Bakker and Women 4

[Happy Ent]

Aurang or Aurax? Do we actually know?

We do not.

My point is that the vast majority of intercourse with Inchoroi is consistently described as exceptionally pleasant for both parties, in particular for the unwilling receptacle. There is no indication that the Inchoroi take any satisfaction from the infliction of pain; there is no sadism involved. Even in those sexual acts where the bodily integrity of the victim has no priority (Valrissa), there is no brutality.

(Compare, say, the brutal intercourse between the Thing Called Kellhus and Serwë, or the empowerment Cnaiür feels when raping Serwë or Conphas, or how Xerius is aroused by the fear in the eyes of his concubine. We get nothing of that from the Inchoroi. They go out of their way to turn their victims into shuddering bundles of ecstasy.)

I may easily misremember, in that case please tell me. I remember Aurang/Varlissa, Aurang!Synthese/SkinSpy, Aurang!glamoured/Esmi, Aurang!Esmi/Kellhus. All extremely pleasurable, to the point of begin stomach-turningly perverse. No indication that the infliction of pain is particularly tempting for Aurang (certainly not compared to, say, Conphas, Xerius, Cnaiür, …)

What I don’t understand is how Aurang’s claim “I have raped thousands” should convince me that I’m wrong. First, I don’t question that Aurang is a rapist. Second, when I say “But Aurang flat-out tells us that they are a race of lovers!” why haven’t I automatically won the debate? After all, it’s in the text! He told us!

[Anatúrinbor]

Aengalas is not cut up at all (Aurang makes “a womb of him”).

Making a womb out of a man can be interpreted in more ways that simply rape intercourse.

The Sranc make a womb of Aëngelas, not Aurang.

[Happy Ent]

The Sranc make a womb of Aëngelas, not Aurang.

Even better. Fixed. Thank you.

[Diziet]

I agree we don't see them deriving sexual pleasure out of pain or violence, but does that make them pure hedonists? Afterall, most humans do not get turned on by inflicting pain, and yet they are not hedonists. Aurang's PoV indicates that they do take pride in conquering, dominating, and even exterminating other species. Maybe it's not sexual, but those emotions are still there. Why is that the case if they view other species the way we view plants or even lower animals?

[SilentRoamer]

My whole argument is that I think Rape is brutal.

Inchoroi understand the nature of pain and rape. Aurang claims he is a raper of "thousands", sure before that he said "we are a race of lovers" but I think it beyond doubt that the Inchies are rapists.

I think Aurang is bragging about the brutality, or why stipulate its rape, why not say i am a "lover of thousands"? Aurang is clearly showing a desire for sexual dominance which in its nature is brutal

I second Serwes point above, I also think you need to make a distinction between plans and animals, as far as we are aware plants feel no pain, they express no feeling, it is not possible for a human to willfully do anything to a plant that it does not want - it doesn't have wants (at least none we can discern). Animals and more so humans are different. They are physically and emotionally capable of expression.

I am enjoying the discourse :)

[sologdin]

fruitarians are basically against plant rape.

[unJon]

fruitarians are basically against plant rape.

"I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants."

- Whitney Brown

[Happy Ent]

(Don’t get confused about the validity of my argument because of the plant angle. I sometimes like to stay in character on this board, wherefore the assumption that plants have sentience is part of my set of axioms, routinely—and likewise in-character—rejected by everybody else.)

[Kalbear]

We do not.

My point is that the vast majority of intercourse with Inchoroi is consistently described as exceptionally pleasant for both parties, in particular for the unwilling receptacle. There is no indication that the Inchoroi take any satisfaction from the infliction of pain; there is no sadism involved. Even in those sexual acts where the bodily integrity of the victim has no priority (Valrissa), there is no brutality.

(Compare, say, the brutal intercourse between the Thing Called Kellhus and Serwë, or the empowerment Cnaiür feels when raping Serwë or Conphas, or how Xerius is aroused by the fear in the eyes of his concubine. We get nothing of that from the Inchoroi. They go out of their way to turn their victims into shuddering bundles of ecstasy.)

I may easily misremember, in that case please tell me. I remember Aurang/Varlissa, Aurang!Synthese/SkinSpy, Aurang!glamoured/Esmi, Aurang!Esmi/Kellhus. All extremely pleasurable, to the point of begin stomach-turningly perverse. No indication that the infliction of pain is particularly tempting for Aurang (certainly not compared to, say, Conphas, Xerius, Cnaiür, …)

What I don’t understand is how Aurang’s claim “I have raped thousands” should convince me that I’m wrong. First, I don’t question that Aurang is a rapist. Second, when I say “But Aurang flat-out tells us that they are a race of lovers!” why haven’t I automatically won the debate? After all, it’s in the text! He told us!

Rape being pleasant for both parties does not make it any less rape, nor does it make the Inchoroi any less getting off on subjugation vs. actual pleasure.

We do get empowerment via rape from the Inchoroi; the comment 'Raper of thousands' is absolutely an indication of that. We also see them undertake totally unnecessary actions such as cutting people during sex.

Aurang and Aurax telling us that they are a race of lovers is what they say; it is belied entirely by their actions. If they are a race of lovers, why cut someone up as you're fucking them? If they are a race of lovers, where are their love slaves? If they are a race of lovers, where are their non-male sexual organs? Where are their more interesting sexual organs (a large penis isn't particularly useful other than for thrusting in large holes, and there are a lot more things you could do with, say, tentacles or prehensile things). If they are a race of lovers, why do they focus so heavily on the maleness (such as having 100 words for the vagaries of ejaculation)?

Really, the notion that their victims have any pleasure at all has zero to do with whether or not they are rapists and enjoy inflicting pain. It seems quite clumsy on your part to keep conflating the two notions.

[Diziet]

Isn't it clear that the word "lovers" is meant ironically?

I think the strangest thing is that they didn't do away with the refractory period.

[Happy Ent]

Really, the notion that their victims have any pleasure at all has zero to do with whether or not they are rapists and enjoy inflicting pain. It seems quite clumsy on your part to keep conflating the two notions.

I tire of this.

I’ve made it explicit in several posts above that I don’t question the fact that Aurang rapes his victims. I’m annoyed at having to defend a position that I take pains to disavow.

[Kalbear]

Well, if he rapes his victims, and he enjoys rape (as is indicated by the text), it stands to reason that merely sex by itself is not enough; he enjoys rape. He enjoys the subjugation and dominance. That's a fairly sadistic position to be in.

[themerchant]

It stands to (human) reason.

[unJon]

Well, if he rapes his victims, and he enjoys rape (as is indicated by the text), it stands to reason that merely sex by itself is not enough; he enjoys rape. He enjoys the subjugation and dominance. That's a fairly sadistic position to be in.

Without at all disagreeing with anything you said, the Inchies always seem to make their victims physically enjoy the act. What does that say about the psyche of the rapist?

[Kalbear]

Not a lot. They don't appear to care about that pleasure. They use it for control. Just like they do with the sranc and the skin spies.

[Diziet]

It stands to (human) reason.

We're all reasoning as humans in here, aren't we?

[Rhom]

We're all reasoning as humans in here, aren't we?

Well, everyone but Happy Ent who is taking a more arboreal approach.

[sologdin]

and within the meaning of deleuze & guattari:

Where the potato is the hero of this story, the tree becomes the villain. Arborescent is a dirty word. Were tired of trees, writes Deleuze, We should stop believing in trees, roots, and radicles. Theyve made us suffer too much (15). Trees are genealogical, where by contrast the rhizome is an antigenealogy (21). The tree comes to symbolize the distinction between subject and object, between signifier and signified, encompassing the whole of dualistic logic through its branching patterns, through its definitions of set pathways between root and branch.

[Happy Ent]

What an awesome quote!

[Happy Ent]

We need to talk tree imagery in SA anyway, in particular with respect to Deleuze. (Is the Dûnyains’ repudation of history rhizomic? Are the trees that Kellhus so significantly encounters on his voyage deliberatery written as manifestations/reminders of a hierarchical, things-come-before reality?)

Maybe not in this thread…