The v****a Monologues Question

[Prince Aegon Targaryen VI]

The Legendary Guest

Then via what medium do you believe you can relate to this story?

Through what mental gymnastics do you believe one has to be able to relate to the statutory rape of a teenager to condemn a story painting it as a good thing?

Quote:

I'm not talking about the language used to discuss the issue. I am talking about the text of the story itself.

And I am talking about the language used to discuss the issue. Seeing as it is my thread, I believe it is safe to say...

Quote:

Someone else's story about their own trauma disgusts you? OK.

No. Erotic BDSM literature, in no way connected to the authors personal experiences (Unless, of course, they live in a magical world where a contract saying "You dun got ta ******** me an' if ya'll stop consenting to it, it don't matter cus we dun gots a contract signed under duress" is legally viable) wherein the dom abuses the sub but the sub enjoys being a mindless, mistreated sex-doll, so it's okay; disgusts me.

Quote:

On what level do you relate to the author?

With what mental gymnastics do you believe one needs to be able to relate to the author of a story involving the statutory rape of a 13 year old in order to condemn the story?

Quote:

You find that story to be painted rosily, do you? That's interesting.

One more time, fellas.

"If it was rape, it was good rape."

Yeah. As a matter of fact, I do.

Quote:

Considering the way you seem to be perversely attracted to a single aspect of the entire dialogue, all I can say is thanks for the insight into how your mind works.

I know, I know, as fascinating as it might be, I don't believe there is such thing as "Good Rape".

In an even more unbelievable twist, I believe the statutory rape of a 13 year old is morally repulsive.

I know, psychologists everywhere would pay an arm and a leg to pick my brain.

[The Legendary Guest]

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

The Legendary Guest

Then via what medium do you believe you can relate to this story?

Through what mental gymnastics do you believe one has to be able to relate to the statutory rape of a teenager to condemn a story painting it as a good thing?

Deflection, so soon? It's legitimate question.

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

Quote:

I'm not talking about the language used to discuss the issue. I am talking about the text of the story itself.

And I am talking about the language used to discuss the issue. Seeing as it is my thread, I believe it is safe to say...

Cheesy clips from movies aren't exactly a reply, though, and they certainly don't make your position any stronger. Also, no, you responded to my contribution to the thread. You do not get to "steer" what I said into a direction that makes you feel like you're in charge of my post, ridiculous appeals to movie heroes notwithstanding.

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

Quote:

Someone else's story about their own trauma disgusts you? OK.

No. Erotic BDSM literature, in no way connected to the authors personal experiences (Unless, of course, they live in a magical world where a contract saying "You dun got ta ******** me an' if ya'll stop consenting to it, it don't matter cus we dun gots a contract signed under duress" is legally viable) wherein the dom abuses the sub but the sub enjoys being a mindless, mistreated sex-doll, so it's okay; disgusts me.

Except that's not really what's going on in the monologue now is it? Like I said, you seem to be projecting your own bad experience with BDSM into a story about a traumatized girl who recovers her own sexuality.

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

Quote:

On what level do you relate to the author?

With what mental gymnastics do you believe one needs to be able to relate to the author of a story involving the statutory rape of a 13 year old in order to condemn the story?

None whatsoever, that's the amount of "mental gymnastics" it takes to understand that there is more to the story than a single incident, and it takes none whatsoever to notice your intense focus on only that aspect.

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

Quote:

Yeah, no thanks.

Insert serenely unconcerned shrug here.

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

Quote:

Not when it involves a rosily painted story about a twenty-something having sex with a child whom the aforementioned twenty-something provided with liquor.

Quote:

You find that story to be painted rosily, do you? That's interesting.

One more time, fellas.

"If it was rape, it was good rape."

Yeah. As a matter of fact, I do.

Again, the way your focus is on a single aspect of the monogue is quite telling. It would appear you do not relate to the woman giving the monologue at all.

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

I know, I know, as fascinating as it might be, I don't believe there is such thing as "Good Rape".

But that's not exactly the point of the monologue now is it?

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

In an even more unbelievable twist, I believe the statutory rape of a 13 year old is morally repulsive.

There is no moral highground on the internet. You're entitled to your feelings? But I am equally as entitled to notice how nothing else about the monoogue seems to bother you, including the violent rape of the speaker as a child.

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

I know, psychologists everywhere would pay an arm and a leg to pick my brain.

I doubt that very highly. You're not all that interesting. Projection and deflection are very common, actually.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

The20

Riviera de la Mancha

Faustine Liem

Seriously.

Quote:

Abigail Holloway, 33 The former gym teacher at the Christian prep school, Kings Academy, in Sunnyvale, Calif., was arrested March 5, 2009, at St. Mary’s Academy in Englewood, Colorado, where she was working, on charges stemming from an alleged sexual relationship with a female student lasting from 2001 to 2005. The girl, now a student at Whitworth College in Spokane, Wash., told a school counselor about the relationship that had occurred in California beginning when she was 13. During that time, according to the girl, she and Holloway were intimate “over 100 times.” “We have a very special relationship. It is a gift from God,” states an alleged e-mail from Holloway to the girl in March 2003. “Not many people are going to understand that, but we know in our hearts that God made us for each other!” Holloway is fighting extradition.

^^^
I guess that was good rape. emotion_puke

Possibly to the victim, yeah.

That the play makes you think about the issue is the point of the play.

Now try to tell the same story with an adult man instead of an adult woman and watch the world burn.

Such a story has been told, several times. World seems fine to me.

[Prince Aegon Targaryen VI]

The Legendary Guest

Deflection, so soon? It's legitimate question.

Pardon?

No. See, the thing is, it's not really a legitimate question. How exactly do you believe one needs to relate to a story to condemn it?

Quote:

Cheesy clips from movies aren't exactly a reply, though, and they certainly don't make your position any stronger. Also, no, you responded to my contribution to the thread. You do not get to "steer" what I said into a direction that makes you feel like you're in charge of my post, ridiculous appeals to movie heroes notwithstanding.

Considering that this thread is centered around a request for people to clarify the nature of something to me, I think you'll find that, yes, I actually do get to steer the direction of the conversation.

