It was a situational exception ig
Nahh, no means no. No matter what.
That’s true with the aforementioned exception always in literature whether it’s agreeable or not :/
What do you mean?
I only mean in technicality, any depiction of rape, if not mentioned directly or stated by the author, is not rape, even if it is clearly what would be interpreted as somebody being raped or committing rape. Like I said, everyone can kind of tell that was rape but it’s hard to really discuss the lines of ethicality in literature because it borders on the line of fiction/reality kind of context. I’m not saying it is ok in practice but it’s really just a hard thing to definitively label ig.
No. It's not hard to define as you are implying it to be. Sex is rape when there is no consent. Even you said it: "everyone can kind of tell that it was rape." In ethics, rape is wrong because it is violence.
Now what is clearcut, is that this rape is fiction. I think what your comment is actually telling, is that though it is rape, it is still fiction, and therefore sort of acceptable. Because readers consume according to their tastes, rape in fiction can still be acceptable, even desired. But if we speak in technicalities of ethics, this one is still rape, no matter what.
In shirt, it is rape when there's no consent. Rape in fiction any be sort of ok or not to the reader, because it is fiction.
No, you missed my point it IS NOT RAPE in technicality. I took the time to explain it to you if you refuse to understand it then it is not my problem. I never said it is acceptable simply because its fiction but that your ethics can’t be applied to fiction directly ffs
Ok, define what rape is first, because that is what I'm basing my argument on. Because the way you said it, is as if it's the author who decides if it's rape or not. That's wrong.
When you try to argue or explain something, dear reader, you do not give up, as it is you who commented on my post. I laid out my arguments, and I'm properly responding to you, and I'm trying to see how you are laying out your points to support your argument.
Therefore, I am not refusing to understand your concern. You are the one who is giving up on clarifying your point. Peace out.
(=・ω・=)
Ethics is ethics, and in this case, the story is based in old Korean history. Unless the fiction is some alternate universe in which the author explains how people become good or bad with a different world building applied, your argument that "technically this is not rape" does not make sense.
I am frustrated, and rightfully so. You have no a subtlety in phrasing your argument to imply that I agree or defend the acts of rape in this story, how I see it. I added a simple comment originally stating everything you “refuse” to acknowledge in my point(s). I mention the word ‘technicality’ because I was referring to an objective fact. I never once said “technically this is not rape” you take my words out of context and only seek to antagonize me because anyone who seems to supposes an opinion that contends with the self-righteousness of the ‘dear readers’ who so desperately spread their wisdom in a short, befitting slogan I created in representation: “rApe bAD”, is perpetually arguing that rape isn’t a serious issue. I never once suggested that I think it’s ok. You can’t just slap on your own sense of morality onto a fictional story with characters whom you cannot determine the feelings of or even attempt to grasp the understanding of. They are not real and any of their emotions and feelings are purely at the will of the writer and therefore the rape and anything other correlated to the depictions are not for you to determine my fellow dear reader. We can assume they were acts of rape but you don’t have the right in any way to decide this.
For example, in a theatrical setting, if there is a montage of a character and a loved-one and then it cuts to a picture of a casket at a funeral, we can ASSUME that the loved-one has passed. That is contextual evidence for such. However, without further information, we as a viewer have no control or knowledge of whether that loved-one had died or not. this was my entire case-in-point that you can’t comprehend. I specifically went out of my way to mention what I said about rape in literature as an objective fact that you gravely misunderstood (pun-intended) I’m sorry if my tone upset you but I’m genuinely livid from the fact that you could intend I ever said that rape was acceptable when I intially said IT WAS SITUATIONAL
First of all, I'm not offended by anything you are saying, because to me, all of these are just arguments.
Second, I'm not trying to antagonize you; rather, I am trying to understand what you say; which is quite truly unclear. I called you "dear reader," because I prefer this word over the word, "you" and this fits your position at this site i.e., a reader. I do not intend to use this for any insult or negative idea you seem to be perceiving. I do not apologize if you have mistaken it for something else.
Third, I am not trying to be righteous in my discussion with you. I am trying to be correct. These are two different things. When I try to be righteous, I am saying that "these guys shouldn't be doing this because rape is bad." By trying to be "correct," I am saying that this situation is "rape," because rape is forced sex. Rape is sex without consent. I am placing the situation in a moral setting, and defining what things are happening based on that moral setting. I am not judging them, as what righteous people try to do.
