|
LeJackal posted:Thats a long winded way of saying that though you are aware of potential power disparity opportunity outside of a purely physical sense, you promptly ignore them in the context of a sexual interaction. It's okay though, that kind of situation-specific blindness due to deep-seated misogyny is pretty commonplace. LeJackal's post took me a while to process, but I think I ultimately feel like LeJackal is correct. (That is some drat fine passive voice, because this is causing me to think far harder than I expected.) In BJ2K's scenario, it really didn't matter that he had the physical advantage, because social norms still bound him to restrain himself and rethink the situation; he "only" fractured her foot in self defense versus anything more damaging like fighting back further, but the very situation McAlister describes (ideally limiting one's own actions due to conscious realization of power imbalance) is the one that potentially left BJ2K able to experience "erosion of resolve," versus not giving up (not as in "BJ2K opted for that outcome" but as in "during that moment, post-pushing-her-back, no other options seemed valid to him given her tenacity."). Put in other words, had the genders been reversed, and if the woman fractured the man's foot but the man still advanced, so the woman then kicked as hard as possible to dislocate his knee because she feared for herself, would that be unexpected? Then, taking that theoretical scenario, if the genders were reversed again (e.g. if BJ2K as the man-victim had dislocated her knee after he fractured her foot), is your opinion of BJ2K the same as you'd have had for the woman-victim in the previous theoretical example? If not, why is it acceptable to say that BJ2K's physical strength makes any difference when no one is saying that there's a legal difference between the two scenarios? This thread is blowing my mind because I started to write this post feeling like LeJackal is advancing an MRA dog whistle and I just can't see/explain it (and to a point I fear that my post here could be misused to that direction in a way I cannot see) while I (still) view McAlister's post as, "Come on, factor in reality, it is thoroughly disingenuous to say that having the option to exercise physical restraint versus not having that option does not affect the dynamics of the situation immensely," which seems pretty legit, if not a tangent; that said, just writing out my view of McAlister's post makes me experience cognitive dissonance in that McAlister's post does make me feel like I'm implying, "He could have resisted if he wanted to because of the physical power disparity," which makes LeJackal's post seem valid again.  It's taking everything I have to not go down the rabbit hole of comparing their post histories. This is a surprisingly thought-provoking thread, at least for me.
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 04:49 |
|