And I'm saying that anyone who has taken an introductory psychology class could tell you that's hogwash.Addai67 wrote...
You're missing my point. I'm not saying that those things did not exist, but that they did not have the same psychological impact on people as they do on us.
Modifié par krylo, 26 février 2010 - 09:00 .
I think Zevran needs more PTSD. I figure since he's probably about 30 most of it faded already.krylo wrote...
Further--simply because they 'toughed out' aches and pains and didn't have names like 'chronic depression' or 'post traumatic stress disorder' does not, in any case, mean that such things did not exist. The same things would cause the same scars in the psyche of these people as they do in modern man--the fact that said scars were far more COMMON does not make it RIGHT.
Well he's slept with me.Creature 1 wrote...
I think Zevran needs more PTSD. I figure since he's probably about 30 most of it faded already.krylo wrote...
Further--simply because they 'toughed out' aches and pains and didn't have names like 'chronic depression' or 'post traumatic stress disorder' does not, in any case, mean that such things did not exist. The same things would cause the same scars in the psyche of these people as they do in modern man--the fact that said scars were far more COMMON does not make it RIGHT.
LOL What does modern psychology have to do with anything? It can tell us nothing- zero- about the mindset of people in the past. You are talking about it as if it is a religion which asserts universal truths that apply across all times and places. Perhaps this is one of our difficulties- many people do think of psychology in those terms, whereas I don't accept that it is even a science like other sciences.krylo wrote...
And I'm saying that anyone who has taken an introductory psychology class could tell you that's hogwash.Addai67 wrote...
You're missing my point. I'm not saying that those things did not exist, but that they did not have the same psychological impact on people as they do on us.
Addai67 wrote...
LOL What does modern psychology have to do with anything? It can tell us nothing- zero- about the mindset of people in the past. You are talking about it as if it is a religion which asserts universal truths that apply across all times and places. Perhaps this is one of our difficulties- many people do think of psychology in those terms, whereas I don't accept that it is even a science like other sciences.krylo wrote...
And I'm saying that anyone who has taken an introductory psychology class could tell you that's hogwash.Addai67 wrote...
You're missing my point. I'm not saying that those things did not exist, but that they did not have the same psychological impact on people as they do on us.
Duress.Still trying to wrap my head around the idea that you think Zevran having oral sex with a woman so as to lure her into a false sense of safety before killing her is better than him having it with her because he likes her and she convinced him to spare her life.
Tired of trying to figure it out, to be honest.
Modifié par krylo, 26 février 2010 - 09:15 .
Addai67 wrote...
...yes, get out of dying by a) killing him first orkrylo wrote...
Either way, they only had sex because she was trying to get out of dying: "After I killed the guards, she got down on her hands and knees and begged for her life... rather aptly, I might add. So I joined her in the carriage for the night and left the next morning."appealing to his sympathy and then tricking him. Excuse me if I don't find the picture of innocent woman-terrible man very fitting to the reality of the situation. As I said in my earlier post, they were both playing a game. In this case, she was the one who actually played it better, since he was in fact prepared to let her go.
While I agree with this, I'll be on Zevran's side for a few minutes and say that I don't believe he sees it as wrong at all and that has everything to do with his upbringing and the Antivan culture. It could be that the women didn't see it as duress or particularly stressful on their psyche either, given the types of "games" the Crows play in Antiva.krylo wrote...
Duress.
In the first instance it is still bad but it is perfectly consensual sex. Perfectly consensual sex + murder = bad.
In the second instance there's a good chance that she is unable to think clearly and therefore is unable to give consent in any meaningful way. Statutory rape + murder = worse.
Simple Andrea.AndreaDraco wrote...
This explains everything for me. She was playing the game far better than Zev. And she didn't had sex with him to save her life but to trick him. She was smart, and she was not a victim. She seduced him in this case. How can someone read this story as a sexually-abusive situation is beyond my imagination.
I agree with you on Zevran not seeing it as wrong.Monica21 wrote...
