A storm of words erupts in SRS regarding whether "quickly, quickly, now, do it now, do me now" constitutes enthusiastic consent or if Jaime Lannister is a shitlord rapist (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
184 ups - 98 downs = 86 votes
333 comments submitted at 14:14:15 on Apr 21, 2014 by quantum-confinement
These idiots wouldn't know passion if it came up and fucked them from behind.
After getting informed, written consent, of course.
I'm pretty passionate with my partner but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get under his clothes and start fondling him if he's grieving a death and punching at my chest while telling me to stop
This is a thread where the title is mocking SRSers, so the comments will be full of people who want to do exactly that. Doesn't matter that they actually have a point here. Here's another passage from that scene: >There was no tenderness in the kiss he returned to her, only hunger. Her mouth opened for his tongue. “No,” she said weakly when his lips moved down her neck, “not here. The septons…” She pounded on his chest with feeble fists, murmuring about the risk, the danger, about their father, about the septons, about the wrath of gods. He never heard her. He undid his breeches and climbed up and pushed her bare white legs apart.
Rape or not, it's not exactly enthusiastic consent if you ask me.
Funny how they couldn't help manipulating the quote by removing the bit in the middle, about moaning and stuff.
> She kissed him. A light kiss, the merest brush of her lips on his, but he could feel her tremble as he slid his arms around her. “I am not whole without you.”
> There was no tenderness in the kiss he returned to her, only hunger. Her mouth opened for his tongue. “No,” she said weakly when his lips moved down her neck, “not here. The septons…”
> “The Others can take the septons.” He kissed her again, kissed her silent, kissed her until she moaned. Then he knocked the candles aside and lifted her up onto the Mother’s altar, pushing up her skirts and the silken shift beneath. She pounded on his chest with feeble fists, murmuring about the risk, the danger, about their father, about the septons, about the wrath of gods. He never heard her. He undid his breeches and climbed up and pushed her bare white legs apart. One hand slid up her thigh and underneath her smallclothes. When he tore them away, he saw that her moon’s blood was on her, but it made no difference.
> “Hurry,” she was whispering now, “quickly, quickly, now, do it now, do me now. Jaime Jaime Jaime.” Her hands helped guide him. “Yes,” Cersei said as he thrust, “my brother, sweet brother, yes, like that, yes, I have you, you’re home now, you’re home now, you’re home.” She kissed his ear and stroked his short bristly hair. Jaime lost himself in her flesh. He could feel Cersei’s heart beating in time with his own, and the wetness of blood and seed where they were joined.
Kinda obvious that she wanted to be convinced, protested only to pretend that she is not responsible, protested about the possibility of being caught for fuck's sake, and enthusiastically consented afterwards.
The only objection to that scene I could come up with (besides it being incest and everything) is that you should not try it with people you don't know in case you misread them. Still, it's not anything remotely near "giving in to the rapist" like the morons over there say.
It seemed much less "rapey" in the book than the show (imho).
I hope you're not suggesting someone would deliberately take something out of context just so they can make something sound like something else. Certainly someone would never do such a thing.
> Kinda obvious that she wanted to be convinced, protested only to pretend that she is not responsible, protested about the possibility of being caught for fuck's sake, and enthusiastically consented afterwards. > The only objection to that scene I could come up with (besides it being incest and everything) is that you should not try it with people you don't know in case you misread them. Still, it's not anything remotely near "giving in to the rapist" like the morons over there say.
I always read it as Cersei protesting because she was in public, in a religious place, right next to her dead son. Your interpretation is a bit alarming. Since it has about 37 upvotes...am I missing something? Are you being sarcastic or mocking SRS?
> I always read it as Cersei protesting because she was in public, in a religious place, right next to her dead son.
And Jaime wasn't in public, in a religious place, right next to his dead son? Was Cersei a more conscientious person than Jaime, based on the rest of the books?
Cersei cared about getting caught because she cared about how things looked.
...That should have been abundantly obvious from the dialogue, and Cersei's/Jaime's approach to their relationship.
Yea, it really seems like a massive lack of reading comprehension here. The books made it clear Cersi just was worried about getting caught, I dont know why the show changed it to rape.
From interviews it seems they wanted the scene to come off as Cersei being initially reluctant, and then giving in...as in the books. I think something got lost somewhere between the director's interpretation, the director explaining it to the actors, and their interpretation, because it came off much more like rape than that.
moor-GAYZ is also off the mark, though.
