Oh well. I have more outfits for Cap d'Agde than I will ever be able to wear. But an interesting question: that dress was extremely see-through so it didn't leave much of anything to imagination to begin with. Now it was cut in a way which fully reveals my lady bits (cut off entirely around my breasts and cut open in front up to the navel).
Which version do you fined nicer, sexier, more attractive? In which version would you like to meet me in Cap? In the one where you can see my body through the sheerness or the one where you can see my bits out in the open and don't even notice that the dress was sheer to begin with?
Side note: I was actually wearing a very elegant evening dress for the shoot and T wanted to cut that one too and I said no. He offered to buy me a new one but sorry... I couldn't see that beautiful dress in pieces, it would have broken my heart. It's not that it was expensive (he was ready to pay for it) but it is just so lovely... The one he cut was a 5 euros gimmick bought by D online and which I had only used a couple of times as a beach dress...
The dress intact would be my personal choice, but in torn form would definitely invite people to wonder what you'd been up to. Transformed from sensual to provocative. The torn form was also alluding to the other times your Cap d'Agde outfits have been particularly provocative, as revealed on these pages in times past.
I can understand your reluctance to sacrifice a nice dress. I imagine even a Temu-style junk one might be safe if it is a particular favourite. But then maybe I'm just projecting my natural aversion to blatant destruction in your direction.
Ok. Let me reveal the thought behind this dilemma. Of course I know I don't have enough people ready to contribute to my dilemmas to do any sort of poll, but it's still fun to try so here it is.
There is, according to Baumeister, a big gravity gap, a huge difference between how serious the crime is considered by the victim and by the perpetrator. Plus, I believe we females have an atavic fear of getting raped. In our last, nominally monogamous sexual phase we had to take care about who we let inside us or risk that the resulting offspring would perish for lack of support in its raising. Sure, atavic memories from the other two sexual phases may sometimes provide different erotic phantasms and dreams but in the back of our mind we have inscribed this fear: Don't. Get. Raped. I was attacked and close to get raped three times, once with a blade and I can tell you it's not funny.
So I expected that most guys, as penetrators, would identify with the perpetrator and go for a slap on the wrist (T was to get a -light- beating from me or even less). The idea being "you provoked him, he got inside you for all of 2 min, he didn't hurt you, what's the big deal". This was confirmed.
Had I had female respondents, I would have expected most of them to be appalled by the crime of statutory rape and go for one of the big punishments (report to police or ask D to break his bones and put him in hospital for months).
Ok. Let me reveal the thought behind this dilemma. Of course I know I don't have enough people ready to contribute to my dilemmas to do any sort of poll, but it's still fun to try so here it is.There is, according to Baumeister, a big gravity gap, a huge difference between how serious the crime is considered by the victim and by the perpetrator. Plus, I believe we females have an atavic fear of getting raped. In our last, nominally monogamous sexual phase we had to take care about who we let inside us or risk that the resulting offspring would perish for lack of support in its raising. Sure, atavic memories from the other two sexual phases may sometimes provide different erotic phantasms and dreams but in the back of our mind we have inscribed this fear: Don't. Get. Raped. I was attacked and close to get raped three times, once with a blade and I can tell you it's not funny.So I expected that most guys, as penetrators, would identify with the perpetrator and go for a slap on the wrist (T was to get a -light- beating from me or even less). The idea being "you provoked him, he got inside you for all of 2 min, he didn't hurt you, what's the big deal". This was confirmed.Had I had female respondents, I would have expected most of them to be appalled by the crime of statutory rape and go for one of the big punishments (report to police or ask D to break his bones and put him in hospital for months).
I think in the specific scenario i was worthy a light "Flora beating" because of the specific circumstance, nothing else.
I.E. you, yourself, had planned and were in the middle of enacting a bondage and rape photographic scene, for your portfolio, T clearly(??!!) Didn't hear the "safe-word" and continued in character... had you been snatched from your bicycle, bound to a wall, gagged, had your dress torn and then raped... now that's a very different scenario and well worthy the prison time for T.
I merely responded to the specific scenario of the bondage photography session.
Judge Richie x
Thank you Judge Richie, you're just proving my point. Now I'm not saying one response is better than the others, I'm just saying that men and women would see the gravity of the rape differently.
Because no, it's not in the character of a photographer to rape his model. These scenes are discussed beforehand, sex is accepted beforehand, in certain conditions only, or does not happen. And no, he can't not hear "the safe word", even gagged you can loudly express your opposition...
Thank you Judge Richie, you're just proving my point. Now I'm not saying one response is better than the others, I'm just saying that men and women would see the gravity of the rape differently.Because no, it's not in the character of a photographer to rape his model. These scenes are discussed beforehand, sex is accepted beforehand, in certain conditions only, or does not happen. And no, he can't not hear "the safe word", even gagged you can loudly express your opposition...
Whatever my true opinion, given all the relevant facts... it's still stimulates a discussion, which is a good thing right?
Even when playing the "Devil's Advocate" !
In Character Richie x
It's a challenging subject and your latter posts are still swirling somewhat in my head without really resulting in knowing what to add to this page. Was it wrong of me to categorise your hypothetical situation differently to a case in Melbourne a few years back where a woman was attacked while walking home in the dark? (She was murdered following the deed ) One is case case where consent was given with limits (but not for the rape); the other none. Perhaps my personal experience is too far apart from either scenario.
I guess for me it's coming back to that line of relationship. Rape should not happen for walking home through a park late at night, for wearing a barely-legal swimsuit or because you're polite and chatty to a colleague but make it clear you have no intentions of further involvement.
I still find it hard to fully place those situations in the same category as the hypothetical as the (for want of a better term) 'platonic' line has already been crossed within agreed terms as part of the photo session. But still, an agreement and trust were broken. As mentioned I have no experience remotely approaching this and am not in your shoes (or torn dress as the case may be). Perhaps in the legal sense the violation is in the same league as the other examples above, but in context I'm not quite reaching that conclusion. Is it materially falling short in a way that molifies your need for justice? Perhaps so but, I guess, understandable if you see otherwise, especially in the light of your other experiences. Ultimately it's your decision.
Thank you Steve. Now, I try to refrain from any judgment, my role is just to present arguments against positions expressed. Devil's advocate if you will. Or morality peer reviewer.
So your argument is that rape is rape only if there is no erotic context in which the victim partakes. So if I make out with you am I fair game? Does accepting to pose for you naked mean that you can penetrate me against my will? Now I'm not saying that the penalty should be the same as for the guy who grabs you in the street, and violence should always be an aggravating factor.
Let's take a murder. Most murders don't happen just because some guy wants your wallet and shoots you in the face point blank for it, in most cases the victim knows the killer well. There is a dispute, a shouting game, insults, push comes to shove, a slap, a punch, someone grabs a knife, someone grabs a gun... Is this less of a murder because the victime partook in the violence? Is the victim less dead for this? Sure, there are some mitigating circumstances so the perpetrator will not get the top penalty like the guy who shoots you in the face for twenty dollars.
Same with a rape. The guy who grabs you in the street and punches you unconscious in the face before he rapes you will likely get 15 to 20, T who takes advantage of the model who naively let herself tied up will likely get 7 to 10... Half.
And I'm sure nobody thought at the law of the talion (Tallion?), an eye for an eye... How about if I asked D to rape T? As far as I know both are straight as an arrow, but we can tie up T, I help D get hard and he punished T... One thing I am sure of, if you have never engaged into anal sex, being raped at 50 will freakin hurt... Would that be an appropriate punishment? Would a crime compensate another crime, an immoral act be used as pay back for another immoral act?
Now rape would undoubtedly hurt T more than me... But only physically. Many guys get raped in prison, in the army or in a war... Still, remarkably few need counselling or psychological help afterwards... It looks like nature have made us some a lot more sensitive about not getting raped so humiliating as this may be, guys who get raped get over it a lot faster than women do.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!