While I agree with this, I'll be on Zevran's side for a few minutes and say that I don't believe he sees it as wrong at all and that has everything to do with his upbringing and the Antivan culture. It could be that the women didn't see it as duress or particularly stressful on their psyche either, given the types of "games" the Crows play in Antiva.krylo wrote...
Duress.
In the first instance it is still bad but it is perfectly consensual sex. Perfectly consensual sex + murder = bad.
In the second instance there's a good chance that she is unable to think clearly and therefore is unable to give consent in any meaningful way. Statutory rape + murder = worse.
Umm... if we're still talking about the mage here -- isn't it possible that everything she did was her own attempt to turn the tables on Zevran (she did try to kill him twice, and from what he knew of her going in, she seemed to be a manipulator on that level already -- remember he says something that he got the impression that her politicking involved sex somehow)?krylo wrote...
Duress.Addai67 wrote...
Still trying to wrap my head around the idea that you think Zevran having oral sex with a woman so as to lure her into a false sense of safety before killing her is better than him having it with her because he likes her and she convinced him to spare her life.
Tired of trying to figure it out, to be honest.
In the first instance it is still bad but it is perfectly consensual sex. Perfectly consensual sex + murder = bad.
In the second instance there's a good chance that she is unable to think clearly and therefore is unable to give consent in any meaningful way. Statutory rape + murder = worse.
Modifié par jenovan, 26 février 2010 - 09:27 .
Modifié par krylo, 26 février 2010 - 09:28 .
And since we only have Zevran's point of view, all we're left to do is speculate about his female marks and impose our own experiences and culture on them.krylo wrote...
I agree with you on Zevran not seeing it as wrong.Monica21 wrote...
While I agree with this, I'll be on Zevran's side for a few minutes and say that I don't believe he sees it as wrong at all and that has everything to do with his upbringing and the Antivan culture. It could be that the women didn't see it as duress or particularly stressful on their psyche either, given the types of "games" the Crows play in Antiva.krylo wrote...
Duress.
In the first instance it is still bad but it is perfectly consensual sex. Perfectly consensual sex + murder = bad.
In the second instance there's a good chance that she is unable to think clearly and therefore is unable to give consent in any meaningful way. Statutory rape + murder = worse.
That's been my argument all along.
And what sort of controlled experiment can you do on the medieval peasant circa 1200? Your psych 101 class included lessons on time travel, I take it?krylo wrote...
Then you don't know anything of psychology. It's backed by neurosciences and psychiatry at this point. This is actual "here is how the chemical receptors work, this is how they get damaged" etc. kind of thing. This isn't the sort of stuff that just changes because someone is in a medieval setting.
We think we're a lot smarter than we are, that's my take on things. But it's neither here nor there.The human brain is a bunch of chemicals and elecrtical impulses. It's not magic. It can be understood. We are getting there.
This discussion is going to go nowhere, since I think such terms as statutory rape are nonsense in the context.In the second instance there's a good chance that she is unable to think clearly and therefore is unable to give consent in any meaningful way. Statutory rape + murder = worse.
krylo wrote...
Simple Andrea.AndreaDraco wrote...
This explains everything for me. She was playing the game far better than Zev. And she didn't had sex with him to save her life but to trick him. She was smart, and she was not a victim. She seduced him in this case. How can someone read this story as a sexually-abusive situation is beyond my imagination.
I tell you I'm going to kill you, but I stop to give you the elevator eyes. You realize I'm probably interested in sex, and at the very least it would delay you dying.
Is you having sex with me truly consensual at that point?
It's an ameliorating factor. Like I said in an earlier post, if the situation were reversed I don't think Zevran would feel humiliated or degraded. But we really don't know, because all we get is a very short story and only one point of view.jenovan wrote...
Umm... if we're still talking about the mage here -- isn't it possible that everything she did was her own attempt to turn the tables on Zevran (she did try to kill him twice, and from what he knew of her going in, she seemed to be a manipulator on that level already)?
If she proposes sex as not just a way to survive, but to make her own assassination attempt, is that still duress?