Quote:

Except that's not really what's going on in the monologue now is it? Like I said, you seem to be projecting your own bad experience with BDSM into a story about a traumatized girl who recovers her own sexuality.

No. But it's quite relevant to the point you were quoting. Goodness, were you educated by Sophists?

Let's break this down, shall we?

We begin with...

Quote:

Discovering this literature's existence didn't traumatize me. It disgusted me. That's all.

Which is of course a reference to....

Quote:

As you've previously mentioned, you have your own traumatic issues to work out.

Which, in turn I can only imagine is referencing the statement....

Quote:

My specific dislike of this might just be rooted in my personal experiences, actually.

Which itself is a tie in to...

Quote:

Yeah... Yeah.... See... I'm really not liking that language (Uh, not something on your part, mind you. This isn't personal. It's about the ideas in the play). I'm sorry, maybe it's rooted in my personal experiences with horrible BDSM (This isn't some attack on BDSM as a whole. I will neither confirm nor deny that I am into it. I will confirm that I have been given the strong impression that the community doesn't like this) authors who write what are transparently stories of abuse and use flowery language to protect it.

and...

Quote:

Dom abducts/tricks/pulls some legal nonsense that doesn't work in the real world to force sub into abusive relationship. Unlocks subs sexuality and teaches sub to _______ though, so sub actually likes it. So it's okay.

So I think you will find, any reference to my "Disgust" connected to this chain is quite explicitly connected to my opinions on certain BDSM literature.

Not the v****a Monologues.

If you want to contribute, do at try to at least try to be no more than three steps behind.

Quote:

None whatsoever, that's the amount of "mental gymnastics" it takes to understand that there is more to the story than a single incident.

This single element is the portion of the story is the one which brought the story to my awareness. As I have yet to read the rest of it, it would be a touch difficult to object to other parts, now wouldn't it?

To be frank, I don't care to read the rest of the story. If your first experience with a hole in the ground is "Oh there is a giant spider in that" you say "Really?" Someone else says "Yeah. Three of them. But there is a bit of Gold down there." I'm not going to stick my hand in.

As for any justifications; Pretty wrapping paper for an ugly present.

A play that refers to the statutory rape of a 13 year old as "Good Rape."

Quote:

Again, the way your focus is on a single aspect of the dialogue is quite telling. It would appear you do not relate to the woman giving the dialogue at all.

May I ask, what is the source of your obsession with "Relating to" things? I don't need to "Relate" to Elliot Rodgers to condemn his screed. I don't need to "Relate" to the woman giving the dialogue to condemn a story that refers to the statutory rape of a child as "Good Rape".

Quote:

There is no moral highground on the internet.

I beg to differ.

Quote:

But I am equally as entitled to notice how nothing else about the dialogue seems to bother you, including the violent rape of the speaker as a child.

Oh Lord. You're pulling that ? Pathetic. I hope you are savy enough to have an alternate account. I want you to know that this little piece of sophistry in specific is why you are now blocked.

If that's how you carry yourself in a discussion, I am going to have to suggest you find another thread.

Oh, and if you do have alts, do be aware that I have plenty of experience playing Whack-A-Mole, if you try to show your face here again.

[Jeff the Kitten]

The20

YourNeighborsCat

Another logical fallacy is assuming that someone who was made drunk and then raped would be able to piece together personal experience from it. Drunkenness affects short term and long term memory, yet the story implies that a 13 year old girl was somehow able to overcome this phenomena of human brain chemistry and conclude that the drunk sexual assault on her was 'good'.

"Drunk" is relative. I've been drunk to the point where i had trouble walking straight, horrendous reaction times and i still remember most of that evening. That was maybe 9 years ago. I've had alcohol affect my behavior (made me loosen up ... slightly) after one bottle of beer, with no other obvious side effects.

You missed the part where she is 13 (or 16, whatever) and a female. Young people are alcohol sensitive and women are alcohol sensitive. Double whammy.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

YourNeighborsCat

Riviera de la Mancha

YourNeighborsCat

Riviera de la Mancha

YourNeighborsCat

Riviera de la Mancha

1.) And the story that the OP is referencing does show her sexual development from a very young age all the way through to her adult life. It doesn't pretend that she was unaware at all. That's part of what makes that particular story controversial. At one level, she is clearly raped, but at another, she (the character) consents to it and ends up seeing it as a generally "good" experience in her development. Does this cheapen her consent? Should the character have grappled with being raped? Is it right for someone in the audience to see her overall experience positive? These and many other issues are raised. That's the point of the play; to raise the issue in an evoking way.

No one is forcing you to like it, or even see that play.

2.) See above. Is it an illusion? The character certainly expresses enjoyment. Again, that's what the play is in part supposed to do - push the envelope, make you uncomfortable, and confront several topics about sex and sexual development.

Yes. Listen to the personal testimony of a made up minor accepting her sexuality that she had her whole life by the masochistic act of getting well drunk and ******** by a predatory older woman, but somehow being able to remember the vivid sexual pleasure of the whole beer goggle experience. Written by Jane "the neurotic lesbian" Doe. Directed by M. Night Shyamalan.

Again, no one is telling you to like it. Analyze it as you wish. It certainly calls for analysis.

Surprisingly, not every story or play you will see or hear of will suit your tastes.

This has nothing to do with the play. A book is a book, bruh. This has to do with some sick, adult woman who is respected among the feminist community projecting her ********* filth as a tenant of feminism and as something normal/acceptable in sexuality and society. If you back track to my earlier post, you will see a further elaborated explanation as to why this kind of behavior needs to be shut down immediately.

Have you seen the play?

Its not projected as any one message. It just purports to convey several dimensions of the female sexual and developmental experience. The v****a Monologues consists of several small plays and stories put together. One story is relayed by an older female character wherein she recounts her first time climaxing and the guy getting upset with her that she ruined his seats. There is another story that's all just a woman describing her v****a as she sees it in a mirror for the first time. Its also got a story about a prostitute making light of the different orgasm sounds people make.