Fourth, I do not believe you are "rightfully frustrated." You may be frustrated, but not rightfully. You know why? Because your argument is not clear. You say: "It was a situational exception I guess," but how is it an exception? Did rape's definition change? Has rape ever depended on the author's words that rape did not happen, or does it not depend on the story, how the scenes unfold, how the man being impaled with an unwanted dick say "no" everytime? There are no blacked out scenes here, everyhing regarding the sex was shown. There is nothing to assume, as you have tried to point out but failed to in your example, because all scenes show that the sex is not one of consent. Your example about the casket at a funeral does not clarify your point, rather, it makes your supporting idea distracted from your main point. It makes your picture muddy. Better use another idea that is concise and straight-to-the-point.
Fifth, you are right - I do not understand what you are trying to say, because you are attacking my person, and not my argument. In engaging with me to discuss your point and disagree with my idea, you are trying to bare your mind to me. But when I read that you "feel frustrated" and "went out of your way" to explain your idea, you are not asking for a solid discussion. You just want me to say "yes, i understand you, I agree, I am thankful you went out of your way to explain it to me" rather than hear my part of the discussion - "no, I disagree because of... (details and supporting ideas)."
When you disagree with a person, and want them to understand your points, you may feel frustrated, but this maybe due to your lack of skill in providing a solid argument, not solely because they are refusing to understand you, as you seem to be implying that I am doing.
Sixth, you have indeed said, it was SITUATIONAL. But you said it without much conviction ("ig" meaning "I guess," I assume.). Furthermore, you said it with an added word, and I quote "It was a situational exception ig." By saying the word "exception" you are saying the opposite of what I initially said ("damn rapist"). In short, you are saying, it is not rape. Dear fellow reader, you are contradicting your own words, and they are very confusing.
Please note, all this time, I am attacking your argument, not your person, except when I said you lack skill in communicating. Please refrain from doing this so that we can clearly agree or disagree with the argument that "This sex is rape, technically."
Again, I am not offended despite your attack on my person as having an opinion if "self-righteousness." In my sense of morality as a Christian, yes, I agree that rape is bad. But in my argument with you, I am saying that this instance is technically rape, as opposed to what you try to say that is a "situational exception ig."
Seventh, when you said, "You can’t just slap on your own sense of morality onto a fictional story with characters whom you cannot determine the feelings of or even attempt to grasp the understanding of. They are not real and any of their emotions and feelings are purely at the will of the writer and therefore the rape and anything other correlated to the depictions are not for you to determine my fellow dear reader."
This is quite full of mistakes. Yes, I can slap my own sense of morality into any story I read, because the story becomes original to me when I am already reading it. It may be different for the author, but when a reader reads the text, his/her personal experience and interpretation moves with it, changes it. This is called "literary interpretation." Contrary to what you are saying, and I quote, "However, without further information, we as a viewer have no control or knowledge of whether that loved-one had died or not. this was my entire case-in-point that you can’t comprehend," we as the viewer or reader, can determine what has happened, based on our literary interpretation of the text, despite any blacked out scenes or what not.
"I specifically went out of my way to mention what I said about rape in literature as an objective fact that you gravely misunderstood (pun-intended)"
I do not particularly understand the pun you are referring to. Where is the pun - in the "gravely" or in the "objective fact?" What is your point about "rape in literature as an objective fact?" I do not quite understand what you are trying to say here. I only gather, from your words, that you mean that the instance of rape in a story is dependent on the author, not the reader. Where is the fact here? How is it objective?
I maybe wrong about my first response to you in trying to explain what I thought you were trying to say, but that is because I do not think you also know clearly what you are trying to say. Kindly clarify in this format (Main argument. Supporting idea1, Supporting idea 2. Scenario explanation 1, etc.) If you do, I will gladly reply again.
Thanks for picking my brain. :)
I didn’t write in paragraphs to prove to you or show off my intellect as this entire essay stands to reflect. I never asked for your religious beliefs nor did I waiver in my point that you deem as unclear from your own lack of understanding. Sure, my example was bad, I had thought it would be simple enough to breakdown what I said but I stand corrected. No, I’m going to kindly refuse to write in your desired format because this is a discussion and not a debate and I therefore don’t intend to put much priority into a matter which seems out of my hands considering my far and futile attempts to convey my thoughts on the matter. I used the phrase “I guess” to diffuse my original point so as not to end up in a fucking position I am in currently because I’ve had my fair share of experience dealing with people who consistently recycle and perpetuate their nonsensical morality. I obviously cannot have an opinion that contradicts yours as you refuse to process whatever I try to relay? Side note: the pun was that my short example was set in a context of death and so the word gravely which is related to the concept of death was purposefully used.
