Therumancer said:
In reality every sexual interaction is supposed to be consentual, however people, and I'd even venture most people, have fantasies about non-consentual sex with whatever kind of person they are interested in. Guys have their dominatrixs and amazons, girls have their randy shieks, pirate captains, and cattle barons and such. This stuff is sold by the truckload. It's adult material because it takes an adult to be able to seperate the fantasy from the reality and understand that things don't work like that in reality.
I agree. But to live out such a fantasy within a controlled environment, usually including safewords, a good chat beforehand and an evaluation afterwards IS consensual, this is called consensual nonconsent. As lang as you have safewords, even a "No" or "Stop" can be ignored.
I know several feminists of all genders who enjoy rapeplay, degradation or hurt.
But all of them only enjoy these things on their terms. Only few people enjoy to those things from strangers.
I don't have a problem with movies about rape, actually. There are a lot of good ones out there. And I don't have a problem with BDSM porn, as long as the actors are treated alright.
What sets me off are movies that include nonconsensual behaviour, which is not depicted as such. Comedies where people are degraded, and where the joke is not on the one who degrades (see "The Dictator", though this movie is also not perfect) but on the degraded.
Therumancer said:
Some romance novel written for women about some shiek or whatever (represented artistically by models like Fabio, or early Antonio Banderas) capturing some young, pretty thing, and using her for sex while she's taken to all these exotic places, perhaps with some trivial plot thrown in. The differance here is that while the sex isn't consentual to start, it's something everyone involved winds up enjoying, and usually turns into love, that harem girl usually winds up becoming the queen (or at least a favored mistress with a lot of power) by the end of the story for example. That's NOT a blueprint for a healthy real life relationship, which is exactly why it comes with an adult's only label as much as the actual sexual acts themselves.
Those plots are worse, because the message is "she wants it, or will want it at some point, she just doesn't know yet"
Therumancer said:
A line between that kind of thing, or the male version with guys being used by Amazons (or whatever) much the same way, and things like "Rapelay" which is the current textbook whipping boy does exist. That line is that "Rapelay" is all about revenge and the entire point is that the girls on the receiving end don't enjoy it, as the protaganist rapes his way up the line of a family, which puts it in a differant territory as none of the victims wind up genuinely enjoying themselves in any lasting fashion. Other examples like "Battle Raper" are less ambigious, because if that's the series I'm thinking of, I'm not a fan (due it it kind of blowing chips) but if I remember the plotline is basically a fighting tournament where the winners get to use the losers sexually in addition to advancing. Despite "rape" in the title, pretty much everyone involved knows the rules and more or less consented to it by entering into those battles to begin with. It's not exactly a deep title or a common sense set up, but you really can't say it's paticularly offensive either.
I checked out Battle Raper on wiki and moby right now, but it doesn't say anywhere what happens when the guy loses. And you're right, to some point this still questionable game is way better than rapelay, where consent is definitely out of the question. I know that "loser gets dominated" exists in RL as well.
Therumancer said:
A good part of why I am going after feminists is the dual standard. If you take a story about a Shiek who takes women as concubines, who finds that one special girl who he falls in love with while using her, finds the feeligns are mutual with, and eventually marries, along with whatever else pads the story out, if it's direct at men feminists will scream it's a horrible work of rape-horror that needs to be banned. The same basic story appears with someone like "Fabio" on the cover and marketing directed at women, and feminists will generally ignore it.
Nope, most people I know will despise them all the same.
Therumancer said:
It should also be noted (to answer this for all those who raised this question) that while feminism was at one time about equality, it's not entirely about power coming at the expense of men, which is why it has a dual standard. The basic message inherant in going after one face of things but not the other is simply that men can't handle it, so society should keep us in line. To be honest, decades ago Feminism had a valid point where women were outright prohibited from voting, or doing specific things for no paticularly good reason. Today, without those valid crusades, it's all about things like trying to basically shackle men because of our physical differances and how they give us an unfair advantage. Demands that standards be lowered for pretigious jobs with physical requirements so women can do them, or even in some cases have job performance standards lowered or removed when certain biological things like childbirth come up. The demand that people overlook the differances between men and women entirely, and oftentimes in exclusion of common sense.
Sexism is over just like racism ended in 1870. I've encountered sexist structures whithin the most anarchist emancipatory movements, because there's a sexist in all of us, including myself. We all were raised with sexist role models, and even if you don't want it, it shows. And denial as often encountered with self-proclaimed feminists only makes it worse.
Today, it isn't about those obvious things like driving a car, going to the army or voting.
Today, it is about subtle things. The way we behave, speak, assume roles. And no, I don't subscribe to everything that's been done in the name of feminism.
Therumancer said:
Along with this you have feminists in many cases going so far as to claim that due to men being bigger, stronger, and still in control of most of society, there is no such thing as consentual sex and all women are rape victims because they are not in a position of enough control to begin with in order to consent. That is how utterly bonkers the feminist definition of what constitutes rape increasingly is. No matter how consentual it is, it's still rape, since it can't be any
other way. A no-win scenario created by their own inherant logic.
Yup, they exist. We're sorry.
Therumancer said:
In short, I don't take feminism seriously as a position.
Then you maybe didn't meet the right feminists. Most feminists I know are fun, pro-sex, active, intelligent people.