I hate to get all male-gaze-y, but I would say that if a guy is sticking his dick in something, he's pretty much consented to the act of *him* penetrating something/one.

So consent is only applicable to being penetrated, and not the reverse? That's a bit too double standard-y for me. Why would a man able to consent to some nebulous potential person having sex with him, but not a woman?

That's not what I said. I was talking only about the issue of consent as it pertains to a man who is currently engaged in the act of putting his dick in something/someone. While men are certainly raped, that's generally not the way it happens (i.e., someone grabs a guy's dick and puts it in something/someone). If a man's dick is in someone/something, I tend to assume he wanted it there. Which might be a wildly inaccurate assumption, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

I said nothing about whether a man versus a woman would be able to consent to a nebulous potential person having sex with him/her.

t edit Christ. I'm into Andrea Dworkin territory, and I really don't want to be.

If it weren't for the Dollhouse, the kidnapped girl in the pilot would have been raped and murdered. It was very specifically set up so that only "Miss Penn" could have put that together in time to prevent it.

Again, exactly. (And this is an awful lot of Jessica and I on the same page. Mark your calendars!)

Buuuuut .... and it's a big but ... just because the organization does some things which are fundamentally good, in no way absolves it of things it does which are bad. It just means not all the services it offers are squicky.

For example, if you hire a prostitute to have sex and clean your house, you will only get charged for hiring for sex. If you hire someone who works as a prostitute to do your laundry once a week, she'll only get in trouble for that if she doesn't pay her taxes.

ETA: Although she may end up with a government job afterward.

I just want to preface by saying I know very well how quickly a conversation like this can start feeling like an attack, and I want to be clear that I'm only asking because I'm curious about your position, NOT because I want to prove you WRONG WRONG WRONG or force you to represent a whole school of thought.

That may or may not make a difference to you, but I know I've been in the position of feeling attacked like that and I'd rather not do it to anyone else.

And then I tried to put into words what my question was and completely lost track. I'm still not quite sure at what point consent is possible versus impossible, if you assume (as I do) that consent can be withdrawn at ANY time. And I think it's bound up also with the issue of lying -- even if we posit that the base personality can consent to whatever happens in the Dollhouse, or that the imprints can consent to sex with the clients, the fact that the clients are always (by definition) concealing a major fact (we never met before, your memories are fabricated) makes consent murky. On the other hand, I'm not sure that lying necessarily negates consent. And then again what does "consent" mean anyway, other than (and this is how I've been using it) a legal thing meaning the other party is not legally guilty of rape.

I think. And Steph, you don't have to be the one to answer it, either. I'm being pussyfootish about this because I think it's always sensitive and potentially offensive, but also interesting and worth discussing. Now I'm going to buy a car, which... maybe I'll have sex in the back of one day. Okay, so I couldn't really connect it. Bye, y'all.

Now I'm going to buy a car, which... maybe I'll have sex in the back of one day.

Emily, what did we JUST SAY about the lack of room in the rear?

what did we JUST SAY about the lack of room in the rear?

Oh, dear. What a straight line setup.

The reason Glory holes are not comparable is that both penetrator and Pentratee can move away at any time. The situation would be different if someone was chained to a glory hole.

I know this is a simplistic argument, but I'd be curious to see the reactions when Echo is sold to someone nearly three times her age and not remotely attractive for a weekend of hot sex and bondage games. So far Motorcycle Racing Client and Most Dangerous Game Guy were young and attractive. Perhaps for some people (not to imply any of you fine discerning people) the mental image of two fit young people gettin' it on is more acceptable than the scenario I suggest. Something like Echo and an obviously undesirable client would make the rape accusations more clear and would lead more people to think that what's being done to her is Not a Good (or Arousing) Thing. (Of course, that presupposes that the writers actually WANT to head in that direction, rather than the 'oh cool, hot women available at any time' situation.)

I'd be curious to see the reactions when Echo is sold to someone nearly three times her age and not remotely attractive for a weekend of hot sex and bondage games.

You would think this is the average customer, wouldn't you?

You would think this is the average customer, wouldn't you?

Bill Gates wants to get it on.

And Steph, you don't have to be the one to answer it, either.

For the record, I don't feel attacked. I tend to enjoy conversations like this, even though I know I'm a hardass on things like rape and consent.