My last and probably meaningless will to make this as comprehensible as possible:
IN LITERATURE, THOUGH THERE IS SUCH A WONDROUS TECHNIQUE CALLED “NUANCE”, AN EVENT OR HAPPENING CANNOT BE FULLY INTERPRETED BY A READER/VIEWER/SPECTATOR AS THEY ARE NOT THE ACTUAL CHARACTER, CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE CHARACTER’S FULL RANGE OF CONSCIENCE, AND THOUGH CAN FORM THEIR OWN IDEAS OR CONCLUSIONS BASED UPON A STORY’S HAPPENINGS ACCORDINGLY, CANNOT WITH CONFIDENCE, ASCERTAIN THE INTENT OR INTENDED PURPOSE, DETERMINE AND DEFINE THE OCCURRENCES AS THEY ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL CREATOR WHO WOULD IN TURN, CREATE SUCH CHARACTERS, CREATE THE INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER’S SENTIENCE AND CREATE SITUATIONS OR EVENTS THAT OCCUR AND ARE TO BE DEFINED BY THEM AND ONLY THEM. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO IN CERTAINTY SAY, “HE WAS RAPED”. I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION BUT TO SUBJECT AN ENTIRE STORY TO YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION AND PRESENT IT AS AN OBJECTIVE TRUTH AND CRITICIZE IT BASED ON YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING IS IN ITSELF, SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS. I CALLED YOUR INTERPRETED DEFINITION OF AN EVENT(S), AN EXCEPTION OF SAID ACT BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE NO ACTUAL PLACE TO TREAT YOUR INTERPRETATION AS FACT WHEN YOU ARE INDEED NOT THE AUTHOR THEMSELF. I WILL REPEAT WHAT I HAD SAID BEFORE AS WELL, I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION BUT IN EQUAL LIKELIHOOD IT IS A MERE PRESUMPTION AT ITS BEST. If you are going to say that I am lacking in communicative ability, how tf do you explain what you even meant by saying “thanks for picking my brain” wtf does that even mean???
Anyway, if you still have a particular issue about my standing in all of this and my (I assume you feel) unjustified perspective, then I will admit I am physically inept to entertain you any longer as I cannot be bothered by all this over-complicated shit that I said 3 responses ago. I beg you, idgaf whether you understand so I plead you do the same now.
Dear Kemi'sPOV. Writing in capital letters does not prove your point any further. But it does show that you are in a position of anger over an argument, which you clearly seem to be too immature to be engaging in.
To correct you, when you mentioned 'death' and 'casket,' and used "gravely" as a pun, it does not make for a well-phrased pun, because the meaning of gravely that you used is 'in a serious manner,' and this is not in anyway related to the meaning of "grave" that refers to a tomb or burying place.
Next off, when you add "I guess" in a sentence, it shows that you are unsure. I understand your hesitance in claiming a strong point, but you know what? You did exactly what you were trying to avoid. You reacted to "damn rapist" in a wishy-washy manner, and you seem to be expecting just one type of reaction, that of agreement or the same tone of indecisiveness as that which you have used. When you claim something, and add "i guess," better be prepared next time of what the other person's reaction would be, so that you would not:
A. Be disappointed
B. Be frustrated
C. Be very angry.
Because DING DING DING! You got all three! Congratulations! At this point, I am telling you that you have lost your temper, and have lost all chance to engage in an intelligent discourse and get over what you have intended to make me understand, because you seem incapable of communicating in a calm manner, and you are reading a lot into a simple "yes I agree or no I disagree" type of post. You went into the wolves den, dangled a piece of meat, and felt unsure of whether you should run away with it, or leave it behind, and barked at the wolves with a measly temper as your weapon. The wolves ate you instead.
Next time, don't try to react to another reader's post and tell them "YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO REACT TO A STORY AND CLAIM IT WAS RAPE BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW THE CHARACTERS, ONLY THE AUTHOR DOES, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT, YOU'RE ONLY A READER! STOP BEING SO SELF-RIGHTEOUS!" It only makes you look like a gangster picking up a fight after you couldn't defend yourself eloquently.
And you say you can't be bothered by all this over-complicated shit, but here we are. (⌒▽⌒)
You know the best response you could have said? "Oh sure mate. I guess we differ in opinion." Instead of saying something unclear, claiming I'm putting words in your mouth, feeling all frustrated and victimized because I called you "dear reader" and using "paragraphs" like a normal breating person would, and saying everything else except what your main point actually is, and making all of this all overly complicated by yourself, when you could have just said, "Oh ok, I disagree."
