3 ms·

It isn’t ever sexual abuse to refuse to fuck someone.

by SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago

DangitBobby 5y ago
What? Where did that come from?
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  It isn’t sexual abuse for a jailer to not fuck the people they’re jailing. Describing it as abuse because of the logic that people who are in prison can’t reasonably non-coercively consent to sex with the people who are controlling every aspect of their life doesn’t make sense in the context that it isn’t abuse to not have sex.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    That's not at all what the original comment said. It said, to paraphrase, that denying teenage boys their sexual agency is itself a form of abuse. I have no idea where you even got your original idea.
    - ufmace 5y ago
      There was a pretty good SSC article on kind of the same subject: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/04/determining-consent/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/04/determining-consent/ Basic idea is, yeah it feels a very wrong and likely to cover up lots of serious abuse to say that jailers are allowed to have sex with their inmates. But if you're in custody in a same-sex facility and jailers are the only people of the opposite sex you're ever in contact with, it seems also a little wrong to effectively say you're not allowed to have any sex with anyone ever (presuming you're not homosexual of course).
infogulch 5y ago
Yes, but GP's assertion is that it's sexual abuse when a third party interferes to prevent consenting individuals from participating in sexual activity.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  It still isn’t sexual abuse to prevent someone from having sex with someone else either.
  - infogulch 5y ago
    But it's not nearly as clear-cut as your original statement. Like, there's no story that would convince me that refusing sex with someone is somehow sexual abuse (well there is marriage, but the accepted recourse there is divorce). And, generally, preventing other consenting individuals from having sex would would fall under 'being an asshole' at worst not 'sexual abuse', but maybe there's some circumstance where the former could be elevated to the latter. My point is that the implied certainty of your statements higher than warranted.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    It's not sexual abuse, but it is abuse.

It isn’t ever sexual abuse to refuse to fuck someone.

DangitBobby 5y ago

What? Where did that come from?

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
It isn’t sexual abuse for a jailer to not fuck the people they’re jailing. Describing it as abuse because of the logic that people who are in prison can’t reasonably non-coercively consent to sex with the people who are controlling every aspect of their life doesn’t make sense in the context that it isn’t abuse to not have sex.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  That's not at all what the original comment said. It said, to paraphrase, that denying teenage boys their sexual agency is itself a form of abuse. I have no idea where you even got your original idea.
  - ufmace 5y ago
    There was a pretty good SSC article on kind of the same subject: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/04/determining-consent/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/04/determining-consent/ Basic idea is, yeah it feels a very wrong and likely to cover up lots of serious abuse to say that jailers are allowed to have sex with their inmates. But if you're in custody in a same-sex facility and jailers are the only people of the opposite sex you're ever in contact with, it seems also a little wrong to effectively say you're not allowed to have any sex with anyone ever (presuming you're not homosexual of course).

infogulch 5y ago

Yes, but GP's assertion is that it's sexual abuse when a third party interferes to prevent consenting individuals from participating in sexual activity.

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
It still isn’t sexual abuse to prevent someone from having sex with someone else either.
- infogulch 5y ago
  But it's not nearly as clear-cut as your original statement. Like, there's no story that would convince me that refusing sex with someone is somehow sexual abuse (well there is marriage, but the accepted recourse there is divorce). And, generally, preventing other consenting individuals from having sex would would fall under 'being an asshole' at worst not 'sexual abuse', but maybe there's some circumstance where the former could be elevated to the latter. My point is that the implied certainty of your statements higher than warranted.
- int_19h 5y ago
  It's not sexual abuse, but it is abuse.