Serious discussion:TG and Rape

[Kether]

Well, that's to be expected. Self-interest and bias, and all that. At least, I wouldn't want to become a girl if I thought it was less than equal to what I already was. Of course, some authors are sneaky and, while they may steer a story to where the male-turned-female is more happy as a girl, the initial thoughts of the male protagonist is that females are inferior.

I don't mind punishment TFs but more when its a silly setup.(Turning a pervert into a maid for example). I just find that should inherently be part of a silly plot, not a serious one and rape turns something into a dark and serious one in my mind.

[Xia]

Well, fiction itself lends plenty of space for doing whatever you want. I mean, why do you need justification if it's not real, and possibly intended to make someone's keyboard sticky? People are willing to say or do a lot of things if they think that there are no consequences, or if they think that they can avoid any consequences that may exist. Heck, in some cases, they may write a rape scene because they're frustrated, at not being female and wanting to have sex as such. It's a really complicated environment, but, in reality, it'd be a different story. So long as it's not practiced in the real world, it's technically alright, nothing more than harmless expression and/or entertainment.

Because I do not think that it should be dismissed just because it is fiction. Writing is a very powerful tool to sway people, in fact, media and literature in general. Triumph of the Will shouldn't be ignored because its just a film, ne?

[Kether]

Well, fiction itself lends plenty of space for doing whatever you want. I mean, why do you need justification if it's not real, and possibly intended to make someone's keyboard sticky? People are willing to say or do a lot of things if they think that there are no consequences, or if they think that they can avoid any consequences that may exist. Heck, in some cases, they may write a rape scene because they're frustrated, at not being female and wanting to have sex as such. It's a really complicated environment, but, in reality, it'd be a different story. So long as it's not practiced in the real world, it's technically alright, nothing more than harmless expression and/or entertainment.

Because I do not think that it should be dismissed just because it is fiction. Writing is a very powerful tool to sway people, in fact, media and literature in general. Triumph of the Will shouldn't be ignored because its just a film, ne?

I hate to derail.. but this reminds me on another forum I post on someone was talking about their solar charcter "Triumph of Will and Word" and didn't get why it might be offensive

[Marky]

For all the amount of Christians out there, I wonder why there is a general lack of "an eye for an eye." If taken that way, at least I can understand why a rape victim would have a man transformed into a woman and raped in revenge. But it's so often about these small, inconsequential things, if anything at all. ;/

Because that is the Old Testament way of things which was changed in the New Testament. For those that take the Old Testament seriously, you'd get that. From those that don't, you won't.

And I honestly don't see the justification of it all, myself.

[Kether]

For all the amount of Christians out there, I wonder why there is a general lack of "an eye for an eye." If taken that way, at least I can understand why a rape victim would have a man transformed into a woman and raped in revenge. But it's so often about these small, inconsequential things, if anything at all. ;/

Because that is the Old Testament way of things which was changed in the New Testament. For those that take the Old Testament seriously, you'd get that. From those that don't, you won't.

And I honestly don't see the justification of it all, myself.

That whole homophobia bit is clearly from Jesus and not Old testament(and other stuff like no evolution)

[Mitera Nikkou]

Because I do not think that it should be dismissed just because it is fiction. Writing is a very powerful tool to sway people, in fact, media and literature in general. Triumph of the Will shouldn't be ignored because its just a film, ne?

I wasn't saying that it could or should be dismissed. I was simply giving one of many rationalizations for why someone would write such a thing, whether they would do it in real life or not, whether they were aware that others would be inspired to do it in real life or not. That's why it's "technically" alright, because it does nothing, by itself. It's all dependent on the intentions of the writer, and the personality and interests of the reader. It's not going to create a problem or incite an event that doesn't already exist within either side's ability and interest to create or do. Which is not, of course, taking into account those who have no opinion or idea of their own and simply listen to someone or something they trust and/or believe in, due to naivete, blind faith, or what have you. Exceptions, exceptions, exceptions. There's simply no easy to way look at or understand it, no matter how simple it seems to be on the surface.

Because that is the Old Testament way of things which was changed in the New Testament. For those that take the Old Testament seriously, you'd get that. From those that don't, you won't.

That's not how it works. Certainly not for all or none of the many Christian branches that are out there. Many don't separate the Hebrew Scriptures from the New Testament, in part because they can't: for, without it, there would be no basis for Christianity. Furthermore, there's a logical problem with picking and choosing arbitrarily, to suit one's own needs. After all, God himself, in Leviticus, said that an "eye for an eye" was what was to be done. If God is said to be wrong with any one thing, then what else could He possibly be wrong about, or of what we believe? (A fallacious argument, I'm sure, but it begs the question.) Or, aren't we to assume that he isn't capable of being wrong? And that's the problem with that line of thinking: if you can't take the basis for your beliefs seriously, then what can you take seriously? That's also an issue when it comes to the topic of rape in TG fiction, and a part of what I was saying before. If a part of their basis for writing it is because it's fiction, and thus not real, they can justify anything, if they wanted to. Any writer, including those who wrote the scriptures in the bible.

[Ninian]

I kind of object Xia's to labeling extreme misandry as "ultra-feminism". Feminism in its pure form has nothing to do with misandry, it's about women's rights.

As for rape in stories, it depends on whether it's meant to be fetish fiction in the first place. If the purpose isn't an actual message, but a romantic (i.e. emotionally-intensive) situation meant to get the reader off, I can overlook it. Obviously doesn't have a place on certain sites like MSF and now Pixie Wink.

[Rodney]

Rape in the fiction you mention is just a narrative tool to get easily from the TF scene to the sex scene. IMHO Most of the time, it is just a cheap way to move the plot.
Also, I think there is an important element of guilt : People will rather identify with a character that didn't want to be TGed and didn't want to have sex than a character who choose to.

Unfortunately not as many people are interested in "Nice guy who wants to explore gender barrier asks nice witch to turn him into a girl and choose to make out with his best friend."
What I really dislike is that it tends to generalize rape as something almost casual, it's very unerving.

[Marky]

That's not how it works. Certainly not for all or none of the many Christian branches that are out there. Many don't separate the Hebrew Scriptures from the New Testament, in part because they can't: for, without it, there would be no basis for Christianity. Furthermore, there's a logical problem with picking and choosing arbitrarily, to suit one's own needs. After all, God himself, in Leviticus, said that an "eye for an eye" was what was to be done. If God is said to be wrong with any one thing, then what else could He possibly be wrong about, or of what we believe? (A fallacious argument, I'm sure, but it begs the question.) Or, aren't we to assume that he isn't capable of being wrong? And that's the problem with that line of thinking: if you can't take the basis for your beliefs seriously, then what can you take seriously? That's also an issue when it comes to the topic of rape in TG fiction, and a part of what I was saying before. If a part of their basis for writing it is because it's fiction, and thus not real, they can justify anything, if they wanted to. Any writer, including those who wrote the scriptures in the bible.

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGVhafebhaf:LAGSHSHJRSDND]trGHG

There's a reason why I don't usually speak on the basis of religion, because, despite being a Christian, I'm not well-advised in all of this, despite reading through the Bible once, when I didn't understand much of anything, and not having tried to take the time out of the day to try and read back through it, now that I can really understand it a whole lot better. I know of the "eye for an eye" part, but the thing is, I take the part where Jesus told the disciples to love one another more seriously than that, possibly because I began reading the book (from front to back) and understood that part better, along with my preacher actually going over that part in the book of John this past Sunday or so. The thing is, people interpret things differently from anyone else. A Christian can even interpret things differently than from another Christian, along with a non-Christian, an atheist, etc. Why the hell do you think wars start? Now, honestly, I'm not gonna say any more, since my feathers have already been ruffled to all hell over this. Take it however you will. Got more questions? Ask a preacher or a priest.

[Mitera Nikkou]

I don't have to, since you're both in agreement with me and expounded a bit more on what I was saying.

Heck, just saying that something like this ruffled your feathers, and thus taking it personally, proves a part of the point that I was making. It's because of such reactions that we have these problems when different people from different backgrounds and experiences argue about, or simply share their opinion about, what's considered right or wrong, when the concept of right and wrong is relative only to the basis used. Taking things personally, when it's not intended to be, is just creating an issue that isn't there. It's like taking fiction seriously, which is pointless. Which goes without saying: I have nothing to do with the fact that there are parallels to draw between how Christianity is interpreted in many ways, and how this subject can be for the same reason. If that's taken the wrong way, it's not my problem.