Let me also correct you. You should have used "mentally inept" or "emotionally inept" instead of "physically inept." Unless, technically, you have no hands. In that case, I apologize.
Finally, to get to the main point - I guess in the end, you can only but reject my ideas and not "waiver in your point" that
"it was a situational exception ig,"
but you couldn't even explain properly how it was a situational exception based on the main scenario, where the main character clearly said 'no' and 'stop.' Instead, you say, "Nah, I can't say he was raped because I don't know the characters that much. 'Sides, the author didn't say rape happened. Also I'm just a reader, I have no right to say rape happened, I'm not the author." Can you see how ridiculous you sound? Yes, you have picked my brain, because I have tried all ways trying to rationalize what you said, but your words are so incongrouous and nonsensical I just can't help telling you all of my thoughts to guess at what you are trying to hint at all along.
And you say... idgaf? You know what would sound condescending that completely shows your lack of thoughtfulness and respect for your co-reader? IDGAF. That and saying "I never asked for your religious beliefs." And all along you wonder why you've had "your fair share of dealing with people who consistently recycle and perpetuate their nonsensical morality." I wonder, maybe because you seem to be lacking in respect, and therefore, morals? Hmmm.
┑(￣Д ￣)┍
Adding to my "essay" as a response to your" IDGAF," you know what? When you said this
"That’s true with the aforementioned exception always in literature whether it’s agreeable or not :/"
What did you mean by "agreeable?' Because that's what I took to be 'acceptable.'
Anyways, I think you may be "physically inept" in responding to this, but I'm pretty satisfied already if you have read this far.
Thanks for the discussion mate. :) I really did enjoy writing these "essays," trying to show you how confused I am with your poorly-written "discussion." I guess it's just not the same for you, eh?
note: there’s a reason why I don’t do well in English
I meant agreeable as in, whether it’s agreeable to a person or not; whether you can get by it. (Second definition that pops up on safari or google on the word agreeable is what im tryna reference) All that I wanted to say before i had verbal diarrhea, was that it’s one of those fine-print kinds of things. Like a skydiving instructing institute..If they fail to educate you properly and you end up dead its not “legally” or technically THEIR fault even though they had indirectly caused the death because you signed a waiver with your consent. Sorry it took me so long to come up with a semi-adequate example but thats just what I mean. Their negligence is not on you, the dead person, but they don’t get passed the blame. This is in context to what I said about rape being exceptional and hard to label in this story even though we all somewhat understood the author’s motives.
The same concept can be applied to use/misuse of real-life elements within literature. If the author decided to say that Nakyum had some kind of dub-con fetish and that he secretly really enjoyed getting “raped” and ‘wanted’ to get “raped” then there isn’t shit we could do abt it because we don’t actually have the right to state that its an excuse because it is still presumption. Its not our character, however, we can tell that the rape was most likely just pandering. All we can do about it is to say that the author can’t narrate a story for shit.
This is also the first time I’ve been called “mate” online. It always feels weird talking to Australians on the internet because their Australian tends to leak out in behavioral and habitual lingo though it’s not like I’m particularly bothered or anything but I just find it to be a different experience (quite cool). (I’m not Australian in case you can’t tell by this short unrelated note) I’m glad at least one of us enjoyed themselves I’m always crabby so I too, am an exception. Now I’m off to go plague other manga forums with my poorly-written discussions, later.
I see. :) I do get what you say about the fine-print on how I'm not the character and therefore am not sure if Nakyum really enjoyed the sex or not, which thus makes it less clear if there was sex or not.
To put it in a real-life context, when judges ask a victim who was allegedly raped, questions like "Did you enjoy it?" or "is it really rape, because you didn't say no? You should have resisted if you didn't want it," kind of triggers me to argue against the judge, hence my attitude towards these sets of arguments we have. Anyways, I acknowledge your point because it is valid, and to be honest so as to avoid being called a hypocrite, despite my religion, I do enjoy certain types of literature frowned upon my religion, which includes this trope (e.g. homosexuality) and vaguely forced-sex, precisely because it is fiction. In the end though, for me, knowing is as important as enjoying, so I make it clear to myself whether a certain scenario is rapr or not, so that it doesn't affect my sense of the real world.
I'm not Australian either (I'm Filipino), but as I've been living for more than a year in Brisbane, I've sort of become used to the "mate" lingo.
Anyways, glad you still answered my comment with sport, and I do sincerely apologize if I have caused you any discomfort or insult in any way.
It's definitely rape.
@ranch house owner
Agreed
(=・ω・=)
I love your name xD
Damn rapist