I'm curious to hear this discussion too, if you are willing to have it in public. I've never been subject to sexual assault, and perhaps because of that don't get triggered about nonconsensual stuff nearly as easily as many others. Lots of folks who I like and consider my friends are more sensitive to the topic than I am, and so I am eager to hear and learn about how others feel about it so that I can incorporate that information into how I act myself, and how I respond to stuff.
R.
No I'm reading
On Thursday, June 27, 2013, Rabbit wrote:There were other parts of the film that I thought were worse than that part but I don't want to get into details here on the list.Since we're the only ones talking in this thread I'm going to take it off-list now.On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
Rabbit,Well, the email got us off to a less than ideal start, but I think we're recovering ok :)Getting back to the film you brought up -- I'll recap it for anybody who didn't see it, and then give my interpretation.The film depicted a sex act which was consentual on the surface, but at the end, one woman revealed that she had been conspiring to make the other one, a stranger, an unknowning participant in getting her pregnant. The victim of the deception hurried off in horror.First, I acknowledge that the film could be difficult for somebody to watch, especially somebody who's had experiences with nonconsentual sex. I personally felt uncomfortable watching it.But I do not think its intent was to condone the behavior it showed. It seemed to me that by highlighting the lack of consent -- almost treating it as a punch line -- it invited the audience to reflect on the act. By showing the victim's emotional reaction, and the detachment of the perpetrator, it implicitly acknowledged that there was something going on that was at least unusual, or maybe worse. It didn't offer explicit commentary on that, but my impression was that it was the sort of film that was created with the specific intent of provoking reflection or discussion.I'm curious: if the event had offered more opportunity for immediate, and maybe facilitated, group discussion of the films, would you have felt OK about that one being included?PeteOn Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Rabbit <rabbitface@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Pete. Yes, I wasn't sure if you were part of Bike Smut or not.I apologize for misunderstanding part of your message, and thanks for cooling down the potential flame war.Email is a poor medium for this kind of conversation. :/-rabbitOn Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:Rabbit,Thanks for the reply. I think there's a lot of value in what you have to say here.Only a couple points I want to respond to:* Sorry I wasn't clearer, I am not part of Bike Smut, beyond being a personal friend and a supporter of their mission.
* Your summary of my message was overstated in a few places -- in particular, I most definitely did not mean to suggest that YOU are unkind, only that your message was. I don't know the first thing about you, but I do start from the assumption that you are a kind person and aiming to do good. Also, I have of course no desire to silence you. You obviously have worthwhile things to say. I just found it troubling to have those things boiled down to a matter-of-fact and inflammatory "this supports rape culture."* I agree that some more discussion at the end could have been worthwhile; and I think it's pretty common at Bike Smut's events.-PeteOn Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Rabbit <rabbitface@gmail.com> wrote:
So, facts and not oI have a lot to say about this!Pete,
I love the idea of Bike Smut and I wish it success. I hope it will hear this feedback and improve next time.
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss