibility has any real philosophical basis aside from hedonism.
Maybe I'm a hedonist?
When I agree to sexual activity with someone, I do so lovingly and unconditionally (which might be why I often get phone numbers slipped my way afterwards). When I have sex, I am open, receptive and vulnerable and I accept my partners for everything they are. I do not take responsibility for who they are and I definitely do not take responsibility for who they are afterwards,
|
On August 08 2013 10:12 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 10:06 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 10:03 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:56 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:51 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:47 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:42 TheFish7 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:39 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:35 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:31 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
[quote]
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. Maybe the problem is that I'm so surrounded by open and loving people that this kind of concern for fear and prejudice just doesn't come up. I still think you don't have any understanding of the one-night stand outside of maybe a public kink dungeon play party, though. Whats a public kink dungeon play party? It's a fetish thing. Basically no strings attached fetish play that is open to the public (as opposed to being invite only within a group). Personally I think it's a bad idea, especially when combined with alcohol. Kink play depends upon extensive communication and familiarity to be both good and safe. The local public dungeon denies entry to inebriated individuals and kicks out anyone on the premises determined to be inebriated (outside of endorphin rushes, of course). Personally, I generally feel safer in a public dungeon setting if I'm playing with someone for the first time because it ensures that my boundaries and safe words are respected as there are other people around to intervene if they are not. Would you rather it did not enforce the alcohol rule? After all, those people still consent (assuming they're not passed out etc) and it's not your responsibility to decide whether or not they've had too much to decide what is good for them. It's a perfect example of the thing with the power, in this case the owners of the dungeon, going beyond their responsibility in order to prevent harm. That's an assumption. I think they are moreso just covering their ass. The dungeon is a business and one that rides the line of what is legal. They have no interest in giving the police any reason to come to their doorstep. That said, I do not, on a fundamental level, believe it is the moral responsibility of the owners of the dungeon to enforce any drug or alcohol rules. What if someone collapsed on train tracks while you were watching. Do you believe you have a moral responsibility to pull them off of the tracks? Their collapse is their responsibility. Fundamentally, I am not responsible for them.I'd pull them off and revive them to a point where they can survive. I'd also call an ambulance and I'd leave when the paramedics did not need me.
I would beg to differ
|
On August 08 2013 10:21 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 10:16 Caihead wrote:On August 08 2013 10:09 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 10:00 Caihead wrote:On August 08 2013 09:46 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:37 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 09:36 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:34 Caihead wrote:On August 08 2013 09:20 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 09:16 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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". Obviously he meant trans status there. No, not "obviously". There are as many genders as there are people who experience them. The binary of man and woman is merely a very vague way of communicating a complex idea. Any assumptions made after that are biased and unfounded. If someone wants to make clarifications as to what a person's identified gender means to them, they are more than free and welcome to. If they don't, then they have accepted the label and any assumptions they make about that person's identity based off of that are just that: assumptions. Thus, it is their own fault for not clarifying and potentially having their expectations not met. If your social agenda is to communicate complex ideas and a non-binary sexuality and promote that communication be my guest, millions of people around the world are doing that, including myself. But while we don't have that system yet you have to disclose because it's not understanding that can be taken for granted. If the general population doesn't have specific knowledge to be responsible then it becomes your responsibility to specifically disclose that knowledge to them, especially if you want to engage in a mutual relationship. Is that fair? No. But it's no different from what we expect from people with knowledge beyond the current state of others, educators, elders, parents, partners, etc, we are all expected to disclose information which we have the understanding that the other party might need to function properly. We have both moral and legal codes and laws which penalizes those who do not disclose information when they have the necessary oversight and knowledge to understand a situation to the party that doesn't, this is no different. I don't have a social agenda other than maybe personal freedom and responsibility - maybe. Secondly, my gender has no influence on another person's ability to function. Thirdly, you're conflating one-night-stands and relationships. I'm talking from the perspective of one-night-stands. Another person's ability to function includes their own will and personal preference in how they interact with other human beings. One night stands just decrease the duration of your responsibility, it doesn't change the fundamentals of it at all, so I don't see why you need to make that distinction. I don't think the attitude that one-night-stands are exempt from interpersonal responsibility has any real philosophical basis aside from hedonism. Maybe I'm a hedonist? When I agree to sexual activity with someone, I do so lovingly and unconditionally (which might be why I often get phone numbers slipped my way afterwards). When I have sex, I am open, receptive and vulnerable and I accept my partners for everything they are. I do not take responsibility for who they are and I definitely do not take responsibility for who they are afterwards,
I'm not sure what you are getting at exactly, whether you are in the dominant or submissive position in any interaction doesn't exempt you from responsibility, the dominant party might in some cases carry more responsibility but there is never a perfectly dominant situation so it's never complete. Some of us might want such situations to exist where one party is solely responsible for themselves, or solely responsible for others, but reality is always in between.
Regardless of what philosophy you subscribe to I think this is more an issue of interpretation of personal responsibility, I think you would agree that were your philosophy to include the consent of others as a high priority, then you would disclose any and all information regarding sexuality with moral obligation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
