Serious discussion:TG and Rape

[Xia]

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

Egads, Labeling theory? thats not a huge part of sociology. Labels will exist, period. There is no way around that fact. I am bound by the way societies work to use labels. Labels and Labeling is not really a bad thing, its making sure you understand that it is just a label, not something with extra power over you.

Without using labels created and maintained by society, I would have to create my own labels, which then would be shaped by my understanding, thus doing exactly the same thing societies labels are doing, just under a different name.

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.

We are not casting blame on the written material, but the ideas they present and represent. Nor do I really think we're blaming, rather, we are not dismissing what is simply on the basis of it being fiction alone. The ideal that people are the ones in control of themselves is a nice one, but largely one cobwebbed from disuse. Language is powerful enough to sway people to do any number of things, even beyond what they would normally do.

The reason that groups have over the years, burned and banned books is because they were afraid of the ideas inside of them, and their power over people.

[Mitera Nikkou]

Egads, Labeling theory? thats not a huge part of sociology. Labels will exist, period. There is no way around that fact. I am bound by the way societies work to use labels. Labels and Labeling is not really a bad thing, its making sure you understand that it is just a label, not something with extra power over you.

Without using labels created and maintained by society, I would have to create my own labels, which then would be shaped by my understanding, thus doing exactly the same thing societies labels are doing, just under a different name.

Wait, I said something about labeling theory?

I was intimating that there'd be less fuss to not use such labels at all. You know, rather than that, stick to something like your name. I can say I'm "Chris Green," and that'd be me; I needn't use any other label. It keeps things simple, and your name is something that you can change. It's a label where you are what you do, rather than being what you or others say. Actions speaking louder than words and all that, yo.

We are not casting blame on the written material, but the ideas they present and represent. Nor do I really think we're blaming, rather, we are not dismissing what is simply on the basis of it being fiction alone. The ideal that people are the ones in control of themselves is a nice one, but largely one cobwebbed from disuse. Language is powerful enough to sway people to do any number of things, even beyond what they would normally do.

The reason that groups have over the years, burned and banned books is because they were afraid of the ideas inside of them, and their power over people.

No, sway or not, doing things that they wouldn't normally do or not, it's still their decision. What you're referring to is largely based on any number of reasons that someone may have to listen and/or act upon what someone else is saying. It's not a Jedi mind trick, here: what we have are people who place their trust in the writer, are idiots/ignorant, are already of the same mind, or any other number of things that may result in them responding to what they read, for better or worse.

In the end, it's all them, regardless of who writes it, or how it's written. All a writer can do is hope to take advantage of whatever potentiality already exists within the reader, because, first off, it's a person's choice to read the material in the first place, not the other way around; and, what they do with that material, once it's digested, is still up to them, depending on what kind of person they are.

It's not the ideas at fault, regardless of what they are, or how they're presented or represented. To say so is like saying that landscape art is okay, but abstract art isn't because it's disagreeable with your personal tastes: when all is said and done, it's all paint on a canvas. Language can be a useful tool in controlling people, there's no doubt about it, but it's harmless by itself. If it plants a seed in a person, only that person can make that seed grow. People pick up seeds of ideas all of the time, from all sorts of things, and choose which ones to care about and nurture and which ones to throw away and forget. And sometimes ideas, regardless of how they were thought of before, are reappraised.

So, there's nothing inherently good or bad about TG rape, regardless of why it's written, or how it happens. Personally, it will definitely be an idea that is detestable to someone or another, but it's just a thought, and thought can't be equated to action. No one even has to read fiction for it to happen in someone's mind, and are we going to criminalize people for their thoughts? All that anyone does, by thinking that this or that idea is inherently good or bad, gives those ideas power over them, and people who write those ideas, knowing how people may react, depending on how they might give power to an idea, gives them the opportunity to take advantage of them.

I can understand why someone might worry about the power and influence of ideas, but we can't forget that they don't have any power or influence without us, the puppeteers. And like puppeteers, who give the illusion of life to inanimate dolls, we give the illusion of power to ideas. All that's required is an exercise of free will and the illusion is broken.

[Ninian]

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.

No. Just no. Sorry. I'd rebuke what you just said, but it's hard to type with your hand stuck to your face. I'm just going to scroll down.

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.

I mean "Romantic" as in Romanticism. If you don't like my use of the term that way, well, I wasn't the one to come up with it. The romanticist movement involved lifting all kinds of taboos as subject for intense emotional artistic exploration. One valid dictionary definition of romantic is "characteristic of romanticism in the arts."