It doesn't promise you will like all that's presented. It doesn't promise you will only see "positive" stories. It doesn't even promise to have a single overriding message for you to follow. You are free to dislike it certainly.

I saw your post. Again, I am just saying that the message was not the one the poster described.

You said that the girl was clearly raped on one level, but on another level she absolutely consented to it. This is a logical fallacy, as rape and consent are incompatible. Another logical fallacy is assuming that someone who was made drunk and then raped would be able to piece together personal experience from it. Drunkenness affects short term and long term memory, yet the story implies that a 13 year old girl was somehow able to overcome this phenomena of human brain chemistry and conclude that the drunk sexual assault on her was 'good'.

Finally, you describe the story as a down to earth experience. This girl has defied the laws of physics, grown up and become a healthy functioning adult and then turns into an advocate for this kind of lesbian interaction. All in the span of a few page.

Pushing the envelope is when you have somebody who can prove that they enjoyed/weren't traumatized by something that everybody else has provided evidence as being traumatizing and harmful. Not when some old b***h makes up a source willing to say that and then has the source turn around and advocate for it.

Kind of like how Disney 'pushed the envelope' on the issue of slavery by making up some bogus film about how the slave life and slave trade were really the spice of life kind of stuff, and both the slaves and the masters were just happy fun-loving humans frolicking in existential bliss.

It's not introducing some far out provable idea that nobody has thought about before to better humanity. It's a back rub while sodomizing the reader with a chainsaw; the back rub supposedly making up for the fact that you are now sterile, bleeding to death, in unspeakable amounts of pain, and no longer able to move.

I don't think you know what the phrase "logical fallacy" means.

Rape is a legally defined crime which has two 'types'; rape of an adult and rape of a minor. Therefore, its possible to meet the legal definition of the crime but also for the victim to consent. Further, even assuming the character in the play is intoxicated, intoxication is not a total bar to a valid consent. Of course, minors are not allowed to consent, and that's what one of the issues the play draws attention to: the character was clearly raped, but she from her view consented and enjoyed it. Does this invalidate her experience? Should she be damaged by it? Is it wrong if she is not? Works sometimes raise issues, and do so in ways that make you uneasy.

I have also never used the phrase "down to earth". You may have me confused with someone else. The character in the play also doesn't "advocate" for people to be raped. Its probably in your best interest to see the play before you criticize it, as its pretty clear you are making things up as you go along.

...Are you referring to "Song of the South"? I question whether you have seen it, or read any of your history text. If you did, you'd know that the presentation of blacks in "Song of the South" was certainly not pushing the envelope. It was the majority view at the time and certainly would have not, and indeed did not, raise any eyebrows.

Further, "pushing the envelope", doesn't need to lead to clearly 'good' things for humanity or be provable, and that's certainly true when you look at a work of art.

[Prince Aegon Targaryen VI]

Riviera de la Mancha

Rape is a legally defined crime which has two 'types'; rape of an adult and rape of a minor. Therefore, its possible to meet the legal definition of the crime but also for the victim to consent. Further, even assuming the character in the play is intoxicated, intoxication is not a total bar to a valid consent. Of course, minors are not allowed to consent, and that's what one of the issues the play draws attention to: the character was clearly raped, but she from her view consented and enjoyed it. Does this invalidate her experience? Should she be damaged by it? Is it wrong if she is not? Works sometimes raise issues, and do so in ways that make you uneasy.

Here's the thing. Few things to bring up....

1. "Of course, minors are not allowed to consent, and that's what one of the issues the play draws attention to."

See, to me, this isn't an issue. It's an entirely sensible and logical legal policy.

Oh, sure, when it's used by a parent to go after their 16 year old child's 18 year old significant other, there's wiggle room. There, I grant you, there is an issue.

But when we are talking about a twenty-something providing alcohol to a 13 year old and having sex with them?

Yeah. Different story.

No more of an "Issue" than punishing murder, in my eyes.

That or I've fallen into a nightmare from which I can't wake up, and the inability of a 13 year old to consent to sex with a 24 year old is an "Issue" society is facing.

2. "the character was clearly raped, but she from her view consented and enjoyed it."

See.... This is where my parallel to certain horrible BDSM Erotic Literature comes in.

I get that this is, apparently, based on a real persons experiences. Okay, that makes the pill a bit easier to swallow.

But...

To me, that talk sounds far to similar to "Oh, so and so loves it when I treat him/her like s**t." Abuse-Justification.

Leading to....

3. Does this invalidate her experience? Should she be damaged by it? Is it wrong if she is not?

Damaged? No. Not at all.

But... To me... The thing is this ff you are in an abusive relationship, but for some reason or another you don't view it as such, you think it's a good thing... Your friends aren't the bad guys when they try to get you out of that relationship.

Apply the same principle here.

Hell, continuing with that parallel...

Ignore the girls experiences.

Because you know what? Unless there is another element that I have yet to read about (I really don't want to read this play. If you told me there was $100 at the bottom of a hole with a giant spider in it, I wouldn't stick my hand in it) where the woman somehow knows about all of her life circumstances, this comes into play.

Say the 13 year old isn't the main character.

Say the 24 year old is.

She's not some sexual liberator. She doesn't know the girl has these problems.

Shes an adult. Giving alcohol to a child, then having sex with them.

This is a bad thing. It certainly isn't "Good Rape"

[Jeff the Kitten]

Henrika

YourNeighborsCat

Henrika

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

So quite recently I was reading about how The v****a Monologues, which I admit, I am not super familiar with, involes some story called ""The Little Coochie Snorcher that Could"

The Impression I am given is that it involved the date-rape of a teenage girl who later concludes that "If it was rape, it was good rape."

So if there is anyone out their familiar with the play, can I ask... Is there... Some context I'm missing? The impression I've always had of the v****a Monologues is a relatively good one... I mean, a lot of my really intelligent feminist associates are big on it...

Is there something I'm missing that makes the statement "If it was rape, it was good rape." any less horrible?

Yeah you're missing the context. It's about a girl who was raised to wear 3 pairs of panties and never let anyone (or herself) touch her EVER. Her mom basically raises her to have issues with her own body, and touching herself etc.
She is raped by her father's friend at a party - her father shoots the guy and her dad loses custody.

She then meets an older woman and has sex with her, and she teaches her not to be afraid of herself. The problem is that technically that is "statutory rape" meaning that even though she wanted to consent she couldn't, but the incident helps the protagonist get over her fears about her body. (At this point in the story she's 16, the older woman is 24.)




I should point out, the context makes it a bit easier to swallow, but its still distasteful IMO... either statutory rape and its terrible or it isn't. With so many real life children getting ******** up for life from statutory rape I think the story is trying way to hard to try and glorify it. Then again, everyone's experiences are different, and I suppose this is meant to be one person's experience.

I see a man hating feminists with every word of the play. The author marginalizes men as both oppressive to a woman's sexuality and entirely unable to be forgiven for rape. She then brings in this messiah of an older woman (likely a projection of herself; the *****) with tits, a**, a p***y, and alcohol; who will bring forth this deep sexual-masochism in a thirteen year old where two oppressive parents and an unrelenting organ donor couldn't.

It's basically rape-narci-sexism. "Only women can be allowed to ******** kids, and when they do you damn well better accept it. The kids love it, just read my made up story. ******** traditional family structures; it's time for a *****. Cishet scum."

It's the mother of the protagonist, a woman, who first sexually represses her. She is raped when she is 13 by her father's friend, who is then shot and killed. This is a traumatic experience, made worse by her mother raising her to believe that anyone touching her v****a is her own fault.

The men's roles in the story are marginalized, because guess what, the story is about a girl. The protagonist. It's her story, and the men and their actions are secondary to the relationship between the girl, her mother, and her "sexual liberator". It's exceedingly common in nearly all forms of current media to marginalize female experiences, and its funny that you only care when the marginalization is reversed.

When she has sex with the older woman, she is 16 at that point, and the woman is 24. There is grey area with statutory rape and I think the awfulness of this specific point is worth debating, but ultimately, this specific story is about an individual's experience and how it helped her get over her own fears about her body that her mom created.

"It's funny that you only care when the marginalization is reversed."
Whoa, you completely destroyed my argument by making that assumption about me without ever having met me, and in a thread discussing female supremacy ideology and lesbianism.

Back on topic: I'm unwilling to accept that this anonymous testimony is real just as I am unwilling to accept that NAMBLA anonymous testimonies are real. Not only because of the conflict of interest and lack of any tangible documentation, but also because the story sounds like it was told by a mentally handicapped person. "Accidently impaling my v****a on the bedpost while bouncing around in a pair of pants and three pairs of panties." Most improbable landing in human history "My rapist walks up behind me, pulls down my panties, and immediately penetrates my v****a (at ten years old)." Either he had an outrageously small wiener, or this didn't happen.

Finally, y'know, interviewing a homeless person and then using this as proof that these kind of couplings are normal and life changing.

I read the play, and it portrays the atomic family as evil and oppressive. The mother in this case is non-violent but holding the daughter back sexually, while the father is a murderer and his friend is a pervert. Clearly this family is corrupted, even I can't deny that. Then the author brings in the social reject who just so happens to be rich and beautiful, just as ******** up as the girl's original family and rapist, but somehow a 'savior' to the girl. This successfully demonizes a group of people over a non-qualifier and makes sociopathic lesbian sexual predators sound like these flawless beings that grace evil atomic families and their daughters with wealth, beauty, and sexual satisfaction. And then they Mary Poppins away and the girls they ******** end up in homeless shelters years later to retell this magical ordeal of existential bliss.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

Riviera de la Mancha

Rape is a legally defined crime which has two 'types'; rape of an adult and rape of a minor. Therefore, its possible to meet the legal definition of the crime but also for the victim to consent. Further, even assuming the character in the play is intoxicated, intoxication is not a total bar to a valid consent. Of course, minors are not allowed to consent, and that's what one of the issues the play draws attention to: the character was clearly raped, but she from her view consented and enjoyed it. Does this invalidate her experience? Should she be damaged by it? Is it wrong if she is not? Works sometimes raise issues, and do so in ways that make you uneasy.

Here's the thing. Few things to bring up....

1. "Of course, minors are not allowed to consent, and that's what one of the issues the play draws attention to."

See, to me, this isn't an issue. It's an entirely sensible and logical legal policy.

Oh, sure, when it's used by a parent to go after their 16 year old child's 18 year old significant other, there's wiggle room. There, I grant you, there is an issue.

But when we are talking about a twenty-something providing alcohol to a 13 year old and having sex with them?

Yeah. Different story.

No more of an "Issue" than punishing murder, in my eyes.

That or I've fallen into a nightmare from which I can't wake up, and the inability of a 13 year old to consent to sex with a 24 year old is an "Issue" society is facing.

2. "the character was clearly raped, but she from her view consented and enjoyed it."

See.... This is where my parallel to certain horrible BDSM Erotic Literature comes in.

I get that this is, apparently, based on a real persons experiences. Okay, that makes the pill a bit easier to swallow.

But...

To me, that talk sounds far to similar to "Oh, so and so loves it when I treat him/her like s**t." Abuse-Justification.

Leading to....

3. Does this invalidate her experience? Should she be damaged by it? Is it wrong if she is not?

Damaged? No. Not at all.

But... To me... The thing is this ff you are in an abusive relationship, but for some reason or another you don't view it as such, you think it's a good thing... Your friends aren't the bad guys when they try to get you out of that relationship.

Apply the same principle here.

Hell, continuing with that parallel...

Ignore the girls experiences.

Because you know what? Unless there is another element that I have yet to read about (I really don't want to read this play. If you told me there was $100 at the bottom of a hole with a giant spider in it, I wouldn't stick my hand in it) where the woman somehow knows about all of her life circumstances, this comes into play.

Say the 13 year old isn't the main character.

Say the 24 year old is.

She's not some sexual liberator. She doesn't know the girl has these problems.

Shes an adult. Giving alcohol to a child, then having sex with them.

This is a bad thing. It certainly isn't "Good Rape"

Again, no one is telling you to view it any particular way. All the play does is present the issue for you, the view, to look and consider. The conclusion is not set, so why you spend so much time defending it makes no sense to me.

Its your conclusion of the work. I originally was responding to the person who suggested that the message of the play is that "bad rape" only happens if a male is the rapist. While the work, and the short story in particular, raises several issues for the view to consider and conclude, that conclusion makes no sense based on the work presented.

[Prince Aegon Targaryen VI]

Riviera de la Mancha

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

Riviera de la Mancha

Rape is a legally defined crime which has two 'types'; rape of an adult and rape of a minor. Therefore, its possible to meet the legal definition of the crime but also for the victim to consent. Further, even assuming the character in the play is intoxicated, intoxication is not a total bar to a valid consent. Of course, minors are not allowed to consent, and that's what one of the issues the play draws attention to: the character was clearly raped, but she from her view consented and enjoyed it. Does this invalidate her experience? Should she be damaged by it? Is it wrong if she is not? Works sometimes raise issues, and do so in ways that make you uneasy.

Here's the thing. Few things to bring up....

1. "Of course, minors are not allowed to consent, and that's what one of the issues the play draws attention to."

See, to me, this isn't an issue. It's an entirely sensible and logical legal policy.

Oh, sure, when it's used by a parent to go after their 16 year old child's 18 year old significant other, there's wiggle room. There, I grant you, there is an issue.

But when we are talking about a twenty-something providing alcohol to a 13 year old and having sex with them?

Yeah. Different story.

No more of an "Issue" than punishing murder, in my eyes.

That or I've fallen into a nightmare from which I can't wake up, and the inability of a 13 year old to consent to sex with a 24 year old is an "Issue" society is facing.

2. "the character was clearly raped, but she from her view consented and enjoyed it."

See.... This is where my parallel to certain horrible BDSM Erotic Literature comes in.

I get that this is, apparently, based on a real persons experiences. Okay, that makes the pill a bit easier to swallow.

But...

To me, that talk sounds far to similar to "Oh, so and so loves it when I treat him/her like s**t." Abuse-Justification.

Leading to....

3. Does this invalidate her experience? Should she be damaged by it? Is it wrong if she is not?

Damaged? No. Not at all.

But... To me... The thing is this ff you are in an abusive relationship, but for some reason or another you don't view it as such, you think it's a good thing... Your friends aren't the bad guys when they try to get you out of that relationship.

Apply the same principle here.

Hell, continuing with that parallel...

Ignore the girls experiences.

Because you know what? Unless there is another element that I have yet to read about (I really don't want to read this play. If you told me there was $100 at the bottom of a hole with a giant spider in it, I wouldn't stick my hand in it) where the woman somehow knows about all of her life circumstances, this comes into play.

Say the 13 year old isn't the main character.

Say the 24 year old is.

She's not some sexual liberator. She doesn't know the girl has these problems.

Shes an adult. Giving alcohol to a child, then having sex with them.

This is a bad thing. It certainly isn't "Good Rape"

Again, no one is telling you to view it any particular way. All the play does is present the issue for you, the view, to look and consider. The conclusion is not set, so why you spend so much time defending it makes no sense to me.

Its your conclusion of the work. I originally was responding to the person who suggested that the message of the play is that "bad rape" only happens if a male is the rapist. While the work, and the short story in particular, raises several issues for the view to consider and conclude, that conclusion makes no sense based on the work presented.

Sorry... Bit confused there (This is genuine, not some dickish sarcasm) uh... What exactly do you mean that conclusion makes no sense?

Care to expand?

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

Riviera de la Mancha

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

Riviera de la Mancha

Rape is a legally defined crime which has two 'types'; rape of an adult and rape of a minor. Therefore, its possible to meet the legal definition of the crime but also for the victim to consent. Further, even assuming the character in the play is intoxicated, intoxication is not a total bar to a valid consent. Of course, minors are not allowed to consent, and that's what one of the issues the play draws attention to: the character was clearly raped, but she from her view consented and enjoyed it. Does this invalidate her experience? Should she be damaged by it? Is it wrong if she is not? Works sometimes raise issues, and do so in ways that make you uneasy.

Here's the thing. Few things to bring up....

1. "Of course, minors are not allowed to consent, and that's what one of the issues the play draws attention to."

See, to me, this isn't an issue. It's an entirely sensible and logical legal policy.

Oh, sure, when it's used by a parent to go after their 16 year old child's 18 year old significant other, there's wiggle room. There, I grant you, there is an issue.

But when we are talking about a twenty-something providing alcohol to a 13 year old and having sex with them?

Yeah. Different story.

No more of an "Issue" than punishing murder, in my eyes.

That or I've fallen into a nightmare from which I can't wake up, and the inability of a 13 year old to consent to sex with a 24 year old is an "Issue" society is facing.

2. "the character was clearly raped, but she from her view consented and enjoyed it."

See.... This is where my parallel to certain horrible BDSM Erotic Literature comes in.

I get that this is, apparently, based on a real persons experiences. Okay, that makes the pill a bit easier to swallow.

But...

To me, that talk sounds far to similar to "Oh, so and so loves it when I treat him/her like s**t." Abuse-Justification.

Leading to....

3. Does this invalidate her experience? Should she be damaged by it? Is it wrong if she is not?

Damaged? No. Not at all.

But... To me... The thing is this ff you are in an abusive relationship, but for some reason or another you don't view it as such, you think it's a good thing... Your friends aren't the bad guys when they try to get you out of that relationship.

Apply the same principle here.

Hell, continuing with that parallel...

Ignore the girls experiences.

Because you know what? Unless there is another element that I have yet to read about (I really don't want to read this play. If you told me there was $100 at the bottom of a hole with a giant spider in it, I wouldn't stick my hand in it) where the woman somehow knows about all of her life circumstances, this comes into play.

Say the 13 year old isn't the main character.

Say the 24 year old is.

She's not some sexual liberator. She doesn't know the girl has these problems.

Shes an adult. Giving alcohol to a child, then having sex with them.

