Just a heads up, I believe she is done responding here now. So don’t think she’s dodging your questions if she doesn’t reply.
I know several people advised her to drop out of the thread.
Slut shaming is such a silly term. People are free to critique behavior. Careless promiscuity is not without risk and not everyone shares, nor is required to yet, libertine positions. Implying spousal rape towards a board member is much more heinous than a comment about an off board person’s fictional Mercedes and gets 1/12431th (yes I measured that) the pushback. It really illustrates the sickness present in online mobs.
Didn’t happen.
Seems to me it can be reasonably read either way.
It may not have been intended to imply rape. But I can easily understand reading it that way. Wouldn’t a consensual encounter stop, or switch to another technique, when one partner said some version of ‘hey, that hurts’? (Presuming no prearranged BSD games; but AIUI those are also supposed to be stopped if becoming traumatic.)
If you’re still reading it that way after simple, clear clarification:
You’re either not paying attention or just stupid.
Where in my scenario was any objection raised by the bottom, or any suggestion of force or rape? People go along with what their partners suggest in the bedroom for lots of reasons. And sometimes, dry anal only hurts after the act, as well.
Pro tip - poppers as a lube replacement are a bad idea.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to read it that way. There are other reasons, but the big one is that MrDibble has never given me any reason to think he would act like rape was not a big deal.
I get why it being sexual at all might seem like crossing a line to people. But I don’t think it was reasonable to assume he was talking about a nonconsensual encounter.
Yeah, the explanation is that it wasn’t meant that way. But the post originally made, without the explanation added later, seems to me that it can reasonably be read that way. (granted, not about murder.)
Maybe @MrDibble didn’t yell ‘Stop, that hurts!’ for whatever reasons of his own. But he also doesn’t seem to think he was traumatized by whatever incident he’s referring to.
ETA: hadn’t seen this reply:
It’s the reference to trauma that makes me think it can be read that way. Consensual sex experiments that just didn’t work out well for at least one of the partners aren’t generally traumatic (unless they went spectacularly wrong somehow, which didn’t seem to be the implication.)
And I didn’t know that last bit; thanks for the info.
I also think folks might be missing the context MrDibble included in his post. Simplified, it said
I’m sorry for your porn-related trauma (possible example a, possible example b)
A was that she went without sex. B was that sex with her husband was painful.
But he never said she did anything in particular, except had some bad experience with porn. Yeah, the list was graphic. But violent? Naw.
Well, no, because I’m not an uptight misandrist and I was a willing bottom. I did it to myself.
I’ve had violent forced sodomy, when I was very young. I know what it’s like, and it was a very different thing from what I was talking about here.
To repeat myself:
No, B was just intended to be about a repressed uptight misandrist’s likely attitudes to anal.
The painful bit was tacked on in the next sentence (actually, two sentence on), because I thought of the “butthurt” line and the connection amused me.
Insults that describe traumatic, injurious sex should be handled carefully. And as I said before, context matters: a man jeering at a woman about traumatic, injurious sex just reads differently from a woman jeering at a man about impotence, cuz patriarchy.
I took that to mean different sorts of trauma. But fair enough: I accept that you didn’t mean to imply violence or rape.
She was perfectly free to express her opinion. She was not free to make up shit just to bolster that opinion. Which is what she did, and I’m a little surprised that no one called her out on that.
I don’t agree. I think @MrDibble’s parodying of this poster’s reprehensible speech by mirroring it - and then observing the double standard when he gets called out for it by posters who give her a pass - is a highly effective rhetorical technique.
Remember, we’re talking about words here. @MrDibble did not punch someone in the face to draw attention to their violence, he used words to draw attention to their similar words.
I think Beck can and will take some time to self-reflect, which, as I said earlier, is a sign of a salvageable poster. It is far to easy to post something as a kneejerk based on your own personal feelings and predjudice and come to think better of it minutes/hours/years later. As some of the posters here have done when an old thread gets zombied.
As for @MrDibble’s post(s), they are biting, vicious, and occasionally a bit too certain of their own certainty as it were. But I don’t have any reason to think they are dishonest, misrepresenting themselves or their experiences, or wishing true harm or trauma to anyone on this board.
How heinous is it to flat out state that a poster is implying spousal rape towards a board member when that “implying” is, at best, an inference?
Agreed–and I appreciate your earlier, very thoughtful post on the topic.
The only “harm” I wish on even the posters I truly dislike is that they leave the board (a fate worse than death, I’m sure we all agree). And I don’t even want that for Becks.
@Beckdawrek only used words as well.
I agree that those posters who have double standards should be called out. But just as I don’t think it’s effective to use the racist-N-word against a poster who’s used it, I don’t think it’s effective to use grotesque sexual imagery against those who do that.
Also, it’s always helpful to mark parody or sarcasm as such.
Agreed. If I didn’t appreciate @MrDibble, I wouldn’t’ve commented about their post.
I said “they both only used words” and your response is “they both only used words”? It sounds like we have found some common ground.