Websnark

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 2, 2005 2:39 PM

Ah, and here, we get to the actual signifigance of the recent S*P storyline.

Okay, so I say that partly because I never cared either way for Queen of Wands. Sue me.

I don't know... I think Davan has changed, but it's subtle. I mean, go back and read the strips from before he got with Branwen and the strips now. It's like he's become much more comfortable with himself, like he can accept being a bitter misanthrope because people constantly let him down (outside of his circle of friends, of course).

And that kind of change isn't something you'd notice right away. But it's there, at least to me. And that's besides Davan's growing comfort with responsibility - something Kim wouldn't pick up on right away.

Comment from: Daven posted at December 2, 2005 2:39 PM

Wow. Nailed it. Like T-Bob to the cross.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at December 2, 2005 2:41 PM

The scary thing? The really scary thing? The really, really scary thing?

This is a fucking great Eric snark.
We should piss you off more often! ( Eric snark.
We should piss you off more often! ( Eric snark.
We should piss you off more often! ( Eric snark.
We should piss you off more often! (

Comment from: siwangmu posted at December 2, 2005 2:42 PM

wow I didn't realize that would be interpreted as code and therefore need to fix it really, really fast. The invisible rest of the post is a little ASCII-type arrow and "KIDDING TO AN EXTENT UNCHARTABLE BY MODERN SCIENCE")

Comment from: RMG posted at December 2, 2005 2:42 PM

Good on yer for managing to show that Kim coming back is as big an event as the sudden appearance of Kestrel, even though the latter has been more widely commented on around these internets of ours.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at December 2, 2005 2:43 PM

32 -- I can see that.

However, we can also see that as Davan refusing to grow (or admit that he is), because he's so constantly disappointed.

We have four interesting forces acting on his life now. Aubrey who wants him to be happier, damn it. Peejee, who wants him to get off his damn ass (and make her a cheesecake), Nancy, who is trying to drive self-deprication out of him with a stick, and now Kim, who is happy he hasn't seemed to change.

Conflict rocks.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at December 2, 2005 2:46 PM

Also, woo! Chekhov! But damn, the gift teaset in the first act of Three Sisters never comes back... I must clearly find the subtextual teaset.

Comment from: Cadete posted at December 2, 2005 2:49 PM

Yes, Eric, conflict in S*P rocks.

However, in this very particular context and place, it's you that rocks harder, but not because you wrote this snark. Don't take me wrong, it's a text as good as you usually make, but what makes you rock is that you remminded me of this deep and meaningfull phrase:

"Tits out for the Jedi, all you Naboo foxes."

Thank you.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at December 2, 2005 2:50 PM

Naboo tits are fine.

Comment from: AndrewWade posted at December 2, 2005 2:58 PM

... those are a kind of bird, right?

..... right?

Comment from: EsotericWombat posted at December 2, 2005 2:58 PM

Well, the reason that Kestrel coming back has gotten so much coverage is that everyone was pretty much certain that it wouldn't happen. For my part, Kestrel's re-emergence is one of the most shining examples I've seen of humor as surprise, but mostly because it was set up by Kim's entrance. Boom. Kim. Boom. Kestrel. I didn't fall out of my chair, but I came damned close.

That having been said, Kim does have a greater signifigance to the story. I'm wondering how much the dynamic between Kim and Davan will change now, especially given that in a way Nancy has taken her place (not completely of course; there is a lot more left to speculation with Nancy).

Also, I can't help but think that there is signifigance to Kim and Kestrel's consecutive appearances beyond the pure excecution of humor.

So far Davan hasn't changed, but I have to think that maybe the reformations of Mike, Monnette, et al are a sort of warm-up for Davan. But as should often be said, to make a habit of predicting Miholland is to constantly be wrong.

Comment from: quiller posted at December 2, 2005 3:10 PM

Hmm, some comedians would say that not having sex is a sign of marriage.

Yeah, it is funny that Davan has moved to a new job, and the only in-comic acknowledgement is you see him talking to someone from a new office. Now there may be less humor in the new workplace but it kind of reinforces new desk, same old Davan.

I think Davan has been working hard at protecting himself with his own cynicism. The death of his best friend, his continued failed relationships, they all lead him to protect himself from his own emotions. It does seem to be bothering him, though. He may be ripe yet for more change in his life.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 2, 2005 3:12 PM

Ah, but Eric, I think all four ladies could meet their goals simultaneously. Some are obvious (like Aubrey and Nancy), but all are quite possible (if Davan turned his sarcasm against himself less and vented it on others more, it would make him happier and still the same).

Also, let's not forget the undercurrent suggested that Nancy's goals, on top of the one to make Davan less self-deprecating, are to be in a relationship with Davan. Of course, I might be reading too much into things.

But even so, imagine how much more conflict would happen if the four ladies worked together. Nancy could join the Three Sisters like D'Artagnan joining the Three Musketeers. Except that Aubrey, PeeJee, and Kim are more feminine and more violent. Somehow work in Cora as Richelieu (and for the record, I really liked Cora), and it'll be swashbuckling fun.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at December 2, 2005 3:16 PM

For my part, Kestrel's re-emergence is one of the most shining examples I've seen of humor as surprise

Not much of a surprise when you keep S*P in your bedtime trawl and the internet had already told you it happened. The internet spoiled the car accident for me too. But I can't keep S*P in an earlier trawl because the dumbflicker usually doesn't update till bedtime. I must resign myself to never experiencing an S*P revelation firsthand. Potter fans, I know your pain.

Comment from: Abby L. posted at December 2, 2005 3:17 PM

I'm glad Kim is coming back. I like her and identify with her as a character. I also really like how they handled the whole rape thing. She made a mistake, and she paid for it.

Comment from: LurkerWithout posted at December 2, 2005 3:19 PM

Dude, that was pretty awesome. And since I'm sitting phat with holiday pay cash I'll give you a dollar...

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at December 2, 2005 3:38 PM

(I can't believe no one's said this yet, including me.)

Chekov is the Russian starship officer. Chekhov is the Russian playwright.

Comment from: Kirath posted at December 2, 2005 4:03 PM

Paul: But are they pronounced the same? And does anyone but me care?

I agree with a point made earlier: Davan doesn't so much not change as he outright refuses to change, clinging to his current identity with every ounce of his being, despite all attempts of others to the contrary. When he was with Branwen, you got a sense that he *was* happier, and might even start seeing some real emotional growth, but once she left it's like that was it, and Davan became the living epitome of 'If I never get my hopes up, I'll never be disappointed'

Even so, I'm a little surprised his new job hasn't had more of an effect on him than it has. That could just be inertia in action.

Comment from: hitch posted at December 2, 2005 4:03 PM

>Potter fans, I know your pain.

the hell with potter. I still haven't seen Serenity yet. do you know what it felt like to come across that spoiler in an unrelated thread?

Comment from: Ununnilium posted at December 2, 2005 4:41 PM

...is it a bad thing that I didn't realize that *was* Kestrel until reading this?

Comment from: Will "Scifantasy" Frank posted at December 2, 2005 4:45 PM

Ununnilium: Yes, but only because Randy put it right in the tag line...

Comment from: miyaa posted at December 2, 2005 5:07 PM

I still do not understand why people get worked up on hearing spoiler information, especially if the movie/book in question has been out for two months. It's just a movie.

Change and growth is good for character and plot development. I feel that regarding Something Positive, Davan isn't going to change until the rest of the other characters have changed. At this point the only two that do not seem have changed are Davan's parents, although I suspect that'll happen really quick. (The When the planets align theory if you will.)

Comment from: thok posted at December 2, 2005 5:24 PM

Actually, I suspect that Fred's going to be OK for a little bit. His request that Davan returns to Texas can be seen as an implicit deadline; if Davan doesn't improve his life by then, he possibly will never have an another oppurtunity to change once he starts caring for Fred.

Ununnilium, don't feel bad. I realized it was Kestrel and didn't get the really bad pun in her line until just now.

Comment from: Connor Moran posted at December 2, 2005 6:31 PM

Paul: You're obviously confused. The Chekhov rule deals with guns. This one, about chloroform and sexual abuse, was elucidated by the proud navigator Chekov in episode 80 of Star Trek: The Original Series. I belive it involved the lady from the space hippies episode and copious references to "Nuclear Wessels."

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at December 2, 2005 7:45 PM

Connor: Of course, thanks.

[grover] Oh I am so embarrassed ...[/grover]

Comment from: Wistful Dreamer posted at December 2, 2005 8:20 PM

Comment from: 32_footsteps
"It's like he's become much more comfortable with himself, like he can accept being a bitter misanthrope because people constantly let him down (outside of his circle of friends, of course)."

I'm not sure being resigned to being bitter and alone is what I would call growth. Seems more like giving up on the world. Davan is likely deliberately held back by Milholland to keep the strip the same dark comedy it always has been, but that doesn't keep his situation from being tragic. I hope that before the series runs its course, we will see Davan get to have his moment in the sun.

Comment from: Abby L.
"I'm glad Kim is coming back. I like her and identify with her as a character. I also really like how they handled the whole rape thing. She made a mistake, and she paid for it."

I, on the other hand, found it woefully rediculous and one of the biggest lapses in the strips history. When you rape one of your friends, you don't go to some councilling, have said friend act awkwardly around you, and move away in shame; you go to jail... for years, and never get to act normally around any friend who knows about it ever again. Rape isn't a "mistake", it is a crime many people consider somewhere above 1st degree assault and below murder (more than a few people would forgive a murderer before a rapist).

Comment from: Archon Divinus posted at December 2, 2005 8:34 PM

I completely agree with Wistful Dreamer on the Kim thing. Ever since she raped Daven, I've hated her (in a way that it's possible to hate a character in a comic). She didn't make a mistake, she commited a violent crime. She also never paid for it. If she had paid for it, she would be in jail.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at December 2, 2005 8:38 PM

I have to say, Wistful... I'm kinda with you. There's a certain "cartoon" element to some of my webcomics where I create a weird alternate universe for the characters to act in. I mean, at the same time that SP has had amazing, moving moments and characterizations I was thrilled to death with, I can't realistically examine the characters as, for example, as truly violent as they are. I have to take it as cartoon violence or I can't love my Aubrey and PeeJee, and since most of the time it's easy for me to do that and the switch back and forth to "realism" doesn't really interfere with their characterization for me, I'm okay with it.

Rape, though...
It's everything you've said. And it's discomforting to put it in the cartoon-y realm I create for, say, running down anorexics with sandwiches. Because, had it, for instance, been Jason with that chloroform? There would not even be close to being a question of me reading a strip where he said 'Aw, she looks so cute all sleeping... and helpless...'. That's partly my background and bias; I can suspend disbelief enough to read about Kim doing it because none of my friends have ever been raped by girls.

So, yeah. I love the rest of Kim's character and I have a little mental box for shoving the rape stuff in which makes it easy for me to read about it and made it possible for me to be pleasantly surprised about her return, but... I wouldn't, personally, hand out any awards over the rape issue.

Comment from: Robert Hutchinson posted at December 2, 2005 8:47 PM

You go to jail for years if the friend brings charges. That's way too much follow-through for Davan.

An aside: I cannot remember more than the past few months' history of S*P at any one point, because I have a poor memory and the damn comic's like a soap opera strapped onto a jet engine, but I keep reading it. I couldn't remember a single thing about Kim until reading this snark, and the comments.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at December 2, 2005 8:50 PM

"like a soap opera strapped onto a jet engine"

Hahahahaha!

Comment from: Amadan posted at December 2, 2005 9:15 PM

There is a certain double-standard in allowing Kim to be forgiven for an action that a male character would not be forgiven for, but it's not entirely unrealistic.

If the Kim/Davan incident happened in real life, I daresay that most males would have reactions ranging from pissed off to amused, but most would not consider it a traumatic event, and few would actually want to press charges against her.

Whereas I don't think *any* women in that situation would likely be amused, most would consider it traumatic, and a lot more would be inclined to press charges.

It really isn't exactly the same.

Comment from: Montykins posted at December 2, 2005 9:24 PM

She didn't make a mistake, she commited a violent crime.

It's a weird situation. As siwangmu points out, Aubrey and Peejee commit violent crimes all the time (take that, Uwe Boll!). It was funny when Kim chloroforms T-Bob, right? That one stupid cashier probably got shot. Frankly, most of the cast of Something*Positive ought to have gone to jail at some point.

But rape -- well, rape's different. We've got Cartoon Pummeling and Cartoon Shooting, and we're all used to that. Cartoon Rape hits different buttons.

Personally, I've always figured if Davan doesn't hold it against her, who am I to complain?

Comment from: The posted at December 2, 2005 10:04 PM

I cannot see why rape should be kept separate from violent assault, emotional abuse, murder, and the other subjects of dark humor. More specifically, I don't see why Kim's rape of Davan is so much worse than Pepito's career as a sex slave or Monette's moment of tender bestiality (which could count as rape since animals can't say yes). Is it that we weren't emotionally attached to those characters (at the time. Pepito, of course, has stripped his way into the hearts of many) as we are to Davan? It is the only difference I can see.

As for male characters not being forgiven for rape, what about Girly's El Chupacabre? He's raped hundreds, if not thousands, of girls his life, yet he seems not only to be forgiven these crimes, but loved for them. Although he learns that doing so is wrong (not because rape is wrong but because giving the women the pleasure only he can give might ruin their lives), he was never considered a horrible person, just a misguided one. I guess my point is that this is an entire other universe. Stop applying our rules to it

Comment from: Archon Divinus posted at December 2, 2005 10:12 PM

El Chupacabre never raped anyone, he just has an aura that makes women want to sleep with him.

Comment from: larksilver posted at December 2, 2005 10:13 PM

ah, but Chuy didn't rape those women. He entranced them, seduced them, and not one was sorry, after. Chuy's "crimes" weren't about power, control, or rage: they were about raging hormones and total magnetism. Different motivations and different results.

IMHO, of course.

Comment from: The posted at December 2, 2005 10:21 PM

well, it seems like rape to me. One could argue that he removed their rational ability to say no, much like the drugs removed Davan's ability to say no to Kim. Also, I present http://go-girly.com/go/12 as evidence. Note that the woman starts screaming and then becomes satisfied very quickly.

Comment from: Tangent posted at December 2, 2005 10:57 PM

If Daven didn't press charges, then no jail time can be served. Besides, cops tend to snicker when guys claim a woman raped them, and treat it like a big joke. It's a bit of a double-standard. Basically it's not thought that a guy *can* be raped by a woman (unless she's using a "toy" on him) because "if he's got an erection, he's willing"

It's like saying that because a rapist might have given a girl pleasure it's not rape. Neither situation is true.

But that's going off on a tangent here. Looks like I'm going to have to start reading the archives soon... well, after I finish those research papers and exams, that is... *shiftyeyes*

Rob H.

Comment from: Wistful Dreamer posted at December 2, 2005 11:24 PM

I admit, it is a cartoon universe. Peejee and Aubrey regularly engaged in random violence during the early strips. Of course comics/cartoons like Futurama and Kevin & Kell routinely make light of the violent demise of sentient beings.
The problem is that S*P is a comic about "people"-- ones that live in a generally earthlike world (no fantasy adventures, no characters that just seem to exist when they are in frame, everyone has to have a day job). Further, the main thrust of the comic tends to revolve around the characters' feelings and reactions to realistic situations. From my perspective, the comic is simply too serious to write off rape as just another silly cartoon action.
In my opinion, Milholland should have: 1)had Kim perform some lesser transgression, like take bizaare pictures of Davan while unconcious, 2) have Kim do something interesting but not at Davan's expense, like admit to the drugged up Davan that she secretly enjoyed the attention he gave her (unaware that he would remember it), 3) written her off, and had some new character take over her role, or 4) make a commentary about how he realized that no one would buy Kim being part of the gang after committing rape, and simply declaring it a "non-canon", or fantasy sequence situation (or at least make it clear that the characters don't remember the event, instead of referencing it every time she shows up).

All of this is besides Eric's point. Kim clearly is being treated as still a member of the crew (and morally acceptable, in Randy's eyes), and Eric is right, she does fill a unique role left long unfilled. It will be interesting to see where Milholland takes this (although we are interupting the Alzheimers AND the lesbian breakup stories for this, Damn you Randy!), and what it does to Davan's developement.

Comment from: LurkerWithout posted at December 2, 2005 11:32 PM

Quote: The problem is that S*P is a comic about "people"-- ones that live in a generally earthlike world (no fantasy adventures, no characters that just seem to exist when they are in frame, everyone has to have a day job).

I really have to disagree with that point. S*P is a fantasy world. Any comic universe, that has a CAT travel Plastic Man like from Boston to Denver thru the sewer system in ONE night is not "real". The character's may react realisticly but their world is no more "real" than "Scary-go-round" with its elves and witches and ghosts and killer jellyfish...

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 2, 2005 11:40 PM

You know, for all people want to talk about Kim and her crimes, don't forget that Milholland already discussed what is, in my opinion, the definitive description of a male's reaction to his own rape three comics after it happened.

I mean, sure, there is a double standard at play in this. But said double standard is as much a construct of men in this case as it is women. That's what amused me the most about the storyline.

Comment from: Abby L. posted at December 3, 2005 1:22 AM

I, on the other hand, found it woefully rediculous and one of the biggest lapses in the strips history. When you rape one of your friends, you don't go to some councilling, have said friend act awkwardly around you, and move away in shame; you go to jail... for years, and never get to act normally around any friend who knows about it ever again. Rape isn't a "mistake", it is a crime many people consider somewhere above 1st degree assault and below murder (more than a few people would forgive a murderer before a rapist).

The problem here is that the stigma of rape is about the abused person feeling violated by the action. Davan didn't seem to feel violated. Many rape laws also specify that there must be penetration for it to be raped. It seems like all thats implied in the comic is that Kim attempted fellatio. (And it failed to arouse the drugged-up Davan) Not only is it comparatively minor to say sticking something up his bum, it's also relatively unprovable. Neither did Davan even remember it. I think that what did happen in the comic is more realistic than her going to jail would be. I also think that it would surprise you what can happen to you without you freaking out about it or thinking it's weird. It's important for people to know how to go on with their lives.

Comment from: Ford Dent posted at December 3, 2005 1:58 AM

Oh, I'm not the only one excited by the return of Kim?

No?

Good.

Comment from: EsotericWombat posted at December 3, 2005 2:42 AM

Man, still no update. I'm not mad, I'm just feeling cold... so very very cold

Comment from: William_G posted at December 3, 2005 2:47 AM

Jesus. Calling that shit "rape" is an insult to any one who's actually been raped. Rape is a violent sexual assualt. Trying to suck off a guy when he's doped up isn't.

Get some fucking perspective.

Comment from: Eric the .5b posted at December 3, 2005 3:13 AM

Trivial reactions:

a) I didn't recognize Kestrel at first glance, either. Milholland's style of depicting characters has changed a bit since the last time she showed up, and her hair was a wildly different style than shown before.

a) Davan hasn't changed? Look at his haircut! :D

Comment from: siwangmu posted at December 3, 2005 3:15 AM

I thought it was clear from the context (sweaty, smelling like monkey sex, etc.) that it not working or not being full-on sex were merely evasions of Kim's in the immediate aftermath. Others seem to have gotten different ideas.

William G., I'm not gonna swear at you because we don't do that here, but I'd like you to ponder the range of possible sexual violations you just implied are not a big deal.

"The problem here is that the stigma of rape is about the abused person feeling violated by the action."

This doesn't really make sense to me at all. As a general rule, rapists are FUCKED UP. This is not influenced by how their victim reacts.