Now I get to see MSF's tolerance for civil discussions of serious topics. I'm prepared to be disappointed.

[Kether]

Nikkou would you apply the "taking fiction seriously" situation to The Turner Diaries or to a lesser extent the Left Behind series?

[Mitera Nikkou]

I'm not familiar with those, and a brief check leaves me wondering exactly what you're asking. As far as I can tell, they're fiction about things that some people would consider to be possibilities, not absolute certainties or something historically recorded as having happened. So, if I saw someone looking around like a maniac after reading Left Behind, hoping that people they care about haven't up and disappeared on them, then it being pointless to take fiction seriously stands.

Plus, there's a distinct difference from what is fiction and what someone does to make it a reality. It's the kind of people that would read The Turner Diaries and be inspired to kill non-white people that should be taken seriously, since fiction itself does nothing on its own. If that weren't the case, then everyone who read fiction would feel compelled to take it seriously, or follow in its theme, rather than there being people who can turn the last page, put the book down, and leave it at that. The fiction that is read stays the same, the people who read it are different, and thus it's the people who are the cause for concern regarding whatever happens after they read fiction, and should be the ones taken seriously, if those around them are given a reason to.

[Kether]

I'm not familiar with those, and a brief check leaves me wondering exactly what you're asking. As far as I can tell, they're fiction about things that some people would consider to be possibilities, not absolute certainties or something historically recorded as having happened. So, if I saw someone looking around like a maniac after reading Left Behind, hoping that people they care about haven't up and disappeared on them, then it being pointless to take fiction seriously stands.

The Turner Diaries is pretty much a "go kill them non whites" manifesto covered up by "Its just fiction". Left behind is abit less server but it is a "WE ARE RIGHT" statement.

[Xia]

I kind of object Xia's to labeling extreme misandry as "ultra-feminism". Feminism in its pure form has nothing to do with misandry, it's about women's rights.

Feminism in its pure form isn't ultra feminism. I've spent a better portion of my graduate education in theory classes (Masters in Sociology) and so when I speak of feminism, its in relation to the feminist social theory that has been imparted upon me and my fellow students. A majority of "feminist theory" is one fire short of bra burning, oft times extreme and unthinking in its "MALES ARE AT FAULT~" mentality. The "TG/TF followed by Rape" is a very good application of radical feminism, as most of the stories that use it are more about the power of women over men rather than "ironic justice" or however you want to call this. Even in the stories where the male has genuinely done massive wrongs to a female, the women who bring him down can usually be described as a cabal of super powered ultra feminists, to the point where you can cookie cutter them out into almost all TG/TF rape stories, even the ones where the male really doesn't do anything so heinous as to bring rape upon him (if you can really justify rape).

Also, in return, I would like to take issue with putting "rape" in the same sentence as "romantic situation" even with the descriptor of emotionally intensive. Clearly we are in disagreement over this but, emotionally intensive is not the only basis of romantic.

Not only that, but the "pure form" of most anything has little to do with its application. Take the republican party.

seriously, take it, we don't want it anymore. Take it so I can go back to being a conservative in peace :/

[Mitera Nikkou]

You know, you'll never get peace if you insist upon using labels created and changed by the public's opinion and understanding of them. ;p

The Turner Diaries is pretty much a "go kill them non whites" manifesto covered up by "Its just fiction". Left behind is abit less server but it is a "WE ARE RIGHT" statement.

It's no less fiction, though, if that's the form that they take. Casting blame on written material is like casting blame on guns, rather than the people who misuse them. What you read can't force you to do or believe anything that you're already ready and capable to do and believe yourself. People will hear what they want to hear, believe what they want to believe, and act how they want to act. Yes, language is powerful, but people are still the ones in control, and decide how they respond to it.

Which brings me back to TG and rape, which we haven't really left but some may think so because, to their understanding, an absence of "TG" and "rape" in our discussion means that we're no longer talking about it. Anyway, I've given my personal opinion on it, but what I've said beyond that is that those who read it will decide for themselves if it's right or wrong for it to be allowed, good or bad to enjoy, et cetera, regardless of the writer's intentions. And maybe they'll have a little tiff over it, like people tend to do every now and again -- and, hopefully, without any fatalities. The human race can be silly like that. ;/