Yea, Ive just been reading a lot of that myself. There were a couple of times in the scene where Lena Heady would grab the back of his head while kissing, or put her arms around him, but overall is just seemed like a rape scene. They made Jaime far, far, far to forceful if they wanted Cersei to be reluctant but willing.
I don't understand why do you think that my interpretation is different then.
I thought you were trying to say that she was legitimately upset about fucking right next to her dead son, and in the church on top of that. That would make things much more ambiguous, but we agree that she wanted to have sex all along, her only concern was about being caught.
>Kinda obvious that
Nothing is "obvious" about it since the scene is from Jaime's point-of-view. He is the point-of-view character in the narration. So, everything that we know about Cersei in that scene is mediated through Jaime's perspective. Unless you believe that all narrators are always reliable...
Have you considered the possibility that you're dreaming right now and has in fact dreamed up not only this discussion, but that passage in the ASOIAF as well? That would make you a writer of rape fanfic, just saying.
We know that ASOAIF has unreliable narrators.
For example, Dany frequently remembers lemon trees in Bravos. In one of the recent preview chapters for TWOW, it states that there are no lemon trees in Bravos. Additionally, we know that the Hound never kissed Sansa but she thinks he did.
It's a simple and common literary device dude, chill out. ASOIAF employs the unreliable narrator almost to a fault at times.
Calm down friend, I'm just suggesting that it's silly to suspect unreliable narration in this particular case based on literally nothing. And then argue with people based on the stuff entirely made up in one's head. I mean, in my headcanon the entire thing is Tyrion's fantasies where he imagines himself to be Jaime and Cersei really loves him, now what?
> “Yes,” Cersei said as he thrust, “my brother, sweet brother, yes, like that, yes, I have you, you’re home now, you’re home now, you’re home.”
Like the slogan goes: yes means no.
There's also that other slogan, "1000 nos and one yes counts as a yes"
No reals only feels
Its forceful. But its not rape. I feel sorry for those who have never had such passionate, impromptu sex that the first thought is "oh god, we're going to get caught, this is wrong" etc right before you go on to enjoy the hell out of it.
Never mind that its incest and that its pretty soon after their son dies, that's simply how these books are.
As someone who has had lots of impromptu sex, I'm 100% sure you're doing it wrong if people are resisting you at any point. Nevermind that 'forceful intercourse' is pretty much the legal and academic definition of rape.
Huh, so what you're saying is that all BDSM sex is rape?
Resistance in a BDSM context would be saying the safeword - and if you continue after that point, fuck yes that's rape.
Obviously we're talking about two different kinds of resistance. You can't possible think my stance is that there is no such thing as rape? Being forceful, as is the case in BDSM sex and passionate sex, is not the same as forcing someone to have sex.
And equally obviously playful resistance was not what we saw in last night's episode of GoT.
That's the whole point. In the book it comes off as playful resistance. The show diverged from that.
I haven't seen the episode yet. Everything I'm saying is from the perspective of the books.
I already replied to you higher up but I feel the need to do so again. We have sex with BDSM elements often. Stuff like him inflicting pain while I either plead him to stop or not stop, and with the former we've discussed it and he knows how to tell the difference between a real "stop" and one meant to just enhance the moment. We've made love in a parked car, nervous about being seen.
Even with these kinds of experiences, what Jaime did was fucked up. It seems that you are the one who doesn't know what passionate, edgy, spontaneous sex is like and how different it is from what went on in that scene.
I thought the discussion was about the scene in the book, not in the show
pretty sure everyone agrees the scene shown on television was rape. Doesn't mean that's what went down in the books, though
am talking about both
The director has stated that the scene was consensual, not a rape scene.
Not the way he shot that scene. Anything but consensual.
To be completely honest, I've only read the book. I'll be watching the actual episode tonight. Any argument I've made about the scene is from that perspective. They might've made it extra rapey in the show for all I know.
I'm talking about the book as well, because I think it was wrong in the book and the show didn't diverge from the way it went down as much as anyone is claiming. I think the show made explicit what everyone refused to see as they were reading that scene, because they wanted to root for Jaime's redemption at that point. But yes the show made Jaime's ignoring of her protests far more explicit. She says she doesn't want to while he repeats "I don't care" (which is a way of verbalizing the way the book describes him not even hearing her refusals.) She kisses him back and I think puts a hand behind his neck at one point, but otherwise is completely against it and the scene ends before it becomes more mutually passionate the way it did in the book.
See, that's way different in my opinion. In the books, he doesn't penetrate her until she's saying the part about "do me now" and such. I get that consent is important and that rape culture is a real thing (though maybe not to the same extent some think), but isn't this all just a little bit overboard? Not everyone who sees that scene and thinks its consensual is a rapist or a shitlord or a pervert. You and I are a lot closer in agreement than I think you know.
I wonder if SRSers are even like this in real life. Like I'd sooner believe they have relatively normal sex lives and just get hypocritical online when insisting everyone else follows these absurd rules of relations, then believe they're actually like this in the bedroom.
They never get to the bedroom. Think of every socially awkward guy and girl you know. Like, extremely socially awkward. They're not having sex. They're confused and a little jaded that anyone else is having sex. They justify it to themselves that its because the people having sex are misogynists, rapists, neckbeards, etc. They're unhappy, and that couldn't possibly be their own fault. So they form little online (cause anonymity makes everyone brave) movements to reinforce their beliefs and exert power over those that they've always viewed as having the "privilege" of not being socially inept. Except they're always mad, always grasping at more pseudo-power, because they know deep down, that someone out there is having sex, being happy, fulfilled, and not giving two fucks that these socially inept nutjobs have decided that what they're doing is wrong.
inb4 I get labeled as the enemy (TRPer, Anti-SRS, homophobe, racist, etc). First of all, TRPers are just as bad and in many ways the damn same, just huddled around a different ideological viewpoint. Second of all, if you think I've misjudged something, just talk to me about it. Lets have a discussion. OR you can say I'm a shitlord and shut yourself back into your little false reality.
so like terpers, but on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Both groups are a lot closer to each other than they're comfortable with. The demographics are largely the same. The cult like atmospheres are very similar. The us vs them mentality. The superiority complexes. Only being outspoken about the "issue" online.
The only real difference is the rallying cry itself. Both have deep, ideological beliefs that sustain the group, it just so happens that those beliefs are opposite one another.
I want to lock 20 terpers in a room with 20 brds.
i bet 20 minutes until hatefucking orgy
More like awkward glances upward in each other's direction, seeing each other in their peripheral vision, then back to solid eye contact with the floor and some shuffling of the feet. Later on all of them will go online and make up stories.
\> implying either side gets laid
So... Like its as if Band went to war with the Chess Club?
That's implying they have an active social life outside of the Internet.
> The demographics are largely the same.
SRS is 99% white men in their late teens/early twenties?
Muuuuch more so than you'd think.
Surveys don't real? Is this more feels over facts again?
iirc tia is more diverse
You'd be wrong, obviously.
http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/comments/1oahsh/tumblrinactiondemographicsurvey2013results/
http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/11c3f2/metathelongwaitthurvey_threesults/
69% men vs 57%
69% hetero vs 56%
No comparable questions for race.
Curiously, almost the exact same amount of atheists.
I have maintained that trp, and srs are opposite sides of the same coin. Both unhappy, and lonely. Both so certain that they are correct, and not willing to compromise.
...and the name of that "coin" would be "Nice Guy Syndrome".
I post on SRS and have sex. I'm a white guy engaged to a white woman. I just think it's important to think about social interactions in terms of gender and race relations. I also think many on reddit are too dismissive of these viewpoints. That's all. This stuff doesn't really come up in my day to day life because my friends and fiancee don't really make rape, race, molestation type of jokes. I'm not going to defend everyone on SRS, but your conception of what an average SRS person like is a little warped.
Congratulations on your calm, collected reply to people disliking SRS
I think you are officially more mature than the other members of that group who just spew "DAE WHITE TEARS DON'T REAL" all day
i'm not completely above that. i think it's real funny when people (who are like me) complain about about reverse racism or whatever, and i think it's hilariously ironic that the same people who give that "faggot isn't actually a slur against gay people because we are reappropriating it and it's not intended to offend, therefore it isn't offense" argument are some of the same who get riled up at SRS poking fun at those on the default's.
just saying, i'm not at all like the way some imagine SRS people to be like. i'm biased of course, but i imagine most SRS people have relatively standard lives. we just dislike the tenor of the conversation about social justice stuff that frequently comes up on reddit, and like to make fun of those who are responsible for that kind of stuff.
> just saying, i'm not at all like the way some imagine SRS people to be like. i'm biased of course,
Problem is, on the grand scale (SRS as a group), this is an incredibly hypocritical thing to say when the SRS side plays the exact same generalization game against anyone that disagrees with them.
Now, in a personal scale (you), you are kinda complaining about people making fun of SRS.... but you are also accepting that you do the same thing to people you disagree with.
If most SRSers have standards lives, then it's likely that most of those people you are making fun of also have standard lives.
>If most SRSers have standards lives, then it's likely that most of those people you are making fun of also have standard lives.
i completely agree. i don't think all people who disagree with me are loser, friendless neckbeards (i don't really like this term) who will die alone. i get that every human is capable of depth and nuance, and that everyone grows and learns as they get older. but i also think that there are unique issues in the reddit community concerning sexism and racism (among others) and strongly believe that people on reddit who do things like advocate for eugenics, or who complain about false accusations whenever rape is mentioned, are legitimately causing more harm than good. at the same time, i imagine that they're just regular looking people walking around.
>reverse racism
>i'm not at all like the way some imagine SRS people to be like
uh huh
if you want to read someone who does a great job of explaining my understanding of raceand the unitedstates, i suggest reading these posts by user/asablackman:
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/18x5a2/whyarewhitecommunitiestheonlyonesthatneed/c8iwri4
and
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/q0dof/asablackmanithinkreddithasaraceproblem/
if you ultimately disagree, that's fine. i used to disagree with this sort of stuff as well. all i'm trying to get across today is that my views aren't self-hating, neurotic, or anything.
Do you have a link to someone explaining your understanding of the shift key?
i'm just trying to have a civil discussion. but you're completely right, i didn't properly capitalize the words i should have.
>> spew "DAE WHITE TEARS DON'T REAL" all day
> i'm not completely above that.
Of course you're not. If you were, you wouldn't be a part of SRS and would spend your time contributing to a more positive and productive group.
well im here now, talking with you. look through my post history. i talk with people about this stuff in a respectful manner frequently. also, i'm an attorney in real life where i focus on civil rights work. i volunteer as well, to help out those who can't afford an attorney.
i browse SRS from time to time. i enjoy it because it's the only real place where people seem to care about social justice stuff on a consistent basis (along with occasional circlebroke subs, and more niche subs like r/prisonreform). it really is like a bizarro reddit, like the way things would be if white, straight dudes were an actual minority. for me at least, it has helped give me some perspective of what it's like to be someone other than myself.
Mind you, I'm not labeling you a terrible person, but you do tend to read like a well-meaning apologist -- like someone who gets mixed up with a vehemently anti-gay church and defends it for being an otherwise good community.
Perhaps the biggest problem with SRS is that its appalling behavior, its bullying, its puerile nonsense and "faux" counter-prejudices are damaging to the very causes for which they claim to advocate. Frankly, I doubt a collective of neo-con false-flaggers could have generated as much hate for "social justice" as SRS has. Furthermore, I wish there were a way to effectively measure levels of racism/sexism on Reddit before and after SRS really got rolling. 'Cos, in my experience, SRS has made things so much worse. There's a Harvard study out there that found that lecturing people in an accusatory authoritarian manner about the negative impact of racism actually had the opposite effect. SRS has made it "fun" for certain people out there to get featured, to bait them, in the same way that the D.A.R.E. program has been accused of unintentionally promoting drug-use 'cos of making it into a sort of "forbidden fruit."
the difference is that neo-con false flaggers get ignored.
You guys are more like the Tea Party in that you make everyone else in that general political vicinity look bad and now everyone who's supposed to be on your side hates you.
>There's a Harvard study out there that found that lecturing people in an accusatory authoritarian manner about the negative impact of racism actually had the opposite effect
This makes some sense to me, although I would like to see the study. I don't really post on SRS prime, I mostly just read it because they care about the things I do, and because I like the fresh perspective. Whenever I'm talking to someone on a non-SRS sub (or whenever I'm trying to convince a judge or jury), I definitely wouldn't laugh at them for not agreeing with the concept of 'privilege' or whatever.