This is a bad thing. It certainly isn't "Good Rape"

Again, no one is telling you to view it any particular way. All the play does is present the issue for you, the view, to look and consider. The conclusion is not set, so why you spend so much time defending it makes no sense to me.

Its your conclusion of the work. I originally was responding to the person who suggested that the message of the play is that "bad rape" only happens if a male is the rapist. While the work, and the short story in particular, raises several issues for the view to consider and conclude, that conclusion makes no sense based on the work presented.

Sorry... Bit confused there (This is genuine, not some dickish sarcasm) uh... What exactly do you mean that conclusion makes no sense?

Care to expand?

That conclusion can't be drawn from anything in the short monologue. there is no male characters in it. The character never encounters another situation like that. About as close you get in "The little coochie snorcher that could" is when she gets impaled on a bed post jumping around as a child. Is the male symbolized by the bed post? That's about the only way you get to the conclusion drawn.

[Prince Aegon Targaryen VI]

Riviera de la Mancha

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

Riviera de la Mancha

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

Riviera de la Mancha

Rape is a legally defined crime which has two 'types'; rape of an adult and rape of a minor. Therefore, its possible to meet the legal definition of the crime but also for the victim to consent. Further, even assuming the character in the play is intoxicated, intoxication is not a total bar to a valid consent. Of course, minors are not allowed to consent, and that's what one of the issues the play draws attention to: the character was clearly raped, but she from her view consented and enjoyed it. Does this invalidate her experience? Should she be damaged by it? Is it wrong if she is not? Works sometimes raise issues, and do so in ways that make you uneasy.

Here's the thing. Few things to bring up....

1. "Of course, minors are not allowed to consent, and that's what one of the issues the play draws attention to."

See, to me, this isn't an issue. It's an entirely sensible and logical legal policy.

Oh, sure, when it's used by a parent to go after their 16 year old child's 18 year old significant other, there's wiggle room. There, I grant you, there is an issue.

But when we are talking about a twenty-something providing alcohol to a 13 year old and having sex with them?

Yeah. Different story.

No more of an "Issue" than punishing murder, in my eyes.

That or I've fallen into a nightmare from which I can't wake up, and the inability of a 13 year old to consent to sex with a 24 year old is an "Issue" society is facing.

2. "the character was clearly raped, but she from her view consented and enjoyed it."

See.... This is where my parallel to certain horrible BDSM Erotic Literature comes in.

I get that this is, apparently, based on a real persons experiences. Okay, that makes the pill a bit easier to swallow.

But...

To me, that talk sounds far to similar to "Oh, so and so loves it when I treat him/her like s**t." Abuse-Justification.

Leading to....

3. Does this invalidate her experience? Should she be damaged by it? Is it wrong if she is not?

Damaged? No. Not at all.

But... To me... The thing is this ff you are in an abusive relationship, but for some reason or another you don't view it as such, you think it's a good thing... Your friends aren't the bad guys when they try to get you out of that relationship.

Apply the same principle here.

Hell, continuing with that parallel...

Ignore the girls experiences.

Because you know what? Unless there is another element that I have yet to read about (I really don't want to read this play. If you told me there was $100 at the bottom of a hole with a giant spider in it, I wouldn't stick my hand in it) where the woman somehow knows about all of her life circumstances, this comes into play.

Say the 13 year old isn't the main character.

Say the 24 year old is.

She's not some sexual liberator. She doesn't know the girl has these problems.

Shes an adult. Giving alcohol to a child, then having sex with them.

This is a bad thing. It certainly isn't "Good Rape"

Again, no one is telling you to view it any particular way. All the play does is present the issue for you, the view, to look and consider. The conclusion is not set, so why you spend so much time defending it makes no sense to me.

Its your conclusion of the work. I originally was responding to the person who suggested that the message of the play is that "bad rape" only happens if a male is the rapist. While the work, and the short story in particular, raises several issues for the view to consider and conclude, that conclusion makes no sense based on the work presented.

Sorry... Bit confused there (This is genuine, not some dickish sarcasm) uh... What exactly do you mean that conclusion makes no sense?

Care to expand?

That conclusion can't be drawn from anything in the short monologue. there is no male characters in it. The character never encounters another situation like that. About as close you get in "The little coochie snorcher that could" is when she gets impaled on a bed post jumping around as a child. Is the male symbolized by the bed post? That's about the only way you get to the conclusion drawn.

Ehrm... Hold on... Are we on the same page, here?

Because... I'm sort of talking about the whole "If it was rape, it was good rape." remark... And the whole thing about a 24 year old woman giving alcohol to and having sex with a thirteen year old.

Doesn't really have anything to do with men.

[Jeff the Kitten]

Riviera de la Mancha

YourNeighborsCat

Riviera de la Mancha

YourNeighborsCat

Riviera de la Mancha

Again, no one is telling you to like it. Analyze it as you wish. It certainly calls for analysis.

Surprisingly, not every story or play you will see or hear of will suit your tastes.

This has nothing to do with the play. A book is a book, bruh. This has to do with some sick, adult woman who is respected among the feminist community projecting her ********* filth as a tenant of feminism and as something normal/acceptable in sexuality and society. If you back track to my earlier post, you will see a further elaborated explanation as to why this kind of behavior needs to be shut down immediately.

Have you seen the play?

Its not projected as any one message. It just purports to convey several dimensions of the female sexual and developmental experience. The v****a Monologues consists of several small plays and stories put together. One story is relayed by an older female character wherein she recounts her first time climaxing and the guy getting upset with her that she ruined his seats. There is another story that's all just a woman describing her v****a as she sees it in a mirror for the first time. Its also got a story about a prostitute making light of the different orgasm sounds people make.

It doesn't promise you will like all that's presented. It doesn't promise you will only see "positive" stories. It doesn't even promise to have a single overriding message for you to follow. You are free to dislike it certainly.

I saw your post. Again, I am just saying that the message was not the one the poster described.

You said that the girl was clearly raped on one level, but on another level she absolutely consented to it. This is a logical fallacy, as rape and consent are incompatible. Another logical fallacy is assuming that someone who was made drunk and then raped would be able to piece together personal experience from it. Drunkenness affects short term and long term memory, yet the story implies that a 13 year old girl was somehow able to overcome this phenomena of human brain chemistry and conclude that the drunk sexual assault on her was 'good'.

Finally, you describe the story as a down to earth experience. This girl has defied the laws of physics, grown up and become a healthy functioning adult and then turns into an advocate for this kind of lesbian interaction. All in the span of a few page.

Pushing the envelope is when you have somebody who can prove that they enjoyed/weren't traumatized by something that everybody else has provided evidence as being traumatizing and harmful. Not when some old b***h makes up a source willing to say that and then has the source turn around and advocate for it.

Kind of like how Disney 'pushed the envelope' on the issue of slavery by making up some bogus film about how the slave life and slave trade were really the spice of life kind of stuff, and both the slaves and the masters were just happy fun-loving humans frolicking in existential bliss.

It's not introducing some far out provable idea that nobody has thought about before to better humanity. It's a back rub while sodomizing the reader with a chainsaw; the back rub supposedly making up for the fact that you are now sterile, bleeding to death, in unspeakable amounts of pain, and no longer able to move.

I don't think you know what the phrase "logical fallacy" means.

Rape is a legally defined crime which has two 'types'; rape of an adult and rape of a minor. Therefore, its possible to meet the legal definition of the crime but also for the victim to consent. Further, even assuming the character in the play is intoxicated, intoxication is not a total bar to a valid consent. Of course, minors are not allowed to consent, and that's what one of the issues the play draws attention to: the character was clearly raped, but she from her view consented and enjoyed it. Does this invalidate her experience? Should she be damaged by it? Is it wrong if she is not? Works sometimes raise issues, and do so in ways that make you uneasy.

I have also never used the phrase "down to earth". You may have me confused with someone else. The character in the play also doesn't "advocate" for people to be raped. Its probably in your best interest to see the play before you criticize it, as its pretty clear you are making things up as you go along.

...Are you referring to "Song of the South"? I question whether you have seen it, or read any of your history text. If you did, you'd know that the presentation of blacks in "Song of the South" was certainly not pushing the envelope. It was the majority view at the time and certainly would have not, and indeed did not, raise any eyebrows.

Further, "pushing the envelope", doesn't need to lead to clearly 'good' things for humanity or be provable, and that's certainly true when you look at a work of art.

Refer to the post I made before this one for a dissent into the play's "envelope pushing" and advocation.

Are you referring to the time of story setting or the time of publishing? In the setting case, the south was no place a black person post-abolition, especially not interacting with white people, especially young ones. In the publishing case; people got upset about the portrayal of easy going relations and over-all happiness/fairness where there was none historically.

Finally, I may have confused you; I meant to define pushing the envelope as coming forward with this far out idea that totally works and has been proven to work. Like that guy who stood in town square eating tomatoes when everybody was convinced that tomatoes were poisonous. This can also be true for people using logic to change common beliefs, like ending the elitist view of what "art" actually is and ringing in a fair historical definition. I only meant to include the betterment clause in terms of the play, which is an argument for feminist ideology, written by a feminist advocate and lecturer. Feminists claim to be bettering the world.

You confused me on the rape point, as I confused you on the envelope point.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

Riviera de la Mancha

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

Riviera de la Mancha

Prince Aegon Targaryen VI

Riviera de la Mancha

Rape is a legally defined crime which has two 'types'; rape of an adult and rape of a minor. Therefore, its possible to meet the legal definition of the crime but also for the victim to consent. Further, even assuming the character in the play is intoxicated, intoxication is not a total bar to a valid consent. Of course, minors are not allowed to consent, and that's what one of the issues the play draws attention to: the character was clearly raped, but she from her view consented and enjoyed it. Does this invalidate her experience? Should she be damaged by it? Is it wrong if she is not? Works sometimes raise issues, and do so in ways that make you uneasy.

Here's the thing. Few things to bring up....

1. "Of course, minors are not allowed to consent, and that's what one of the issues the play draws attention to."

See, to me, this isn't an issue. It's an entirely sensible and logical legal policy.

Oh, sure, when it's used by a parent to go after their 16 year old child's 18 year old significant other, there's wiggle room. There, I grant you, there is an issue.

But when we are talking about a twenty-something providing alcohol to a 13 year old and having sex with them?

Yeah. Different story.

No more of an "Issue" than punishing murder, in my eyes.

That or I've fallen into a nightmare from which I can't wake up, and the inability of a 13 year old to consent to sex with a 24 year old is an "Issue" society is facing.

2. "the character was clearly raped, but she from her view consented and enjoyed it."

See.... This is where my parallel to certain horrible BDSM Erotic Literature comes in.

I get that this is, apparently, based on a real persons experiences. Okay, that makes the pill a bit easier to swallow.

But...

To me, that talk sounds far to similar to "Oh, so and so loves it when I treat him/her like s**t." Abuse-Justification.

Leading to....

3. Does this invalidate her experience? Should she be damaged by it? Is it wrong if she is not?

Damaged? No. Not at all.

But... To me... The thing is this ff you are in an abusive relationship, but for some reason or another you don't view it as such, you think it's a good thing... Your friends aren't the bad guys when they try to get you out of that relationship.

Apply the same principle here.

Hell, continuing with that parallel...

Ignore the girls experiences.

Because you know what? Unless there is another element that I have yet to read about (I really don't want to read this play. If you told me there was $100 at the bottom of a hole with a giant spider in it, I wouldn't stick my hand in it) where the woman somehow knows about all of her life circumstances, this comes into play.

Say the 13 year old isn't the main character.

Say the 24 year old is.

She's not some sexual liberator. She doesn't know the girl has these problems.

Shes an adult. Giving alcohol to a child, then having sex with them.

This is a bad thing. It certainly isn't "Good Rape"

Again, no one is telling you to view it any particular way. All the play does is present the issue for you, the view, to look and consider. The conclusion is not set, so why you spend so much time defending it makes no sense to me.

Its your conclusion of the work. I originally was responding to the person who suggested that the message of the play is that "bad rape" only happens if a male is the rapist. While the work, and the short story in particular, raises several issues for the view to consider and conclude, that conclusion makes no sense based on the work presented.

Sorry... Bit confused there (This is genuine, not some dickish sarcasm) uh... What exactly do you mean that conclusion makes no sense?

Care to expand?

That conclusion can't be drawn from anything in the short monologue. there is no male characters in it. The character never encounters another situation like that. About as close you get in "The little coochie snorcher that could" is when she gets impaled on a bed post jumping around as a child. Is the male symbolized by the bed post? That's about the only way you get to the conclusion drawn.

Ehrm... Hold on... Are we on the same page, here?

Because... I'm sort of talking about the whole "If it was rape, it was good rape." remark... And the whole thing about a 24 year old woman giving alcohol to and having sex with a thirteen year old.

Doesn't really have anything to do with men.

I think you forgot that you came in a conversation I was having with someone else, which I referenced in my last paragraph.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

YourNeighborsCat

Riviera de la Mancha

YourNeighborsCat

Riviera de la Mancha

YourNeighborsCat

Riviera de la Mancha

Again, no one is telling you to like it. Analyze it as you wish. It certainly calls for analysis.

Surprisingly, not every story or play you will see or hear of will suit your tastes.

This has nothing to do with the play. A book is a book, bruh. This has to do with some sick, adult woman who is respected among the feminist community projecting her ********* filth as a tenant of feminism and as something normal/acceptable in sexuality and society. If you back track to my earlier post, you will see a further elaborated explanation as to why this kind of behavior needs to be shut down immediately.

Have you seen the play?

Its not projected as any one message. It just purports to convey several dimensions of the female sexual and developmental experience. The v****a Monologues consists of several small plays and stories put together. One story is relayed by an older female character wherein she recounts her first time climaxing and the guy getting upset with her that she ruined his seats. There is another story that's all just a woman describing her v****a as she sees it in a mirror for the first time. Its also got a story about a prostitute making light of the different orgasm sounds people make.

It doesn't promise you will like all that's presented. It doesn't promise you will only see "positive" stories. It doesn't even promise to have a single overriding message for you to follow. You are free to dislike it certainly.

I saw your post. Again, I am just saying that the message was not the one the poster described.

You said that the girl was clearly raped on one level, but on another level she absolutely consented to it. This is a logical fallacy, as rape and consent are incompatible. Another logical fallacy is assuming that someone who was made drunk and then raped would be able to piece together personal experience from it. Drunkenness affects short term and long term memory, yet the story implies that a 13 year old girl was somehow able to overcome this phenomena of human brain chemistry and conclude that the drunk sexual assault on her was 'good'.

Finally, you describe the story as a down to earth experience. This girl has defied the laws of physics, grown up and become a healthy functioning adult and then turns into an advocate for this kind of lesbian interaction. All in the span of a few page.

Pushing the envelope is when you have somebody who can prove that they enjoyed/weren't traumatized by something that everybody else has provided evidence as being traumatizing and harmful. Not when some old b***h makes up a source willing to say that and then has the source turn around and advocate for it.

Kind of like how Disney 'pushed the envelope' on the issue of slavery by making up some bogus film about how the slave life and slave trade were really the spice of life kind of stuff, and both the slaves and the masters were just happy fun-loving humans frolicking in existential bliss.

It's not introducing some far out provable idea that nobody has thought about before to better humanity. It's a back rub while sodomizing the reader with a chainsaw; the back rub supposedly making up for the fact that you are now sterile, bleeding to death, in unspeakable amounts of pain, and no longer able to move.

I don't think you know what the phrase "logical fallacy" means.

Rape is a legally defined crime which has two 'types'; rape of an adult and rape of a minor. Therefore, its possible to meet the legal definition of the crime but also for the victim to consent. Further, even assuming the character in the play is intoxicated, intoxication is not a total bar to a valid consent. Of course, minors are not allowed to consent, and that's what one of the issues the play draws attention to: the character was clearly raped, but she from her view consented and enjoyed it. Does this invalidate her experience? Should she be damaged by it? Is it wrong if she is not? Works sometimes raise issues, and do so in ways that make you uneasy.

I have also never used the phrase "down to earth". You may have me confused with someone else. The character in the play also doesn't "advocate" for people to be raped. Its probably in your best interest to see the play before you criticize it, as its pretty clear you are making things up as you go along.

...Are you referring to "Song of the South"? I question whether you have seen it, or read any of your history text. If you did, you'd know that the presentation of blacks in "Song of the South" was certainly not pushing the envelope. It was the majority view at the time and certainly would have not, and indeed did not, raise any eyebrows.

Further, "pushing the envelope", doesn't need to lead to clearly 'good' things for humanity or be provable, and that's certainly true when you look at a work of art.

Refer to the post I made before this one for a dissent into the play's "envelope pushing" and advocation.

Are you referring to the time of story setting or the time of publishing? In the setting case, the south was no place a black person post-abolition, especially not interacting with white people, especially young ones. In the publishing case; people got upset about the portrayal of easy going relations and over-all happiness/fairness where there was none historically.

Finally, I may have confused you; I meant to define pushing the envelope as coming forward with this far out idea that totally works and has been proven to work. Like that guy who stood in town square eating tomatoes when everybody was convinced that tomatoes were poisonous. This can also be true for people using logic to change common beliefs, like ending the elitist view of what "art" actually is and ringing in a fair historical definition. I only meant to include the betterment clause in terms of the play, which is an argument for feminist ideology, written by a feminist advocate and lecturer. Feminists claim to be bettering the world.

You confused me on the rape point, as I confused you on the envelope point.

All of my posts are in response to you. If you have additional material, its on you to add it. Otherwise, I have already addressed it.

"Song of the South" came out in the 50's and was discussing slavery in the 30's. Neither time frame saw its style as pushing anything.

The play is not an argument "for" anything. Its just a presentation of various stories that raise issues around female sex, sexual development, and how that influences a woman's overall development.

The problem is you seem to be attaching a whole lot to a work you have not actually seen or even read.