Note: I'm not trying to say, personally, that in this universe I think Kim should've gone to jail, or even that Davan's not allowed to forgive her. My initial participation in this whole thing, which I still hold to, was on the premise that the rape plot and dealing of it were not particularly shining examples of the awesomeness that is S*P.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at December 3, 2005 3:18 AM

Looked it up, for reference, should've done this before I posted. "Hypothetical situation" is described to Davan thus:
"A woman mounts a man while he's drugged and has sex with him."

She then asks, "Would you call that rape?"

Davan's response: "Yeah, sure it is, I guess. I mean, there was no consent, so it's now rape. There aren't a lot of gray areas there."

Does that provide any perspective?

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at December 3, 2005 3:23 AM

For me, it's a question of inversion.

Let's say the strip depicted a man, walking in on a woman drugged out of her mind. He sees her, becomes tempted, and then we cut to the two of them naked and in afterglow, the woman still incoherent.

There would be absolutely no question that he raped her. None at all.

Rape is a horrible thing -- and in the end, it's a question of control. Control being taken, control being assumed. It seems that's what Kim's addiction centered on -- the reduction of the man to helpless unconsciousness, and Kim being in complete control.

So yeah, this was rape.

Comment from: Denyer posted at December 3, 2005 3:37 AM

When you rape one of your friends, you don't go to some councilling, have said friend act awkwardly around you, and move away in shame; you go to jail... for years, and never get to act normally around any friend who knows about it ever again. Rape isn't a "mistake", it is a crime many people consider somewhere above 1st degree assault and below murder

As long as they used effective protection, I'd probably find it in me to forgive any of my female friends who did similar. Video footage would be a bonus.

Though that sounds flippant, it's no less true. Personally I have a harder time forgiving those who've tried to kill/injure me... people I know and like borrowing my anatomy whilst I'm unable to give entirely informed consent is low on my list of worries. Ditto for my eventual corpse: discreet necrophiliacs, fuck away.

Comment from: Denyer posted at December 3, 2005 3:43 AM

I cannot see why rape should be kept separate from violent assault, emotional abuse, murder, and the other subjects of dark humor.

Yep. No taboos, even when it's something that personally affects you is a hard philosophy to live by, but a worthwhile one IMO.

Comment from: Denyer posted at December 3, 2005 3:50 AM

Calling that shit "rape" is an insult to any one who's actually been raped. Rape is a violent sexual assualt.

It's non-consensual sex. It even includes a statutory sub-section. Rape is violent if it's violent... so-called 'date rape' involving Person A drugging Person B isn't necessarily violent, though it's no less awful.

Comment from: Spatulus posted at December 3, 2005 4:31 AM

Re: Kim's rape of Davan.

It doesn't surprize me that he forgives Kim so quickly, considering the slack he's given to Aubrey and Peejee instead of getting a restraining order.

But I do think it changed their relationship.

I haven't read the archives recently, but I did read the next few months after the rape. Kim next shows up at Anna's birthday party. Claire asks her, "So where have you been? No-one's seen or heard from you in a while." Kim answers that she's been busy applying for grad schools and her counselling.

That makes me think: maybe she just withdrew from her friends because of the whole Davan thing. It's not like there aren't schools she could've gone to in Boston. I think she deliberately wanted to get away from everyone because of the rape.

It should be interesting to see how things go now that she's back.

Comment from: Connor Moran posted at December 3, 2005 6:24 AM

I always find it hard to discuss the morality of characters in Something Positive. I mean, seriously, remember the first strip. From day one, no subject has been off limits for humor. I wouldn't label back alley abortion any more "a laughing matter" than sexual misconduct. But that's the point. It's dark humor. If that isn't your cup of tea, I won't argue, but I don't think there's anything inconsistent about the way the rape issue was handled.

Comment from: Arthur Barnhouse posted at December 3, 2005 8:58 AM

"Looked it up, for reference, should've done this before I posted. "Hypothetical situation" is described to Davan thus:
"A woman mounts a man while he's drugged and has sex with him."

She then asks, "Would you call that rape?"

Davan's response: "Yeah, sure it is, I guess. I mean, there was no consent, so it's now rape. There aren't a lot of gray areas there."

Does that provide any perspective?"

You completely ignore the discussion in the next few panels. Davan says that while it's rape, what is important next is his reaction to it. Most guys simply aren't going to get really angry or hurt because of what happened there. It's different for a whole multitude of reasons.

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at December 3, 2005 9:46 AM

This is why I'm so fond of the Canadian sexual assault model, which covers a wide range of sexual abuses up to and including your bog-standard "rape is a violent act" canard to begin with. No one would be sitting around saying sexual assault only counts if it's violent, or if it involves penetration, or if the guy's awake -- from there, it's simply a matter of assessing severity and impact.

And this is yet another one of those times where the guys I know who've been abused while unconscious must come from an alternative dimension.

Comment from: chalcara posted at December 3, 2005 11:19 AM

I actually think the whole rape issue was handled pretty well and consistent with the overall SP.

Davan decided for himself "Well, I don't bother to give a shit about it" and as such he didn't press charges. They're even now *joking* about it! It feels more like it's a question of Davan's character than about the rape itself.

Yep, It's totally political incorrect, but since when has SP ever been PC?

Comment from: Rosicrucian posted at December 3, 2005 11:55 AM

I'm just continually mystified that people that read a comic whose opening gag was about backalley coathanger abortions somehow have an imaginary line that marks "too far."

The storyline containing Kim's rape of Davan was an experiment in contrasts and our own prejudices. It's fairly obviously *intended* to show the inherent difference we perceive when it's a woman that does it.

I'll also agree that the consequences of it were imposed more by Aubrey and PeeJee than Davan. Davan doesn't start trouble. He, like many people in our generation, was raised by parents who believe suffering in silent dignity is a virtue. It's a neurosis, a notion that compared to other people's problems, one's own troubles are insignificant, and it was highlighted in Eva's recent storyline with him.

Comment from: EsotericWombat posted at December 3, 2005 12:03 PM

Arthur: The purpose of the quote was to eschew the idea that the entirety of the incident was Kim trying to fellate Davan.

I personally think that Davan was hurt by the incident, but he just buried it.

Comment from: Denyer posted at December 3, 2005 12:57 PM

this is yet another one of those times where the guys I know who've been abused while unconscious must come from an alternative dimension

More likely the simple difference that the S*P situation and hypotheticals spun off from it involve someone liked and fancied, not a random stranger. It's hard to term an act abuse if someone is turned on by it during and after -- except in the old "masturbation is self-abuse, sex in anything other than proscribed ways is abuse" sense.

And yes, there are differences between submission fantasies (or waking up next to a naked other person and being unable to recollect how you got there) and finding out from a third-party that someone was mounting you last night, but the typical [male] response is more likely to be concern at the possibility of impregnation than "they were more sober / less drugged and shouldn't have done that." This ratchets to include concern at the possibility of disease if a less well-known acquaintance, but it's only at the point of disliking the other person or really lacking any attraction to them that it would become transgressive for a fair number of people.

Reactions are void where participants aren't single or in very open relationships, natch. And we're also covering situations in which no-one was silently slipped any pharmaceuticals with the express intention of making them pliable or amnesiac.

Comment from: Wistful Dreamer posted at December 3, 2005 1:01 PM

"Davan doesn't start trouble. He, like many people in our generation, was raised by parents who believe suffering in silent dignity is a virtue. It's a neurosis, a notion that compared to other people's problems, one's own troubles are insignificant,"

I disagree. I don't think Davan's nonchalance has anything to do with dignity. Davan isn't dignified, he's cynical and emotionally unattached. I've never heard Davan say that his problems are insignificant. Heck, before his job change, he made an artform out of self loathing, he just loathed everyone else equally as much.

To everyone that keeps saying that a man wouldn't be upset about being taken advantage of, my only response is, "really? I would." Rape is being deprived of the autonomy to make important decisions about your own life situation (who you have sex with). I've never been raped, but I've been mugged and assaulted. I've had my autonomy to make important decisions about the situation of my own health and potential survival taken away. I don't think anyone wants that, no matter what they say beforehand when they don't think it'll ever come up.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at December 3, 2005 1:12 PM

Quick things: Thanks, esotericwombat, that's exactly what I meant.

And Arthur, I know it is actually really hard to keep track of exactly who says what, but I think if you skim for my responses you'll see I haven't ignored it.

And my problem here, as I've said, is not that I think Davan should've been more traumatized. I sort of actualyl buy his explanation fo that. My problem is that *Kim*, who I *like*, is a *rapist*.

Now, I realize that my reactions are incongruous and people don't think a line should exist. However, I'm less interesxted in whether I "should" have a line with respect to things in SP than I am in why I *do* have such a line. I think it may be what someone way up said, that the victim is someone we care about in the SP world, but can anyone field any other or more specific theories? Why did Pepito's abuse make me only mildly uncomfortable (while simultaneously being funny)? (My guess on that one is that it made the director even more of a monster, which fit perfectly) But why, then, are the director and Kim made monsters by their actions to me when violent crazies like Aubrey and PeeJee and cynical bastards like Davan I love wholeheartedly?

Again, I'm not caring whether I should or shouldn't feel that way, but why do you suppose I do? That's a question I'd like to figure out.

Comment from: Abby L. posted at December 3, 2005 1:14 PM

I think Davan was hurt as well, probably a whole lot more than he let on. I think that the fact that a woman did the raping doesn't mean it's OK. I don't think that the hypothetical situation was any more than a hypothetical situation and I believe that Kim didn't do MUCH more than fellatio if anything. Maybe thinking this is just my reaction to keep from no longer liking this character.

I stand by my statement that what happened in the storyline is the most logical and realistic course of events. Very few female rapes of men are ever reported, fewer are brought to court. Of statistical (reported) rapes of men, 3% are performed by women. It's definitely possible that Davan could have brought it to court, if he hadn't been unaware of what happened until it was probably too late. But as is mentioned above, Davan's not the kind of person who would make waves about such a thing.

I'm really interested in the discussion that this event has provoked. I hope that Randy addresses Davan's feelings about what happened a bit more.

Comment from: Amadan posted at December 3, 2005 1:20 PM

To everyone that keeps saying that a man wouldn't be upset about being taken advantage of

No one has said this.

This is why I find "what is rape?" threads to be tiresome, because people get emotional and hyperreactive (in many cases, the most emotional and hyperreactive ones are guys who have never been raped or had a close friend/family member raped, but think it's their job to get offended and indignant and thus show what sensitive and enlightened men they are). And then statements that are made with full context and varying degrees of nuance (like "most males would have reactions ranging from pissed off to amused, but most would not consider it a traumatic event") are replaced with "a man wouldn't be upset about being taken advantage of."

Can we all stipulate that we believe that Rape Is Bad and then stop with the straw men?

Comment from: siwangmu posted at December 3, 2005 1:33 PM

For the record, Amadan, I think this has been remarkably civil as these discussions go! You'll note that even the person you're quoting didn't say "You Bastards!" But "really? I would." It was just one more person's opinon about what they consider *likely* responses.

And we all agree that rape is bad, but I think this discussion of reactions and moral implications, specifically within a strip with such an intriguing relationship to "realism," is actually pretty interesting.

And I'm scared to get into the backgrounds of the people on different sides 'cuz I just don't know enough.

Abby: Er... is it bad if I kind of want to deliberately change my reading of the strip so I can see it your way? Cuz that just screams "convenient way for me to resolve my discomfort." That said, I think it probably was the other, from the strips that followed it and jokes like "best sex I don't remember."

Comment from: Denyer posted at December 3, 2005 2:34 PM

To everyone that keeps saying that a man wouldn't be upset about being taken advantage of, my only response is, "really? I would."

People, it has been noted, often differ in their opinions within a sample group of several billion.

I've never been raped, but I've been mugged and assaulted.

Ditto. I've also been groped in public by a colleague, but once I became aware of it I became a more than willing participant. With just a fraction more alcohol in my system, people could have been getting indignant on my behalf about statutory assault charges being applicable.

Being "taken advantage of" is a hindsight value judgement. Having a stranger punch you is fairly unequivocal (unless you have an unusual fetish for such things) whilst waking up to discover that no, you weren't dreaming, you actually had sex with a hot friend whilst tripping on prescription drugs... is less so.

Comment from: Sean Duggan posted at December 3, 2005 3:46 PM

The double standard is interesting. Anybody else read the Sexy Losers strips regarding double standards. (NSFW links coming up...) The ones here and here are gender swapped versions of this, this, this, and this. Interesting the initial reactions one gets seeing the contrast...

Comment from: Aethereal Girl posted at December 3, 2005 3:55 PM

As far as El Chupacabre as a rapist goes, I think the relevant fact is that he doesn't seem to have any more volition in the presence of women than they have in his. And, absent volition, I don't see how he can be accused of rape.

In fact, one could make a strong argument that in the current storyline, it was Collette who raped Chuy.

Comment from: Montykins posted at December 3, 2005 8:30 PM

And, absent volition, I don't see how he can be accused of rape.

Really? Because lots of real-life serial killers don't have control over their actions either.

Comment from: quiller posted at December 3, 2005 8:39 PM

It's kind of funny, I've had a gf who was convinced she had raped me because she had sex with me when I wasn't really in the mood (I think I disabused her of that), and I actually have had a woman try to have sex with me when I was sick and in bed (though I stopped her before it got to that point). I've given some thought to men and consent and my own personal feelings.

