[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I honestly don't give a #### about this guy, but this isn't quite the same as advocating rape. It's more a comment on the nuances of sexual communication not being fully addressed by the way we talk about consent. This is absolutely an issue; the BDSM crowd are really left out in the cold by the way the law works and a lot of totally consensual (on a common sense view) acts are currently, clearly, criminal sexual assault in Canada.

That's a hard question with no obvious answer. "No means no, in all cases" basically has to be the rule, I think, and we just have to accept that we're putting some handcuffs (lol) on sexuality in favour of safety. But that trade-off is tied up in a discussion about what the real risks are, the total lack of useful rape stats, obfuscation, myriad other problems.

Again, I don't know about this guy and from where I sit it'd be nice to keep ignoring him, and I don't think these are his actual concerns. However, there is at least a worthwhile point of discussion underlying the hilariously thinly veiled inferiority complex evident in that statement.

I think you're misrepresenting the BDSM community a bit. There's a pretty heavy message of prior consent, at least among the people I know that practice it. That obviously represents a bit of a grey area itself but it's not quite what your characterizing it as.

I've been wondering about this lately. I think it makes it better, as a matter of certainty, and would be interested to hear how it possibly couldn't be. In any case where someone expresses a morally repugnant viewpoint, isn't it better if they don't earnestly believe it and are therefore unlikely to act on it in any way?

Yeah, I phrased that in the wrong way. I think it's still harmful regardless of whether he's serious or not because it's not an issue of absurdity. There are people out there who clearly don't have a problem committing violence against women.

But I'm still not sure if the provocateur is a useful force in a free speech society. I can see the argument about pushing boundaries, and forcing the established perspectives to continue to defend and thereby self-examine, i.e. "the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error". But even if you're just being a provocateur, if you're whipping up a mob of people who do earnestly believe what you're saying, it's a bit tough to swallow a defense of "I can't be held responsible for what other people who read my trolling do".

Yeah, exactly. I also firmly believe that satire is most effective when aimed at the powerful or the elite, not those who are being victimized. There are effective instances of satire that are aimed at bringing attention to the plight of victims, but this is clearly not one of them.