(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

mefan
2011-08-01 08:25 am UTC (link)

This is why people who do not fully understand the nuances of BDSM have no business engaging in D/s relationships. Any proper Dominant would be able to detect when their submissive partner was uncomfortable w/certain aspects of play.

"No means no except when it means yes" only applies when there has been a careful and detailed outlining of what is kosher and what isn't beforehand (rape fantasy isn't something that two play partners just decide to do one day on the fly -- personally, I find it distasteful, but I have friends who are also into BDSM who do not and I know that they always have any scene involving non-con planned in extremely intricate detail). And even then, sometimes w/in the context of non-con play "no" can really mean "no" and as I said above any proper Dominant would be able to pick up on that.

Non-TL;DR version:

Jack was raped. Kynn raped Jack. Ergo, Kynn is a rapist. Intentionally or otherwise.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

jackandahat
2011-08-01 11:33 am UTC (link)

Except... they weren't scening. That's been explicitly stated - "http://ravan.dreamwidth.org/539471.html?thread=1246031#cmt1246031">A and B did not have a D/s dynamic and there was no "scene" or other context in which no wouldn't mean no."</a>

Not to single you out, you're just the comment I got to when I finally got to "Argggghhh", but that's been bugging me a lot - someone said it was about kink, and then that got picked up and reposted everywhere. I know people are *defending* kink, but there's still the idea that this happened because of kink.

BDSM had nothing to do with it. It has to do with why Jack can't go to the cops, but nothing to do with the actual rape itself.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mefan 2011-08-01 08:35 pm UTC (link)
	I misread then. I made the assumption based on what other people had said and also Alexandra's post. (Reply to this)(Parent)

ekaterinv
2011-08-01 12:46 pm UTC (link)

This is why people who do not fully understand the nuances of BDSM have no business engaging in D/s relationships

No it's not. The rape had nothing to do with BDSM. It wasn't about any kind of confusion -- not that it would be anyway, that's at best a pathetic excuse (or, rather, lie). Rapists rape because they like to rape people. It's not sex or kinky sex or being a dom or playing out fantasies they want, they want to rape.

And fantasy ravishment does not always have to be planned out in intricate detail, particularly in long-term relationships. This is why safe words exist and why the dom is always checking, in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways, that the sub is enthusiastically participating.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

jackandahat
2011-08-01 01:56 pm UTC (link)

This is why I'm getting so cranky about people going on about BDSM and how it "might" be confusing, and trying to pass around the link where Alexandra points out there *was no kink*". Jack/Alexandra is the kinky relationship. Kynn/Jack was not. (And... by what's been said, Jack is Alexandra's dom. Now I know there are plenty of switches, but it's pretty frustrating that people are assuming all over the shop.)

Because people are going on and on about kink this and that... kink wasn't involved!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

menthodelic
2011-08-01 03:52 pm UTC (link)

I think some of the confusion is coming from the fact that not only do Jack and alexandraerin have a D/s relationship, but also due to Jack and Kynn also having a safeword in their relationship. For a lot of people, safewords are distinctly associated with kink.

But what it comes down to in the end is that it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if Jack was Kynn's onlt partner or if he had dozens of others. It doesn't matter if they were as vanilla as possible or the kinkiest couple ever or anything else. Nothing in that spectrum excuses what she did.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	jackandahat 2011-08-01 03:57 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, nothing excuses it in any situation. I think I'm just getting cranky because there's already enough "Oh noes, BDSM causes rape!" without BDSM being dragged into cases where it's not involved - and on top of that, while a lot of people are saying "That's not how it works", there are people dragging it in to cloud the water and discredit Jack. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

menthodelic
2011-08-01 05:12 pm UTC (link)

Yeah, I definitely get that. I'm just worried that if person A says, "It happened because it was a BDSM relationship" and person B says, "It WASN'T a BDSM relationship", what's implied is that if it had been a kinky relationship then person A's point would be valid. Which it wouldn't.

Person B needs to be saying, "Actually, this relationship didn't have BDSM elements, but even if it did, that wouldn't excuse what Kynn did. Rape isn't tolerated in the BDSM communities and her behaviour would still be horrible if it had been a kink situation."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	jackandahat 2011-08-01 06:19 pm UTC (link)
	That's fair enough. I figured all the people saying "That's not how it works in BDSM" would be enough. (Reply to this)(Parent)

mefan
2011-08-01 08:39 pm UTC (link)

I certainly hope you're not directing that at me. I never said that BDSM causes rape. I never implied that BDSM causes rape. I said that people who are not aware of the nuances of BDSM have no business involving themselves in a D/s relationship. I said this under the assumption that the relationship mentioned above was a D/s relationship and that one partner was saying they were raped and the other was saying that there had been no intention. I then also mentioned that intention or not, rape is rape.

I would never condemn a lifestyle that I myself practice as something that causes harm, trauma, rape, etc., etc.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	jackandahat 2011-08-01 08:46 pm UTC (link)
	I said "People", not "mefan". There are a lot of people being dickheads. I did not say you were one of them. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	cmdr_zoom 2011-08-01 07:16 pm UTC (link)
	I confess, I would wonder why else they would have a safeword. Terribly plain in hindsight, of course: for one party to ignore when the other tries to invoke it. :( (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	jackandahat 2011-08-01 07:20 pm UTC (link)
	Alexandra said - I think in Shetterly's post - that it was an attempt to negotiate boundaries. Which, yeah. An advantage to kink is there's more structure for negotiating than in vanilla, it's more expected, but that only works if the person you're "negotiating" with is a decent human being. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cmdr_zoom 2011-08-01 09:57 pm UTC (link)
	yeah, this is one of those cases where I trip over my usual assumption that both parties are sane, decent people. :( (Reply to this)(Parent)

menthodelic
2011-08-01 08:10 pm UTC (link)

My partner and I did use a safeword for a while in non-kink situations after I was assaulted. I'm someone who says "no" to mean "not there" or "that's too hard" or "I don't want to do that; I want to do this instead", and we were both worried that "No, this is triggering me" might get confused with all of that. Hence, the safeword.

Before that though, I had only associated them with D/s situations.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

ickle_snowflake
2011-08-01 08:36 pm UTC (link)

My current partner and I have a safe word for reasons similar to menthodelic's. In the past, in an abusive relationship, I've tried to set one up because he would make excuses for ignoring "no" and "don't", saying things like "how do I know you're not going to follow it with 'don't stop'?" and basically trying to make me feel like it was my fault for being unclear. He couldn't do that with a random word like "raspberry" or "teapot".

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	napalmnacey 2011-08-02 06:09 pm UTC (link)
	Well, I have a chronic pain condition that sex exacerbates, so my dude and I have a safe word so that he knows I'm in actual pain. (Reply to this)(Parent)

mefan
2011-08-01 08:46 pm UTC (link)

No it's not. The rape had nothing to do with BDSM. It wasn't about any kind of confusion -- not that it would be anyway, that's at best a pathetic excuse (or, rather, lie).

Never said it did.

Rapists rape because they like to rape people. It's not sex or kinky sex or being a dom or playing out fantasies they want, they want to rape.

I would agree, although there was a lot of intent discussion going on, which is where my comments stem from. My point was to say that rape is still rape regardless of the intent of the perpetrator. If the victim says "no" and really means "no" but the perpetrator really believes that "no" means "yes" then that is STILL rape.

And fantasy ravishment does not always have to be planned out in intricate detail, particularly in long-term relationships. This is why safe words exist and why the dom is always checking, in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways, that the sub is enthusiastically participating.

Perhaps, but it's super risky territory. Granted, as I stated above, I find non-con fantasy personally distasteful, so all of my perceptions about it are going to be biased.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	ekaterinv 2011-08-02 12:08 am UTC (link)
	Perhaps, but it's super risky territory. No it isn't. You confess to finding it "distasteful". Fine, whatever, that's your prerogative. But since you don't do it and find it "distasteful", please stop trying to 'splain how it works. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

mefan
2011-08-02 07:38 am UTC (link)

Yes, actually, it is. At least in my opinion. In your opinion it isn't. Fair point.

Also, while you're asking me to "please stop trying to 'splain how it works" I'll ask the same of you -- please stop making assumptions about me, my comments and my experiences. I said that I find it distasteful and that I don't do it, not that I have no experience relating to the subject whatsoever.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

ekaterinv
2011-08-02 08:32 am UTC (link)

You're making a blanket statement that it is "super risky territory", with no qualifiers whatsoever. You are telling me that something I do regularly with my partner (and which you do not do and which you dislike) is "super risky", when it is not. If you were to say that it would be for you, or that you believe it would be for most people, I would have no quarrel with you. But you are trying to claim something which is factually incorrect about my sex life here.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

sandglass
2011-08-03 07:51 am UTC (link)

Any proper Dominant would be able to detect when their submissive partner was uncomfortable w/certain aspects of play.

Except for the part where nobody is psychic, and if you expect a dom to know instinctively you're setting up for situations like what Kynn is claiming, where a person misses the cues and then claims they never existed. Communication and safewords > magical domly powers.

Further, someone can be a great dom and have trouble reading cues. People with ADHD and on the autism spectrum often have troubles with this, regardless of their experience with people or their intentions, and to tell them that they cannot be a "proper" dom because of that is cruel, and frankly kind of ableist, and I'm really sick of people acting like if you're better at detecting subtle changes in moods that you're somehow better than people who aren't. The important thing is being open to communication, encouraging it, and learning from it, and that's what we need to stress for people in relationships of any kind.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -