[sudo-discuss] post-Bike Smut follow-up

[Sonja Trauss]

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 at 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?
>
> Pete
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Rabbit <rabbitface at 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. :/
>
> -rabbit
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth at 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.
>
> -Pete
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Rabbit <rabbitface at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I 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.
>
> So, facts and not o
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130627/20ff03e2/attachment.html>