Curiously, I think one of the keys is penetration. If I was in Davan's situation, I would have felt upset at being used, but more upset that she got to have sex with me, but I didn't really get to have sex with her. Angry, yeah, but feeling violated, no. Now if she had used a strap-on, then I would feel violated. Getting got off without my consent is a lot different than being penetrated without my consent. I think it is kind of the difference between giving a helpless woman cunnilingus and rape. They are both still sexual crimes when there is no consent, but there is a difference.

Comment from: RoboYuji posted at December 3, 2005 9:12 PM

Chuy's no rapist. He's just a super hit with the lay-days whether he wants to be or not. And he's trying to do something about it, though he's not really doing a very good job of it at the moment.

Sometimes hinking about things WAY too hard can ruin the fun of them.

Comment from: Wistful Dreamer posted at December 4, 2005 2:42 AM

"Can we all stipulate that we believe that Rape Is Bad and then stop with the straw men?"

There was nothing in my commentary that was a straw man. Where you see my comment as an unacceptable simplification of other people's comments, I see yours as a decided ad hominum argument (attributing to my argument derisive association to arguments made by unspecified "guys" on unspecified '"what is rape?" threads' that have no bearing on what I actually said). If you don't find my argument convincing (although, frankly, I didn't make an argument, only voiced an opinion), please try to adress its own merits, not cite other comments made elsewhere that no one else on this thread has seen.

Comment from: Arthur Barnhouse posted at December 4, 2005 3:36 AM

"And Arthur, I know it is actually really hard to keep track of exactly who says what, but I think if you skim for my responses you'll see I haven't ignored it."

I ment in that one. You used a direct quote, but then ignored the rest of the strip, and used that as a justification. I felt like that was essentially ellipsing out parts that disgreed with you. In a more general sense you have responded. that's all I meant.

Now, I don't think that all guys wouldn't be hurt and consider pressing charges. Some would, but some wouldn't. I know guys who would be weirded out, but wouldn't press charges. I know guys who would flip their shit and press charges. I know guys who would be scarred for life. I know guys who would be scarred for two minutes. My point is that a substantial number of guys will not react in a consistant manner.

Compare this to women I know, and not a one of them would consider anything but pressing charges.

Comment from: Aethereal Girl posted at December 4, 2005 5:47 AM

Montykins:

Really? Because lots of real-life serial killers don't have control over their actions either.

Well, yes.[1] And when a person is found by the courts to lack control over his actions, that person is not held legally responsible for those actions.[2] I assume you have heard of the phrase "not guilty by reason of insanity?"[3]

But the issue is even more pointed in the case of rape. If rape, by definition, is engaging in sexual acts with aperson who has not consented or is unable to give meaningful consent, then in a case where neither party is able to give meaningful consent, who exactly raped whom?

[1] Or rather, granted, because I don't have a whole lot of knowledge about serial killer psychology beyond what you get in thrillers, which I suspect is not entirely reliable. But then again, I don't really care, either.

[2] He may, of course, still be treated as dangerous to society and incarcerated. Which, arguably, ought to be done to Chuy. But it's when one starts getting into practical matters like these rather than theoretical matters like "what is rape" that the whole "hello, silly fantasy world" issue really bites one in the ass.

[3] Yes, I realize that "not guilty by reason of insanity" does not mean that as soon as someone is found to be insane, then they are not considered to be guilty. However, what it specifically does mean is that if a person is found to be insane to the extent that he is not responsible for his actions, then the law does not hold him reponsible for his actions.

Comment from: Denyer posted at December 4, 2005 6:57 AM

Curiously, I think one of the keys is penetration. If I was in Davan's situation, I would have felt upset at being used, but more upset that she got to have sex with me, but I didn't really get to have sex with her. Angry, yeah, but feeling violated, no. Now if she had used a strap-on, then I would feel violated. Getting got off without my consent is a lot different than being penetrated without my consent.

Interesting point, although given the placement of the prostate gland those things aren't exactly exclusive. It certainly wouldn't be out of character for various women I know to use sex toys, so I don't think that personally it'd be a factor.

I'd say a bigger key in general is the intention to dominate against someone's will, which is closer to the legal definition of things being against consent (rather than consent being uncertain -- 'blacking out' isn't the same as being unconscious, as people are still conscious (and often walking and talking reasonably coherently) but their brains aren't committing things to memory.)

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at December 4, 2005 9:40 AM

Curiously, I think one of the keys is penetration. If I was in Davan's situation, I would have felt upset at being used, but more upset that she got to have sex with me, but I didn't really get to have sex with her.

This is one of the frustrating things about conversations like this: why does sex = penetration? Should it? Does it, even?

I don't think it does. (I realize that I'm at odds with a culture which forced even True Love Waits to redefine its vows to accomodate some of the rationalizations which come down the pike.)

Consider how politicized the act of penetration was for a subset of lesbian-feminists not so very long ago, say, in the seventies and much of the eighties, seeking to escape what they perceived as the gender-aping roles of butch/femme interactions. For a nontrivial number of couples, penetration was anathema. It was a heterosexual act, regardless of how one went about it, and the penetrating party would be said to possess or convey male energy.

They'd restrict, or say that they restricted, what they did in bed to surface contact -- that was still sex. Enforced cunnilingus, in this context, would be sexual assault, and would be rape. (Remember that this was also the strain of feminist sexual politics which gave us Against Sadomasochism and, at its most extreme, Andrea Dworkin. But the manner in which Dworkin's feelings on penetration are most commonly misinterpreted didn't extend across here; one could consent to penetrative acts. The issue was that one shouldn't.)

These days, this approach to lesbian sexuality is pretty rare. Sex-positivity, to some extent or another, won, and the nature of that dialogue changed significantly. What didn't change, though, is that a more full-bodied approach to what sex is remained in place -- when you don't need to employ penetration to accomplish what you want to accomplish, suddenly what sex is becomes a much broader concept. The necessary downside is that what to call imposed, nonconsenting acts can become just as slippery. As it were.

So, I'm with those who say that this is an issue of imposed control without prior negotiation, or in violation of prior negotiation without on-the-spot true consent. And, again, this is a large part of why I come out in favour of the Canadian legal model.

Comment from: Amadan posted at December 4, 2005 3:06 PM

Yes, there was. You said:

To everyone that keeps saying that a man wouldn't be upset about being taken advantage of

No one in this thread said "a man wouldn't be upset about being taken advantage of." The closest approximation to that statement was mine, where I said that some men would probably find being in Davan's situation amusing (and others would be pissed off) and most men would probably not regard it as traumatic.

Your statement was a straw man.