(Honest question!)
Sexual abuse is not the same as taking advantage of a damsel in distress. No, I don't think she was abused, but yes, he took advantage of her. If his intent was to kill, then he should have simply killed her. To be perfectly blunt, what pleasure is she getting out of giving a ******, except for buying a bit more time?AndreaDraco wrote...
See. Let me give you this version of the story. The mage sees, maybe from the look on Zevran's face when she look at her, that she can play with him, trick him and then dump him somewhere. She plays her cards. She plays the game and it is only by a total fluke that she dies nonetheless, because Zev was ready to let her go.
We can't know what was in the mage's head, what her feeling toward Zevran were. But portraying him as an abusive male who take advantages of a damsel in distress is wrong, and goes even against who Zevran really is. A man who certainly enjoy sex in a luscious way, but certainly not a rapist - his soul, his very soul the Warden can discover by talking to him extensively, his upbringing in the wh***house... everything points in a clearly different direction. If anything, I say he has a great respect for women and men both (see also the Prince/earring story).
Probably not, oddly enough.Monica21 wrote...
I can't help but wonder if this discussion would be different if the gender of his marks were male rather than female.
But Zevran is never going to bring up the horrible poetry.
But still there's a similar situation showing up in the TV series 24, and even though she succeeded too, it was still very bad.
Modifié par Cuddlezarro, 26 février 2010 - 09:36 .
I would just like to point out that the BJ is the interpretation of yourself and krylo on rather thin grounds. You're then wanting to make sexual abuse out of the mark's willingness to have sex with Zevran in order to turn the tables on him, which is a further stretch of interpretation.Monica21 wrote...
Sexual abuse is not the same as taking advantage of a damsel in distress. No, I don't think she was abused, but yes, he took advantage of her. If his intent was to kill, then he should have simply killed her. To be perfectly blunt, what pleasure is she getting out of giving a ******, except for buying a bit more time?
Shh! Spoilers!Cuddlezarro wrote...
I take it your talking about when Renea(sp?) went a tad to knife happy on whats his face (im trying not to call him leoban despite being the same actor but I cant remember the guys name...)
Not necessarily your argument, but "Zevran is a rapist" argument. For example, if the mage was male, would anyone give it a second thought or would it just be "oh, that's Antiva for you."krylo wrote...
Probably not, oddly enough.Monica21 wrote...
I can't help but wonder if this discussion would be different if the gender of his marks were male rather than female.
I'd be making the same argument either way. I have in the past.
Normally, however, people making my argument wouldn't do so if a man was raped, because, lawl, you can't rape men! I understand where you're coming from, however, I believe that a man in such a position could still fully be raped (ergo my placing andrea in the position of the maiden, even though I'm pretty sure Andrea is male, and gay unless that post was someone else with a REMARKABLY similar avatar and name).
Honestly the oral doesn't matter.Addai67 wrote...
I would just like to point out that the BJ is the interpretation of yourself and krylo on rather thin grounds. You're then wanting to make sexual abuse out of the mark's willingness to have sex with Zevran in order to turn the tables on him, which is a further stretch of interpretation.Monica21 wrote...
Sexual abuse is not the same as taking advantage of a damsel in distress. No, I don't think she was abused, but yes, he took advantage of her. If his intent was to kill, then he should have simply killed her. To be perfectly blunt, what pleasure is she getting out of giving a ******, except for buying a bit more time?
Man, this discussion is weird.
Modifié par krylo, 26 février 2010 - 09:42 .
krylo wrote...
I believe that a man in such a position could still fully be raped (ergo my placing andrea in the position of the maiden, even though I'm pretty sure Andrea is male, and gay unless that post was someone else with a REMARKABLY similar avatar and name).
Monica21 wrote...
Sexual abuse is not the same as taking
advantage of a damsel in distress. No, I don't think she was abused,
but yes, he took advantage of her. If his intent was to kill, then he
should have simply killed her. To be perfectly blunt, what pleasure is she getting out of giving a ******, except for buying a bit more time?
Retour en haut