|
Susanna, really, sometimes less is more, you know?
I find ethical and political discussions to be the most interesting things that come up on boards, and like other people here, I'm "on your side" in many ways, but it's hard to get people to listen to your side when you're saying that everyone who's not avidly agreeing with you supports rape. And I'm a *chick* saying that this time around, so maybe it might sounds more palatable coming from me.
I don't agree at all with the idea of "assaulting" sleeping women, but I also personally like fantasy, roleplay, and kink with my sex and porn, so long as it is clearly defined as fantasy. My problem with the site is about context and content-framing, which make all the difference in my mind. (Context is a great topic for banter, and I think anyone profiting from content that is not of themselves naked has sometime to say about how they frame their porn.)
I do think this is an open-ended discussion, and I'd love to see it keep going, so it's a shame that in your passion for women's rights, I think you're killing the thread.
Trixie (also female) and I both proposed that non-consensual fantasy sites provide some sort of disclaimer and make it abundantly clear to surfers that it's just roleplay. I see it as a good chance for webmasters to provide a smidge of education to their surfers about kinky lifestyles and about the important elements of trust, consent, and communication.
I think that roleplay is really fucking hot, and as an adult, I can see roleplay porn and say, "this is not real, these are actors", and it can still be fun. I think a move away from text that seemingly glorifies "real" non-consensual sex and a move towards "fantasy roleplay" is a good idea, and as I said before, attracts the real "fantasy" folk, and repels the scum you don't want to do business with anyhow. It seems like a win-win to me.
Do you have a sort of, well, positive solutions? Or, are you saying that any portrayal on non-consensual sex shouldn't exist at all? Content, or copy?
|