Milovana.com

"Safe, Sane, and Consensual" is a lovely mantra that's quite comforting to many-- but saying the words doesn't actually make it a reality.

Life isn't safe, and that's okay. Not everything is safe-- should skydiving be illegal?
Life is emotional and overwhelming-- Not everyone is fully 'sane'-- should the mental ill spend their lives celibate?
I regard consent as sacrosanct-- but over time, minds are extremely malleable. Consent can be manufactured, to use a cliche. And however one came to one's consent, it's still consent, isn't it?
--
But that's a discussion less about my project than about my philosophy. The participants in this project won't be nearly lucky enough.

S

SophiaStafford wrote:Consent can be manufactured, to use a cliche. And however one came to one's consent, it's still consent, isn't it?

Is "consent," consensual? By definition, it must be - circular logic at its finest.

But is doing something that another instructs you to do always the same as granting consent? Most emphatically, NO.

Consent cannot be given under duress. Duress negates the ability to grant consent. Participants may consent (whether informedly or not) to enter the "project," however they may be placed under duress while in the midst of the "project," thus preventing them from granting consent at that point.

I believe that is the concern here.

justanotherguy wrote:Consent cannot be given under duress.

What constitutes "duress"?

If you mean the duress caused by "obsessive sexual desires that render one idiotic and irrational to the point of potential self-destructiveness", well then I must ask: when AREN'T men 'under duress'?


S

*Grabs some popcorn* :D welcome back Sophia....

SophiaStafford wrote: What constitutes "duress"?

If you mean the duress caused by "obsessive sexual desires that render one idiotic and irrational to the point of potential self-destructiveness", well then I must ask: when AREN'T men 'under duress'?


S

Quite often actually, but don't let me spoil your well thought out generalization.

Sophia obviously preys on people with weak willpower. Don't over think it.

Well said Choice.

I don't normally reply to the SS threads as it's just the usual witch-hunt and another hunter really wouldn't make a difference, but I genuinely think you have something mentally wrong with you lady. You always refer to men as sex-obsessed idiots addicted to your beauty or dominance and if nothing else I find it, as a man, fucking insulting. You pass off the blame, and in turn the guilt, for doing the things that you do to men onto their own desires and addictions, do you not ever wrestle morally that in your own way you dangle a big rock of crack right in front to a potential crack addict? If you're coercing people into doing what you want initially, and then sucking them deeper and deeper in then you lady are as responsible for that person's well being. If you take advantage of deep rooted desires they didn't ask for in the first place then, to be as frank as possible, you are a very bad person.

You've clearly done some sort of psychology course because you've got that "I know how to the whole world works" attitude about you... You're more a cliché than the men who's lives you ruin.

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned RACK yet, only SSC (safe sane and consensual).
RACK = Risk-aware consensual kink

glasgowguy wrote:I don't normally reply to the SS threads as it's just the usual witch-hunt and another hunter really wouldn't make a difference, but I genuinely think you have something mentally wrong with you lady. You always refer to men as sex-obsessed idiots addicted to your beauty or dominance and if nothing else I find it, as a man, fucking insulting. You pass off the blame, and in turn the guilt, for doing the things that you do to men onto their own desires and addictions, do you not ever wrestle morally that in your own way you dangle a big rock of crack right in front to a potential crack addict? If you're coercing people into doing what you want initially, and then sucking them deeper and deeper in then you lady are as responsible for that person's well being. If you take advantage of deep rooted desires they didn't ask for in the first place then, to be as frank as possible, you are a very bad person.

You've clearly done some sort of psychology course because you've got that "I know how to the whole world works" attitude about you... You're more a cliché than the men who's lives you ruin.

That's my opinion as well, thanks

Incubo wrote:

SophiaStafford wrote: What constitutes "duress"?

If you mean the duress caused by "obsessive sexual desires that render one idiotic and irrational to the point of potential self-destructiveness", well then I must ask: when AREN'T men 'under duress'?


S

Quite often actually, but don't let me spoil your well thought out generalization.

Oh, don't be so literal!

I know about males who are 100% gay, I've met males who genuinely 100% devoid of any desire akin to sexuality. And I've encountered males having a stomach flu or undergoing fight or flight.

By far though, the largest class of males who are immune to me are men who are genuinely in love with their wife or girlfriend. To resist me, all you really need is to love anyone or anything more than you love me and being my victim.

Turns out love is very rare in the world.

S

glasgowguy wrote: You always refer to men as sex-obsessed idiots addicted to your beauty or dominance and if nothing else I find it, as a man, fucking insulting.

That's because I'm addressing the males who ARE sex-obsessed idiots addicted to my beauty and my dominance. :)

And strictly speaking, it's a little naughty of me to even stereotype losers as males-- the weakness I'm attracted to is in no way limited to males. But realistically, males do make up the bulk of people who seek me out online.

More on your other points later.
S

SophiaStafford wrote:

glasgowguy wrote: You always refer to men as sex-obsessed idiots addicted to your beauty or dominance and if nothing else I find it, as a man, fucking insulting.

That's because I'm addressing the males who ARE sex-obsessed idiots addicted to my beauty and my dominance. :)

And strictly speaking, it's a little naughty of me to even stereotype losers as males-- the weakness I'm attracted to is in no way limited to males. But realistically, males do make up the bulk of people who seek me out online.

More on your other points later.
S

Well maybe refer to them as such, rather than just calling them men. You wouldn't like it if I described all prostitutes as women would you?

SophiaStafford wrote:

Incubo wrote:

SophiaStafford wrote: What constitutes "duress"?

If you mean the duress caused by "obsessive sexual desires that render one idiotic and irrational to the point of potential self-destructiveness", well then I must ask: when AREN'T men 'under duress'?


S

Quite often actually, but don't let me spoil your well thought out generalization.

Oh, don't be so literal!

I know about males who are 100% gay, I've met males who genuinely 100% devoid of any desire akin to sexuality. And I've encountered males having a stomach flu or undergoing fight or flight.

By far though, the largest class of males who are immune to me are men who are genuinely in love with their wife or girlfriend. To resist me, all you really need is to love anyone or anything more than you love me and being my victim.

Turns out love is very rare in the world.

S

Hmm...so let me see if I've got this right. Any man who doesn't lust after you with complete reckless abandon must be one of the following:
1. Gay
2. Medically or psychologically frigid
3. Sick
4. Scared
5. In love with someone else.

Have I got that right?