The "equivalent" rape fantasy has a major part in a lot of transformation works especially transgender-related. The burden of "having to be a man" is lifted when you're forced into it against your will, and it lets readers romantically explore the emotions and feelings they associate with femininity without the stigma. This may include otherwise unexpressed hate or frustration towards their gender role, assuming the author is male themselves. When rape enters the equation, it's pretty much similar to "traditional" rape fantasy that lets a woman explore her own sexuality without the stigma of being labeled a slut (or in this case, a homosexual).
None of this is a defense of actual rape, provided someone is capable of distinguishing between reality and fantasy. This is also a topic older than any of us here and had been discussed and deconstructed by people who actually get paid to do it. It's certainly not going to be resolved on this forum, which would have a voice in the academic community equivalent to a nun's fart.

I'm pretty sure most of the man-hating stories you object to aren't meant to be taken literally, unless the author is truly unhinged. In that case I personally think the emotion of pity is more appropriate than righteous indignation. The Scum Manifesto is an example of such satire, though I'd definitely describe Valerie Solanas as unhinged considering she shot Andy Warhol.


As for what purely fantasy media affects in regards to how people to think or behave, Moral Guardians don't have any champions that impress me with their arguments.

[Musashi]

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.

No. Just no. Sorry. I'd rebuke what you just said, but it's hard to type with your hand stuck to your face. I'm just going to scroll down.

What's wrong with what he said though? Just curious. :o

I like feminism. As in, the sort of feminism that's about equality. I'm all for womens' rights. It'd be kind of silly if I wasn't.

But ultra-feminists, or "Feminazis," make me feel like I'm going to barf up dead koalas. I could really do without them and their chick-worship and spewing of male-hatred garbage.

I mean, yeah, men have done all kinds of stupid, cruel, unfair bull****. The oppression of women by men is a reality. But when women fought for their rights, there were men fighting right alongside them, and still are today. You can't say they're all bad just because of what some did. There are good men and bad men, good women and bad women, and everything in between. Which is why I think it's f***** stupid when I hear women say how OMG IF WOMEN RULED THE WORLD it would magically be a place of no wars, no starvation, no homelessness, and everyone would live together in peaceful harmony. Because women are magical fairy goddesses of goodness and light. To this I say LULZ.

So, I think I derailed this train long enough. But I've been grumpy lately, so it was nice to rant about something. raaaaaaaaaawr

[Ninian]

I just refuse to refer to that kind of misguided mentality as "feminism". I think it's kind of insulting to the women's suffrage movement, whose work I feel isn't even done yet. Half because, believe it or not, I think men need to be set free from some bonds too. But that's another topic.

I'll grant it's a shame that what you and Xia call "ultra-feminists" may in fact use the feminist label, but as a serious feminist myself I prefer to not surrender the label to such miscreants or even accept any attempt to associate the movement with them. Xia of all people should be sympathetic, given how "conservative" -- a political position emphasizing personal responsibility and forethought -- has more or less been hijacked by hate-filled lunatics too.

[Marky]

if you can't take the basis for your beliefs seriously, then what can you take seriously?

That is the part that kinda just sent me into an irate mood. It felt like it was an attack on me and my beliefs. And now that I am not in anywhere near of an irate mood and thinking more rationally, let me try and see to your first post and respond to it in a more...hm, well, I can't think of the word...rational manner?

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.

Alright. Well, the thing is, my church is a church that puts more of an emphasis on the teachings of the New Testament rather than on the Old Testament. Does this mean that we completely disregard the teachings of the Old Testament? No. In no way, shape, or form. However, does it mean that we take things more to heart that is taught in the New Testament than in the Old? Yes. In my point of view, which...hell, you could probably pick a dozen Christians and get a different answer than from me, but the teachings of Jesus to where we should love one another, our families, our friends, and even our enemies, regardless. However, not in the love-love, but not to hate them or anything. This is probably one of the few contradictions from between the New Testament and the Old. However, I could just be misinterpreting the scripture and such, which can happen with me, since I haven't been going to church as regularly that I did when I didn't understand, or have the ability to understand what was being talked about. So, despite being a Christian, I could be TOTALLY wrong on this, and, frankly, THAT IS POSSIBLE...since despite being a Christan, I AM NOT PERFECT...NO ONE IS...but God, or in the case of the Trinity, God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit.

Now, onto the rape being justified? In my view, rape isn't justified in ANY way, shape, or form. Now in the case of rape in TG fiction where the rapist is TGed and then done so, well, you could say he gets his just desserts, but that does not mean that it is justified. Maybe if you go by the Golden Rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" it could possibly be. Maybe even by the 'eye for an eye', as well, as I have yet to even bother picking up my Bible at this point and looking at that scripture. But to say that nothing in the New Testament perhaps can contradict or overrule something in the Old Testament is, well...I'm not quite sure what you're thinking. Do we have to have burnt offerings, sacrifices, or any such things as those in the Old Testament? No, because teachings in the New Testament show that we are no longer required to do such things to have worship with God and such.

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.

Now, see, the reason why I went off on what you said was what was copied and written above. That one line sent me off and the rest just kinda helped it all cascade into a misunderstanding. I've come into a misunderstanding with someone else before on here over something, so it was probably bound to happen once again. The thing is, people have different levels on what they take personally. Say, you could give me a TF on IRC and, because I have little-to-no confidence in my TF skills, am in a rut in the creativity department, and such and don't TF you back and you could possibly take that personally. The thing is, it's best to have a gentler approach to a discussion than one where it feels like you bash someone's head in, as well as their beliefs, even if it is just one sentence, line, or word that can just push things over the edge. Although, I probably didn't do too much better on that point, myself...but, as I said, I'm not perfect.

And yes, Christianity can be interpreted in so many different ways it isn't funny...it's downright ridiculous. So, as I said, you can ask a...let's see...I'm a Southern Baptist...or belong to a Southern Baptist church, I should say...you could ask a person who attends a Methodist church and probably get a different answer than me. Do I say they're wrong and I'm right? No...it's just the way that they belief, and I respect them for that, along with however they live their lives differently than me. Oh, and another thing that I'm different than with even my own church in...gambling in the lottery. Many people in my church, especially my pastor, don't condone gambling in any form nor would accept money won from such. However, I take a gamble in the lottery from time-to-time and don't really even give it a second thought, despite what others in my very own church believe. However, that's another subject entirely.

The point is, I could be right. I could be wrong. Who the hell knows? Maybe a preacher or a priest...but, honestly, do we have one here? Highly unlikely. I don't understand everything, probably never will...but my take on it is that I highly doubt many Christians would justify rape in any way, shape, or form, regardless of whether or not the person raped someone else first. However, does that not mean that we might not think that the person might 'deserve' it? There's a difference between justification and someone getting their 'just desserts', which can be misconstrued as being the same. The thing is, as Christians, we're human, and those of us that are truly Christian are tempted probably even more than non-Christians...we can slip up...we can make mistakes...and even in a case like this, our judgment can be clouded and we may say something, but not truly mean it deep down and such. Am I saying that a Christian may not try and justify the rape in a TG fiction by using the 'eye for an eye'? No, not really. More than likely, at least one has. However, did that person truly mean for it to be that way, does that person truly understand what they're talking about, and etc?

Maybe...maybe not. Despite the subject, in this case, there can be so many uncertainties it is kind of odd that religion, and something that can be taken in more than one way, is brought up in something where an answer is searched for.

I could be right, but more than likely I'm 100% wrong. Take this how you will. However, the subject has tired me out...and I honestly don't want any part of it. It's a touchy subject for me, and one I rarely ever jump into a discussion upon, for many reasons.

~Fin.

[Ninian]

Marky, I could probably make a pretty strong case for why you should trust your own sense of morality over a series of books written for people in the bronze age, but it'd be off topic. I will say this, which is on topic: the Torah itself has numerous instances of codified rape. Take it to your preacher (or a rabbi, since the Old Testament IS the Jewish holy book) if you want some sort of bizarre theological contortion to make it digestible or symbolic, but you can be pretty sure that in the century this was written it was taken quite literally as law.

[Marky]

.......................................................................ooooooooooooooooookaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...

This might be beyond PG-13...I'm not sure...but the discussion of rape, in and of itself is bordering with it, anyways.

First off, just looking at the link it seems to be 100% biased AGAINST the Bible in all ways, and in this link, takes many things out of context. For one, THROUGHOUT the Book of Judges, where the first one is from, Israel was constantly doing what was evil to God's eyes, and he sent Judges to judge them. However, even those Judges went astray...Samson, anyone? He was the last Judge, and from just skimming, it seems like a tribe of idol worshipers called the Danites come in after that and sort of take over, but co-exist with the rest of Israelites. Also, it missed something in Chapter 19 where a woman was raped all night, she was a concubine, and then...well, cut up. and sent throughout Israel, the following verse says this:

Judges 19:30

'Everyone who saw it said, "Nothing like this has ever happened or been seen since the day the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt to this day. Think it over, discuss it, and speak up!"'

From that right there, it seems like these are harsh times...unruly times...and frankly, Godless times. However, in Chapter 20 they do seem to go back to praying to God, in a time where they are told to slaughter their own brothers...perhaps those that still are worshiping the idols and other Gods. And before that part of a passage that was in that link, the Israelites prayed, however, I do not see anywhere where God answered them or told them to do this. And, actually, they only cried out to God because the people of the tribe of Benjamin did not meet there with the rest. The Israelites did this themselves and not at God's command. And, also, there's one verse left in that last chapter of the book of Judges that is left out of that.

Judges 21:25

'In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did whatever he wanted.'

That was also back in the book a chapter or two in-between Samson's death and this. It seems there was no law, or order, and from what I can see, the Israelites only prayed to God for whether or not they should attack their brothers, the Benjaminites.

Moving on to the second point in that link, there is nowhere in that entire chapter that the word 'rape' comes into play. From that, it just seems as if it is entirely inferred from how a person has read it. For all we know they may have taken the women in and just broke them of the Midianite ways. Despite whoever wrote that saying that 'Clearly Moses and God approves of rape...' is stretching that a great deal. To infer something that actually isn't CLEARLY there, is preposterous, ridiculous, and obscene.

The third one is in the section my Bible labels "Rules of War", to do to the enemies of Israel, which God was ruthless against all of them, except when his people went away from him. And, also, there is no mention of rape in this one, as well. So, this is once again inferred by the author. And then almost RIGHT after this there's a bit of a contradiction to what was said.

Deuteronomy 20:16-18

'However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. You must completely destroy them--the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite--as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that they won't teach you to do all the detestable things they do for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God.'

I think that might just be enough for that one.

Now, the fourth one...is a bit, well, I dunno. The section starting at Deuteronomy 22:13-30 is titled as Violations of Proper Sexual Conduct. Now, for one, this one you might have a point of it being 'written for people in the bronze age' where women hardly had any rights...but, apparently you didn't notice that I said my church and I take the teachings in the NEW Testament more to heart than the teachings in the Old Testament. And that one right there is the worst of all, where the others the man who does the deed is killed, and some the woman.

Moving on to the 5th, which is in that same passage...please note that it said '(sexual) relations'...not rape. Back then, it was considered that if a woman didn't cry out for rape...well, in their mind, it wasn't really rape. However, that opens up a whole different can of beans that can lead this discussion cascading on and on and on and on and...got the idea yet?

The 6th one...oooh boy. It's a dandy, isn't it. Because this is taken WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of context...do you even know what happened before this? KING David committed adultery with a woman called Bathsheba, got her pregnant, and sent her husband to the front lines to have him killed. This is a time when David fell away from the Lord and this was his punishment for doing so.

The 7th one...once again, the word 'rape' does not appear, and once again, this is inferred. I'm almost wanting to just jump past this one...but, eh...lemme see...this section is titled Fair Treatment of Captured Women. Yeah...I think I'm gonna go back on the point that this is just, once again, is just inferred, like half of the rest of these.

On to the 8th! Hm. Judges...didn't I say that was a time where the Israelites were away from the Lord...constantly? This is a quote of Sisera's mother, where Sisera who was one of those who commanded the forces that oppressed the Israelites as they did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and was killed when the Israelites prayed for the Lord to help them.

Number 9...sheesh. Laws about Slaves is this one. Just a note, daughters weren't the only ones sold as slaves back then. If a person needed money, he might sell one of his sons, even, to make ends meet. And, yes, it has the 'if she does not please the man who bought her' bit...and, hm...my Bible has it worded differently than this...which is probably something that just changes with translation.

Exodus 21:8

'If she is displeasing to her master, who chose her for himself, then he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners because he has acted treacherously toward her.'

From this, I'm not quite sure the 'pleasing' is necessarily having to do with sex and/or rape...so, this one, once again, is inferred.

Number 10...oh brother. This one isn't saying he is going to assist in anything! This one is once again taken out of context. This part is a prophecy of what is to come! Does he assist in this? He sends the enemies there...but in no way does he force Israel's enemies to do anything. This is just saying what will happen. So...once again, I think you can throw this one out.

And, Ninian, frankly I do not appreciate your tone in the last post of yours. It's like you basically take my religion and beliefs, blast it because of that link, and say go to my preacher if I want to find some justified reason why rape was in the Bible. If you look back above, I'd say only maybe or two cannot be disproven from that link, which is completely and utterly biased and takes way too many things out of context.

Now I think I'm gonna ask this topic to be locked. Honestly, I'm tired of this subject, and I think it's gone off-base enough and has devolved into...well, I'm not sure what, exactly...but away from the point. I've said my peace and I just want to be done with this topic...once and for all.

[Mitera Nikkou]

My response to this post, to avoid a bunch of quote boxes for how little I need to say:

That's not the issue, and never was. You're making the argument about you and religion, rather than the topic at hand. That's why I said what I did, because you've taken the use of comparison as a personal attack on yourself and your beliefs, rather than as the instrument that it was used for in the discussion. Indeed, most of that post, and the one that proceeds it, is so much about you and the bible, with the subject of TG rape being an aside.

You're welcome to believe what you want, and view TG rape as you want, because it's not a matter of who's right or wrong. But, if you want to discuss and argue a subject properly, don't get distracted by your own shadow and assume someone's out to get you. ;/

[Helel]

Annnnnd locked.

People are getting a little too inflamed by this thread, so I'm shutting things down.

If people want to try again at being civil in a topic of this nature again, go for it. But know that big sister is watching yoooooooou~ O_O