Comment from: larksilver posted at December 4, 2005 5:58 PM

I remember, several years back, sitting around a living room with a bunch of drunk college students, taking the 100-question version of the Purity Test. Imagine the shock from the group that the only purported "virgin" scored something like 33% pure, while some of us who'd been sexually active for years scored twice as "pure" - or more. (I'm not revealing my score, I'm such a boring gal I'd be embarrassed to.)

Seems that she thought she was somehow more pure because she'd never had a penis inside her. Well, inside her girly bits - apparently mouth, bum, and boobs didn't really count. Also apparently, she'd done everything from S&M to B&D, everything just short of drinkin' pee... but still considered herself a virgin, because of that whole penis thing. We, of course, disagreed.. and she didn't get the dissonance there. Thought we were "weird."

I'm still puzzled by that rationalization, but hey, it made her feel good when she talked to her pastor, so I guess it worked for her. (shakes head)

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at December 4, 2005 6:54 PM

girly bits

Vagina!

It means no weiner for the rest of your days
It's a penis-free girl cavity
Vagina dentata!

THERE! I POSTED ABOUT QUEEN OF WANDS! EVERYONE IS HAPPY NOW! KERMIT ARMS FOR ALL! VAGINA! VAGINA!

Comment from: EsotericWombat posted at December 4, 2005 6:59 PM

Amadan: Kudos for calling him on the straw man.

Larksilver: It should be noted that a sort of new vogue for teenage chaistity vows has led to a lot of cases such as your friend.

There was something about this in Chasing Amy that I found to be particularly well thought out but I can't seem to remember exactly what it was.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at December 4, 2005 6:59 PM

VAGINA!

Seeing it writ like that makes me think magical lightning will slam down from the heavens, transforming Weds once and for all into Captain Vulva!

V is for Venus, who grants allure! A is for Aphrodite, who insists Venus is just a cheap knockoff. She grants femininity! G is for Gaia, who grants fecundity! I is for Isis, who grants Mystery! N is for Nike, who grants Power! A is for Athena, who grants Wisdom! Speak the magic word VAGINA, and forever more be the champion of humanity!

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at December 4, 2005 7:01 PM

And poor Ma-te's stuck with "heart." Again.

You'd think he could get "cervix."

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at December 4, 2005 7:09 PM

When I was 21 I showed up to one of my first of the informal weekly Thursday gatherings that were Chicago sf fandom at the time, and being passed around was a 100-question something called The Harvard Purity Test. The questions ranged from "have you ever told a lie?" to "Have you ever had sex?" to "Have you ever committed a felony?", and there were different versions for men and women.

I scored twenty. When I reported my score to the evening's host he said, "You mean, twenty 'no's?"

Someone accused me of having taken the women's version. I took the women's version. I scored five.

The only person who scored less than I scored eighteen, and kept his or her identity secret, though I had my suspicions.

... Have I told this story here before?

Comment from: gwalla posted at December 4, 2005 7:35 PM

Eric: I will never again be able to read Captain Marvel comics without giggling.

Comment from: Wistful Dreamer posted at December 4, 2005 10:47 PM

Comment from: EsotericWombat

"Amadan: Kudos for calling him on the straw man."

except that it still isn't true. No straw man, no how. Sorry, no dice. Straw men are, by definition, flaws in an argument, not who it was made by (the ad hominum error of earlier) or who it was made to. My flaw (which I will genuinely and apologetically admit) was in making my comments to a group of people that didn't exist ("To everyone that keeps saying that a man wouldn't be upset about being taken advantage of"). This has no bearing on that validity of my argument (and again, it was actually an expressed opinion, not an argument, so the term 'straw man' is doubly non-applicable). Who one makes an argument to does not change its validity. I could have errently posted it on the wrong forum and it still wouldn't be a straw man. This is Phil 101 level stuff here.

Weds (er, sorry, Captain Vulva): I remember reading about that movement in the lesbian movement. I think it lost its momentum as the lesbian movement diverged from the fringes of the feminist movement and came into its own. I don't ask my gay friends questions about their sex lives that I wouldn't ask my straight friends, but there've been enough offhand comments about "toy" catalogs to make me assume that they don't follow that approach.

I think the penatration=sex meme is even stronger in discussions of rape than in sex in general. In the case of the rape of children, however, this standard gets dropped very quickly (although we usually call it abuse or molestation instead). One wonders why this standard isn't carried forward into adult criminal sex cases.

Comment from: Connor Moran posted at December 5, 2005 12:51 AM

I don't think that people are saying that this is less offensive than it might be because penetration=sex. I think people are pointing out something very similar to what the anti-penetration feminists noted, that penetration contains a note of domination that other forms of sexuality don't.

This may or may not be true of consensual sex, but it is certainly true once consent is removed from the picture. Forcible penetration is a unquestionable sign of power and dominance, as Eric put it, "control being taken." I think that this, rather than the gender thing, is the larger part of the double standard. I think that if there had been a toy-rape, our reaction would be pretty similar to the hypothetical drugged female scenario. If we had a case of drugged cunnilingus, I think our reaction would be pretty similar to what it is here.

Comment from: EsotericWombat posted at December 5, 2005 1:13 AM

actually, the straw man refers to the nonexistant person whose arguement you are picking apart. By saying "To everyone that keeps saying that a man wouldn't be upset about being taken advantage of," you were implying that that was the position that certain posters took, and it was to that position, the straw man, that you responded

What you wrote, while perhaps not technically an arguement, was argumentative in tone, so it applies.

Oh, and thanks for implying that I'm uneducated. That was awesome.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at December 5, 2005 1:21 AM

Okay, last warning kids. Pas de flames. No responses. No "but he started its." I don't care if it's fair. The last word on the snipes has already been spoken, or we'll turn this right around and we won't even go to Grandma's. And then Grandma will cry. Is that what you want? To make your Grandmother cry? When I think of all she did for you kids -- you know, I was going to give you up for adoption. To gypsies. But she talked me out of it. And this is the thanks she gets?

Comment from: EsotericWombat posted at December 5, 2005 1:25 AM

Sorry, Dad.

Comment from: larksilver posted at December 5, 2005 1:30 AM

hehe, I know what it's called, Captain Vulva - er.. Wednesday. I just like "girly bits" cause it's fun to say. As words go, it's just not a pretty one. The part it refers to, I'm fine with. But.. well, it just doesn't have a nice sound to it. Why oh why couldn't they give it a word that sounds more like "beautiful flower" and less like "orthodontia" I don't know. I swear, it evokes for me the feeling of sitting outside the dentist's office, and this for me is one of .. well, discomfort, if not actual pain - yet. I have no issues with "vulva," though, and in fact, that's fun to say. Or sing. "Vulva, vulva, give me your answer do..." ach, it's too late at night, obviously. Sorry for that.

The word "penis," I should note, doesn't bother me half so much, although it too is not exactly a musical word. Still, it doesn't have that unfortunate .. clinical feel to it that the other does. What can I say, I'm weird. Oh, wait, we all knew that.

Although now, I'll never hear Hakuna Matata the same way again. I had not seen that before - must have missed it if it appeared in QoW. Too funny.

Comment from: EsotericWombat posted at December 5, 2005 1:56 AM

I remember that from QoW

And here I thought it was "penis" that sounded more clinical. Maybe the reason we see it differently has to do with the sort of words we are each more likely to hear in a clinic. :P

Comment from: Denyer posted at December 5, 2005 5:52 AM

I think people are pointing out something very similar to what the anti-penetration feminists noted, that penetration contains a note of domination that other forms of sexuality don't.

This may or may not be true of consensual sex, but it is certainly true once consent is removed from the picture. Forcible penetration is a unquestionable sign of power and dominance

The intent is, rather than the act, which is why I quibble with the "other forms of sexuality don't". To throw some symbolic metaphors out there: dipping a sword into acid (VD/AIDS); being broken or eaten (rough sex); irresistible urge (drug-induced erection.)

Total loss of control is in no way the sole preserve of forced penetration... who has whose genitals between their teeth, is thrusting their hips hardest, or has the worst sexual health history; they're also forms of control and abuse if wielded with intention.

The 'note' is just a particular way of looking at things; difference rather than hierarchy.

Why oh why couldn't they give it a word that sounds more like "beautiful flower"

Mons Veneris / Mound of Venus? Then there was that Italian who referred to the clitoris as amor Veneris, vel dulcedo.

Curiously, 'vagina' has a word root that refers both to splitting and biting, so it's not as one-sided as the etymology for 'penis'.

Comment from: Aeire posted at December 5, 2005 6:54 AM

I really have nothing to say about all of this except that I saw the line "Tits out for the Jedi, all you Naboo foxes", which made me giggle hysterically.

This morning I went downstairs and made coffee, one of the roommates came sauntering down the stairwell and greeted me with "What's new, kitten tits?". I responded with "Tits out for the Jedi, all you Naboo foxes!!!".

It never ceases to amaze me that exchanges like this make perfect sense with the members of my household although the casual observer would probably wonder what exactly I had put IN the coffee.

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at December 5, 2005 9:45 AM

Why oh why couldn't they give it a word that sounds more like "beautiful flower"

'Cause no one who's seen a vagina up close could possibly be that optimistic. :) The eytymology's come up, and... yeah. Combined with the labia minora, that's about as flattering as it gets.

I like saying vagina. A lot. It's clinical, but it's got Phil-Hartman-as-Charlton-Heston baggage. "Iiiii *like* my vagina." Vulva's fun, too, but they're not interchangeable words.

VAGINA VAGINA VAGINA.

Ten bucks says Panera blocks this for drug references.

Comment from: larksilver posted at December 5, 2005 10:14 AM

oh, my. Now, I have this whole visual of Phil Hartman-as-Charlton Heston. That right there is funny enough, him liking his vagina..

(wipes a tear). Giggles before morning caffeine are .. ow. Not to mention the strange co-worker looks. But totally worth it, mind.

By the way, of course it's not a beautiful flower. But still.. I think I'll stick with "girly bits" in polite company. Here, though.. well, we'll go with vagina for argument's sake. hehe.

Comment from: larksilver posted at December 5, 2005 10:20 AM

Oh.. and I got interrupted and had to post before I was quite finished. Sorry for the in-box spammage..

'Cause no one who's seen a vagina up close could possibly be that optimistic. :)

To be fair, it doesn't get ugly til puberty, when the hair and stuff happens. Funny how, in order to be a sexual area, it has to get all gross. But then, the penis undergoes some pretty icky changes about then, too.

While girls don't get to have peeing contests, at least we don't make such a mess in our sheets during puberty. Seems fair. /shrug

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at December 5, 2005 10:57 AM

The Hartman/Heston routine comes from an old SNL sketch: Heston performing the book-on-tape for Madonna's Sex. He won't say "pussy." (Granted, he should have said "vulva," but, well, aside from "vagina" being more euphonious in context, there's that whole vagina-as-vulva language problem we seem to be encountering. There's no hair in there!)

Comment from: Connor Moran posted at December 5, 2005 1:22 PM

Denyer: Granted. I'm just saying that the lesser response to Kim's raping Davan is tied into the specific way of looking at dominance and violation that places forcible penetration as a greater harm. I'm not saying that it's not a social construct, or that it's the only way to look at control, just that it does govern emotional responses.

Comment from: Denyer posted at December 5, 2005 4:11 PM

I'm just saying that the lesser response to Kim's raping Davan is tied into the specific way of looking at dominance and violation that places forcible penetration as a greater harm.

Mmm. For some of the respondents at least, I'd agree. For the rest, the fantasy setting, considering themselves in the situation (or analogous situation) and finding it favourable, etc. is as likely to be behind not viewing Kim's actions as too terribly serious, IMO.

'Cause no one who's seen a vagina up close could possibly be that optimistic. :)

Eh? Beats the "last chicken in the shop" equipment the rest of us got handed...

Unusual flowers, to be sure. But certainly better tasting than chrysanthemums.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 5, 2005 10:10 PM

I dunno, I'm quite fond of looking at the fully-developed vagina. I don't see what's so wrong with it, so long as it's a healthy one.

The silliest thing, to me, is people that obsess over hair growing around it. Last I checked, that's what the female body is supposed to do. So long as everything is kept clean, what's the big deal? I always chalked it up to people being inherently bothered by the human body, myself. I say, be happy with it in its natural state.

Comment from: SFaulken posted at December 7, 2005 2:48 AM

Now, after getting Internet Exploder to play nice with typekey here at work.....

Being a bisexual male, and having been taken advantage of by a member of both sexes (different instances, not at the same time), while I was in a diminished mental capacity.

I can honestly say I was upset about it, in both cases, but it also wasn't something that really ruined the existing relationship, for the simple reason that there *was* a pre-existing relationship. The female? We had been sexually active at a prior time. The male? While we had not been active at a prior time, of what I can remember of the earlier bits of that night, we were being quite affectionate, and I can understand why he thought there was no problem.

So technically, yes, by letter of the law, I've been raped twice, but in my heart and head, I don't feel that way about it. It's all in the circumstances folks, there is no black and white.

Comment from: Doug Wykstra posted at October 11, 2006 2:53 PM

And, almost an entire year later, we begin to see more of the consequences of Kim's return. Go to today's S*P, if you haven't already.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: