4 ms·

The Overton window has shifted such that two adults agreeing to engage in sexual activity in front of a camera can be in any way considered “non-consensual”? Wi

The Overton window has shifted such that two adults agreeing to engage in sexual activity in front of a camera can be in any way considered “non-consensual”? Wild. Do you think adult actors agreeing to engage in sexual activity in front of a camera, but only because they have chosen to do that for a living when other viable employment alternatives were available, is also “non-consensual”?

willcipriano 3y ago
"Hey I made this guy really mad go fight him for me" "No he will kill me!" "Alternatively you could have sex and let me film it" Consent.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  The problem is in line 1, not line 3. There would be some serious issues with 3 if 1 was a fake threat meant to push you into 3, but it's not. The vast majority go along with 1.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    I see it as rape with a implied third party threat of violence instead of a first party one. You may feel differently if you feel that men's bodies belong to the state to be used in wars.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      The violence was already there. It's not a threat to say and honestly mean "otherwise nothing changes (99% of people pick this option)". The consent issues are all in the forced service itself, and apply to every man equally, whether or not they take the gay proof exemption.
      - godelski 3y ago
        The violence was not "already there." The violence is generated by the men who are not at risk of going to war. There's an old saying about two people of different nationalities: The difference between you and me is smaller than the difference between us and our respective leaders. Leaders must convince the public that some person in a far away land hates them and is coming to kill them, because otherwise no one gives a fuck. Because frankly, no one is going to come into contact with another. Normal people are not the ones going to invade other countries and claim territory.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        I meant that the violence is a combination of "already caused by the leaders" and "foregone conclusion". If you opt not to take the gay sex exemption, your fate is the same as if you had never been asked.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        godelski 3y ago
        > and "foregone conclusion" I'm unconvinced and be hard pressed to be. > your fate is the same as if you had never been asked. This is absolutely not true and is literally the entire reason people go to great lengths to do it. Not understanding this is probably why you're not understanding the rest. I'm not sure how you don't get it because if you're gay you're not going to military service and you're not going to jail. If you're not gay (or not faking) your choice is military service or jail. That's not "the same" no matter how you put it.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > I'm unconvinced and be hard pressed to be. The leaders do bad things whether or not a few gay people join or get exemptions. Why are you not convinced of that? > This is absolutely not true and is literally the entire reason people go to great lengths to do it. I said if you don't take the gay option, your fate is the same as if you had never been asked. You do military service or go to jail, like everyone else. You're talking about taking it. Of course it's different if you take it.
godelski 3y ago
> in any way considered “non-consensual”? Wild. Consensual means without coercion and being of sound mind. Let's put it this way, do you consider a quid-pro-quo scenario where a boss will promote or give a raise to a female employee if she has sex with him "consensual?" Obviously this is arguable in both directions (as we could say that this is a contract between two adults, but then again, prostitution is illegal). What about if we change this to "Have sex with your boss or be fired?" The latter case is less ambiguous, but both cases would generally be considered non-consensual in Western legal systems and has been that way for quite some time. This is nothing new... If you understand the above but fail to think "You *must* enter the military service, for 3 years, and are likely to go to combat and have a high risk of being killed or seriously injured (physically or even more likely mentally), or you can go to jail, OR put your dick in some guy's ass" I think you can understand how that constitutes significant cohesion. If you are unable to understand this, I am here to inform you that you are overfit and not robust to general problems.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > hat about if we change this to "Have sex with your boss or be fired?" Definite coercion as stated. But if the boss is already set on firing everyone in the department, but lets one or two people stay on if they have sex with him, I consider that to be a roundabout method of quid-pro-quo prostitution. Plus embezzlement. There's no retaliation if they say no, they go home like everyone else. And the military example is similar, there's no retaliation, most men are doing the service. The offer of an alternate option, one that very few take, is not the problem here.
  - godelski 3y ago
    > But if the boss is already set on firing everyone in the department, but lets one or two people stay on if they have sex with him But we'd still call this coercion. The "dual" of this is "have sex with me or be fired." Just because not everyone gets to have that opportunity does not mean it is not the same question stated differently. > And the military example is similar, there's no retaliation, most men are doing the service. There is retaliation, it's called jail. Just because others are doing it doesn't make it any less of a coercion. This scales too.
superb_dev 3y ago
Two adults agreeing to engage in sexual activity in front of a camera, because their only other option is forced military service.

willcipriano 3y ago

"Hey I made this guy really mad go fight him for me" "No he will kill me!" "Alternatively you could have sex and let me film it" Consent.

Dylan16807 3y ago
The problem is in line 1, not line 3. There would be some serious issues with 3 if 1 was a fake threat meant to push you into 3, but it's not. The vast majority go along with 1.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  I see it as rape with a implied third party threat of violence instead of a first party one. You may feel differently if you feel that men's bodies belong to the state to be used in wars.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    The violence was already there. It's not a threat to say and honestly mean "otherwise nothing changes (99% of people pick this option)". The consent issues are all in the forced service itself, and apply to every man equally, whether or not they take the gay proof exemption.
    - godelski 3y ago
      The violence was not "already there." The violence is generated by the men who are not at risk of going to war. There's an old saying about two people of different nationalities: The difference between you and me is smaller than the difference between us and our respective leaders. Leaders must convince the public that some person in a far away land hates them and is coming to kill them, because otherwise no one gives a fuck. Because frankly, no one is going to come into contact with another. Normal people are not the ones going to invade other countries and claim territory.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        I meant that the violence is a combination of "already caused by the leaders" and "foregone conclusion". If you opt not to take the gay sex exemption, your fate is the same as if you had never been asked.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        godelski 3y ago
        > and "foregone conclusion" I'm unconvinced and be hard pressed to be. > your fate is the same as if you had never been asked. This is absolutely not true and is literally the entire reason people go to great lengths to do it. Not understanding this is probably why you're not understanding the rest. I'm not sure how you don't get it because if you're gay you're not going to military service and you're not going to jail. If you're not gay (or not faking) your choice is military service or jail. That's not "the same" no matter how you put it.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > I'm unconvinced and be hard pressed to be. The leaders do bad things whether or not a few gay people join or get exemptions. Why are you not convinced of that? > This is absolutely not true and is literally the entire reason people go to great lengths to do it. I said if you don't take the gay option, your fate is the same as if you had never been asked. You do military service or go to jail, like everyone else. You're talking about taking it. Of course it's different if you take it.

godelski 3y ago

> in any way considered “non-consensual”? Wild. Consensual means without coercion and being of sound mind. Let's put it this way, do you consider a quid-pro-quo scenario where a boss will promote or give a raise to a female employee if she has sex with him "consensual?" Obviously this is arguable in both directions (as we could say that this is a contract between two adults, but then again, prostitution is illegal). What about if we change this to "Have sex with your boss or be fired?" The latter case is less ambiguous, but both cases would generally be considered non-consensual in Western legal systems and has been that way for quite some time. This is nothing new... If you understand the above but fail to think "You *must* enter the military service, for 3 years, and are likely to go to combat and have a high risk of being killed or seriously injured (physically or even more likely mentally), or you can go to jail, OR put your dick in some guy's ass" I think you can understand how that constitutes significant cohesion. If you are unable to understand this, I am here to inform you that you are overfit and not robust to general problems.

Dylan16807 3y ago
> hat about if we change this to "Have sex with your boss or be fired?" Definite coercion as stated. But if the boss is already set on firing everyone in the department, but lets one or two people stay on if they have sex with him, I consider that to be a roundabout method of quid-pro-quo prostitution. Plus embezzlement. There's no retaliation if they say no, they go home like everyone else. And the military example is similar, there's no retaliation, most men are doing the service. The offer of an alternate option, one that very few take, is not the problem here.
- godelski 3y ago
  > But if the boss is already set on firing everyone in the department, but lets one or two people stay on if they have sex with him But we'd still call this coercion. The "dual" of this is "have sex with me or be fired." Just because not everyone gets to have that opportunity does not mean it is not the same question stated differently. > And the military example is similar, there's no retaliation, most men are doing the service. There is retaliation, it's called jail. Just because others are doing it doesn't make it any less of a coercion. This scales too.

superb_dev 3y ago

Two adults agreeing to engage in sexual activity in front of a camera, because their only other option is forced military service.