Like most things, I guess it depends upon the situation and if both participants are affected by the spell/pollen. In my last story, I tried to make it free of skanky consent issues as possible, although I probably didn't succeed. *shrug*
Well, sometimes the skanky consent issues are the point. *g* Sex spells/pollen take the whole business out of the normal realm for me and make things less fraught overall, more of a mutual beer goggles moment. If that makes sense.
Roofies or taking advantage of someone so drunk that they can't consent is a whole other business, however. I can't even pretend to be rational about it.
There's serious, and then there's crack. There's roofies, and then there's "everyone woke in the morning really wanting to have sex".
The question is how light we are on the fantasy/scifi element. Where is the line? For example, in most mainstream media I find that the representation of gay and trans people as a comic relief is not only unfunny, but can actually be problematic in cementing the perception of the wide audience. This is something like that: how deeply do I want to be thinking?
Then again, I also think getting someone drunk or high so that they'll agree to sex is rape. Very turned on so that they agree is sort of a grey area, but probably also rape.
Maybe rape is too strong a word. But taking someone who clearly would not agree to certain things, and then turning them on to the point where, fuck yes, they'll agree to anything, isn't right. I don't want to be the cause of someone's morning-after regret.
*Getting someone turned on, I dunno, if you don't use anything aside from your charm, that's sort of fair, isn't it. It's sort of the point.* The person still has one's faculties and free will then , I suppose that's the difference. Everyone has the freedom to make decisions, good or bad, and be convinced or swayed by arguments, but I suppose the difference between persuasion/temptation and force/coercion is allowing the subject the use of his/her faculties to decide and the chance to say no.
If I may take it a step further away from the serious discussion, what if someone is very, very beautiful? It's something that works to their advantage in getting people to sleep with them, definitely. Pretty makes people stupid.
Boobs make people stupid. Just the existence of them.
Well. Beauty might help, it might also not - any way it is another thing that makes people put people in boxes. Which it is hard to get out of. But. In case of a pair of very very pretty boobs and no other factors, it is only my own stupidity if I chase them without the thought of consequence. If I wage the consequences and still decide to go after the boobies, it's my decision, I take responsibility. If someone else takes away from me the responsibility of deciding 'this is ME deciding to lust after those boobs', it sucks and I am prefectly justified to punch and troutslap said person. In this world there is so little that is ever truly one's own, so, I kinda resent if someone takes my responsibility and makes it his/her own. I guess thats my basic beef with these things in theory.
Depends a bit on the intent behind and the circumstances, but, yeah, in a sense of 'making someone to do something one did not consent to' - I'd say either coercion or rape. Does not really mean you cannot write it in a crack-y way and ignore the implications, but if one does think of the implications, then non-consensual=non-consensual, no matter whether coercion is by magic, pollen, threats, lies, alcohol...
Also, if I think about it, I feel there's a difference between 'we're all under influence and do stuff' and 'I use this influence to coerce you while myself being clear-headed'. Though I believe both situations have/leave psychological problems that need to be dealt with, but the second is in a way a far reprehensible situation - it's to do with the betrayal of trust.
What about "you are all under the influence and do each other, and I just sort of made it happen through no malicious intent and with no gain, of any kind, to myself".
In this case, I am an irresponsible trickster playing with other beings just for fun. Definitely immoral, rather unethical, though not be malicious. I can see the fun part, and the temptation to do stuff like that, and for me that goes into the abuse of power thing - I am able to do stuff, but should I? Who am I to do that? I haz no answers, I just meowz mullz on teh topic. Personally though, I tend to the 'better do no harm and satisfy your sense of accomplishment by knowing that if you wanted, you could'. Also, "you are all under the influence and do each other, and I just sort of made it happen through no malicious intent and with no gain, of any kind, to myself". - the perfect summary of lots of religions. A reason why I do not much like the images of ourselves people cast as gods, also, making me wonder what's the humankind's kink.
And, well. Band Candy. If thats a bit what you're talking about. See, that is not 'with no gain whatsoever to myself'. Yes, it is fun. yes, it harmed none, and maybe was even necessary - I mean, in the sense of self-discovery. But, the instigator gets something out of it. The sense of power, of control, of 'making things happen'. The same motivation that basically drives lots of things. This motivation is a force, and is not good or bad. Very hard to say where the line of premissble/not permissble, moral/immoral, etc lies. Should it be OK to use other people to .... /fill in the blank/? Personal amusement, saving the world, getting back at someone? Does it depend on whether you hurt someone or not? Does it depend on intent? I dunno. Generalisations are easy, but they do not fit every and each situation.
If it was Band Candy, it was for the simple gain of money. He was hired to do that job. Also there was some vampires involved, which he knew would mean probably unnice things. It's not that. Just some fic.
Should it be OK to use other people to ....
That actually would lead me into the bitter discussion about the very existence of slayers and watchers and the council and all.
Mm, yes. See, this is one reason why I cannot watch Buffy in ... bunches of eps. Seems that when I've grown out of being irritated on Buffy, i start yelling at the Buffyverse in general, on the lines of 'where the fuck do you get off on managing other people's life and ymmering about destiny'. And stuff. And then i get depressed. And then time passes and I wanna watch again. Someone recently said about Supernatural (re:that show is recently doing stuff that kinda grates on some female fen, with justification) that it's 'her abusive TV boyfriend - it hurts her, but the sex is so good she keeps coming back'. Sometimes I think this is how I feel about Buffy, in a way. it does fit other shows, too, though:).
I think the cultural tendency to treat sex sprays / spells / pollen as all LOL, to be all geek trio with their mind control toy, is a big part of why the RL stuff happens. Not setting out to be evil, having a big gap around it actually being bad. So any individual story might just be being funny, but the way they add up turns into badness.
But thanks to Torchwood I've thought about this and seen it argued a whole hell of a lot lately, so.
And, re: liking morally ambiguous characters. I love morally ambiguous characters. Precisely because they are morally ambiguous. Because they not only do things someone else would believe to be immoral, they frequently do stuff they'd themselves would perhaps agree is immoral/unethical. But it may be pragmatically necessary, or just plain fun. The ones that do all this with their eyes open are the ones I like. Who have the balls to say that yes, this is immoral, and i still do it, because I've decided for reasons of my own to do it, and I do not whitewash nor apologise, but do and take the consequences.
...and then there's the not-ambiguous like say Kronos, but no one writes happy crack fun about *his* past with serial rape. Or about Methos', come to think of it.
So totally not what I meant. Of course it wasn't! I didn't mean it to sound like that. But the general discussion reminded me of it, and I wasn't sure if they did it with magic. Sorry.
Could always have one person sort of agreeing to be put under the spell. Going into it vaguely aware that they're going to be impaired and wanting to take the risk.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 07:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 07:55 am (UTC)This question is not related to that, it's a whole other
bar of chocolateuh, thing.no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 08:06 am (UTC)Roofies or taking advantage of someone so drunk that they can't consent is a whole other business, however. I can't even pretend to be rational about it.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 08:12 am (UTC)The question is how light we are on the fantasy/scifi element. Where is the line? For example, in most mainstream media I find that the representation of gay and trans people as a comic relief is not only unfunny, but can actually be problematic in cementing the perception of the wide audience. This is something like that: how deeply do I want to be thinking?
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 07:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 07:56 am (UTC)Getting someone turned on, I dunno, if you don't use anything aside from your charm, that's sort of fair, isn't it. It's sort of the point.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 08:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 09:20 am (UTC)Yeah, I suppose that's something that needs to be discussed first, before things start.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 12:08 pm (UTC)The person still has one's faculties and free will then , I suppose that's the difference. Everyone has the freedom to make decisions, good or bad, and be convinced or swayed by arguments, but I suppose the difference between persuasion/temptation and force/coercion is allowing the subject the use of his/her faculties to decide and the chance to say no.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 01:15 pm (UTC)Boobs make people stupid. Just the existence of them.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 02:48 pm (UTC)But. In case of a pair of very very pretty boobs and no other factors, it is only my own stupidity if I chase them without the thought of consequence. If I wage the consequences and still decide to go after the boobies, it's my decision, I take responsibility. If someone else takes away from me the responsibility of deciding 'this is ME deciding to lust after those boobs', it sucks and I am prefectly justified to punch and troutslap said person.
In this world there is so little that is ever truly one's own, so, I kinda resent if someone takes my responsibility and makes it his/her own. I guess thats my basic beef with these things in theory.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 12:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 12:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 01:12 pm (UTC)Nah, never mind.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 02:41 pm (UTC)meowzmullz on teh topic. Personally though, I tend to the 'better do no harm and satisfy your sense of accomplishment by knowing that if you wanted, you could'.Also, "you are all under the influence and do each other, and I just sort of made it happen through no malicious intent and with no gain, of any kind, to myself". - the perfect summary of lots of religions. A reason why I do not much like the images of ourselves people cast as gods, also, making me wonder what's the humankind's kink.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 02:55 pm (UTC)See, that is not 'with no gain whatsoever to myself'. Yes, it is fun. yes, it harmed none, and maybe was even necessary - I mean, in the sense of self-discovery.
But, the instigator gets something out of it. The sense of power, of control, of 'making things happen'. The same motivation that basically drives lots of things. This motivation is a force, and is not good or bad. Very hard to say where the line of premissble/not permissble, moral/immoral, etc lies.
Should it be OK to use other people to .... /fill in the blank/? Personal amusement, saving the world, getting back at someone? Does it depend on whether you hurt someone or not? Does it depend on intent? I dunno. Generalisations are easy, but they do not fit every and each situation.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 03:02 pm (UTC)Should it be OK to use other people to ....
That actually would lead me into the bitter discussion about the very existence of slayers and watchers and the council and all.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 03:15 pm (UTC)See, this is one reason why I cannot watch Buffy in ... bunches of eps.
Seems that when I've grown out of being irritated on Buffy, i start yelling at the Buffyverse in general, on the lines of 'where the fuck do you get off on managing other people's life and ymmering about destiny'. And stuff. And then i get depressed.
And then time passes and I wanna watch again.
Someone recently said about Supernatural (re:that show is recently doing stuff that kinda grates on some female fen, with justification) that it's 'her abusive TV boyfriend - it hurts her, but the sex is so good she keeps coming back'. Sometimes I think this is how I feel about Buffy, in a way. it does fit other shows, too, though:).
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 03:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 09:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 12:40 pm (UTC)(And why am I reminded of the Viagra spam in my mailbox?)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 01:14 pm (UTC)Okay, that probably means nothing to you. I shutup, and petpet you.
Depends, yes, of course. But there are general rules.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 07:37 pm (UTC)Okay, that probably means nothing to you.
Is this - could this be - a Buffy reference?
no subject
Date: 2008-02-10 03:29 am (UTC)Little blue pill isn't actually a Buffy reference.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-10 03:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-10 03:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-10 03:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 02:37 pm (UTC)But thanks to Torchwood I've thought about this and seen it argued a whole hell of a lot lately, so.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 03:25 pm (UTC)But yeah, see, I think a lot like you, in some things. Is why I ask.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 03:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 03:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-10 03:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-11 01:22 am (UTC)wasn't sure if they did it with magic. Sorry.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 09:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-10 03:31 am (UTC)