But I don't get how you can say SRS makes things worse. I wouldn't even know where to begin to make this determination, and I don't think you do either.
I'm sure you're familiar with SRS' concept - that it's a circle jerk that is supposed to be an inverse of what mainstream reddit is like. like, yes...it makes puerile jokes, but no more so that /r/imgoingtohellforthis or frequently stuff found on r/funny. the point of this satire isn't just in how SRS makes these jokes, but in the rest of reddit's reaction to it. SRS is characterized as a hateful cult to the extent of Westboro Baptist, but this sort of behavior is written off as jokes elsewhere.
Plenty of people disagree with this, and I can see why. But how does this actually encourage people to make fun of rape victims, or ridicule black people, or whatever. You frequent tumblrinaction, so are you somehow baiting SRS types who are in turn baiting racist types into further hate? i don't follow this train of thought.
>There's a Harvard study out there that found that lecturing people in an accusatory authoritarian manner about the negative impact of racism actually had the opposite effect.
I guess this thread is a breeding ground for creating new SRS posters then.
oh wait sorry you didn't want people to think about the things you say, did you
>I just think it's important to think about social interactions in terms of gender and race relations.
I do too, and look forward to when SRS starts doing that like mature sane adults.
hey, well i'm here. what do you want to talk about?
Hmm.
Whenever you make toast, you are literally penetrating the toaster in multiple orifices with large square objects.
nevermind, you mature, sane adult.
You know we don't take things too seriously around here, right?
I mean, I could point out that nothing you personally say, even if you are a nice guy, can change the fact that SRS is a hate group consisting of mostly white, mostly straight, mostly male members that has caused massive damage to the minority groups they claim to advocate, including fragmenting the reddit LGBT community; and furthermore screams down anyone that even questions their extremely narrow ideology, including people less privileged than them, under the guise of feminist critical theory and privilege theory (which they do not academically understand) and the notion of creating a safe space (which they mis-implement because they are insensitive jerks).
But honestly, having that conversation here and right now would be entirely futile.
Also, think about the toaster.
hey, im all for joking around. that's why i find a lot of SRS funny.
I always imagine overweight women with thick, black, horn rimmed glasses wearing colorful dresses.
Most fat chicks I know have sex.
Absolutely. Its not being fat that's keeping them from having sex. Not by a long shot.
holy shit this logic
>they're all fat bitches because they're unhappy about sex
>but they could be having sex despite being fat
so why do you think of them as being fat
the FUCK is wrong with you
Because theyre likely fat. Fucking fat angry feminists trope. Not that it matters
The logic of the statement is supposed to be "they don't have sex, ergo they must be fat & ugly & whatever".
But then he says "oh well fat girls CAN have sex", so there's no reason to mention them being fat or not. So it literally doesn't matter at all and people are still like "wow this dude's a genius he's really putting those SRS turds in their place!" You could say fucking anything negative about SRS at this point and people would be falling over themselves to throw internet points at you. I BET THEY'RE ZOROASTRIANS. DID YOU KNOW THEY WORSHIP THE MOON??
Most of SRS is male, though. I remember SRSSucks had a lot of fun at their expense a while back when the surveys each subreddit did showed SRSSucks was more diverse that SRS.
White women, no less. But don't worry, there's plenty of guys too. Guys who want to get with those awkward women. But they never will, because the rules they've all set up for themselves almost outright forbid it. This causes more frustration and more outlashes against those living normal lives.
Woah, that's not cool. They're not white. They're transblack. You just don't get it as someone who's comfortable with your own skin color.
A srs would be flayed alive if they ever tried to declare that they were transracial.
If you are going to mock, do it right
my bad I must've mixed you guys up with another group of teenage internet slacktivists who would rather complain than cause any real meaningful change in the world
duly noted won't happen again
lol, I am not SRS but I hate lazy jokers
I always research mine, you see.
I'm sorry it's my bad
I have a hard time keeping track of every subfaction on the internet that makes the rights that I champion look like they're run by whiny children
>cause any real meaningful change in the world
Someone's asking for firebombings! Go ahead and Doxx yourself, volunteer.
On average, they're more white than not, more straight than not, and more men than not.
Your average SRSer is actually a straight white guy in his mid 20s.
SRS is just as bad as TRP? Really?
Worse. TRP admits that they're shitty misogynists. SRS refuses to admit that they're racists, because someone in their ranks decided that they could redefine the word.
But if you call a rock a rose, it's still a fucking rock.
>TRP admits that they're shitty misogynists
Hm, I have only ever seen them fervently deny this, but I guess that doesn't mean they've never admitted it either. I'm just thinking of whenever anyone challenges them in those askreddit threads about terrible subs, the response seems to always be something like, "we don't hate women! We love women! TRP isn't about misogyny at all - it's about self-improvement."
> "we don't hate women! We love women!
"But only if they're pre-wall (younger than 30), very hot, skinny, white, subservient and virgins. The other women we hate."
You know, if I only had cherry picked comments I would think the same thing. I hung out there for a while before realizing that it was just a hang out for broken, angry, misogynists.
Also, good job completely ignoring what I was actually saying. But I expect nothing less from people like you. You can't defend your ilk, so you ignore the actual matter at hand to argue semantics.
>You know, if I only had cherry picked comments I would think the same thing. I hung out there for a while before realizing that it was just a hang out for broken, angry, misogynists.
I specifically stated that just because I've never seen it doesn't mean it's never happened. I'm not trying to cherrypick anything here, just letting you know what I've seen.
>Also, good job completely ignoring what I was actually saying. But I expect nothing less from people like you. You can't defend your ilk, so you ignore the actual matter at hand to argue semantics.
Lol what? People like me? My ilk? Who do you think I am exactly? I was just pointing out something that I perceived to be different and have a civil conversation about it, but apparently that's too much to ask...
Well while you were on your diatribe about TRP and how shitty they are you completely neglected to tell me how SRS isn't a hate group and they aren't racist.
First of all, diatribe? It was a couple sentences explaining my argument more clearly. Secondly, I agreed with you on the SRS part so I didn't feel like I needed to acknowledge that. I didn't know I needed to object to SRS in all my posts otherwise that means I'm part of that group. Jesus lol.
Eh, I'm not really sure that's true. SRS has a spectrum of people who are offended by different things.
There are trans people there that are just sick of the constant transphobia, lgbt people who get tired of the constant "just be more straight and I'll be fine with your gayness", academic feminist who get tired of people misrepresenting academic feminist, etc, etc.
It's a place for venting and trolling, so comments are usually a thousand times more ridiculous then they would be otherwise. I mean, just yesterday there was another eugenics thread and this guy on SRS who is autistic said "TIL reddit literally wants me dead." and it was true. There's a lot of that there, people who are hurt by comments and want a place to just say ridiculous shit.
I really don't think as many SRSers are as insane as people think they are. In fact, I think a lot of them are probably pretty normal and functioning. Not every person on SRS is mad about the same thing or posts on every post.
I mean, I know someone who goes on SRS frequently. She's got her issues but none of what you described. Making up psychological motivations and real world scenarios in which the people you don't like are pathetic is pretty unbecoming no matter what side you're on tbh
Well, the obvious refutation would be this /r/SRSSex/
They aren't anti sex, they just want to be very very sure that everyone engaged in that sex is enjoying it. It's just that trying to codify the "making sure the other person is enjoying it" is kind of difficult and variable based on context, but people on reddit demand that it be codified. So they get pushed to a situation where they either have to say "only yes means yes" or deal with "sometimes even no means yes, but that's a very specific kind of situation so please for the love of god don't just start taking all nos to mean yes, please understand there is literally no hard and fast rule and if you do without erring towards caution you will hurt people".
I agree with SRS 90% of the time, and post there from time to time. I'm married (8 years) have two kids and have a normal healthy sex life. I'm also white and straight (there was actually a poll at one point and the average SRS subscriber was a straight white cis male... just like the rest of reddit).
It's so weird reading about SRS in other subs. Most of it is just picking on people who are quite obviously fuckwads. Sure there's a percentage of over-the-top garbage, but that's true for nearly every active sub. SRS is a really fun sub.
What I wonder about is people like you that make up all this weird pseudo-psychology about the sex lives of people you've never met and know extremely little about. You seem to put a lot of thought into it.
>Second of all, if you think I've misjudged something, just talk to me about it.
Well, just gonna drop this here, a lot of SRS posters know more about being raped than you do, many of them from first-hand experience. I know, I know, it makes them "emotional" and "not trustworthy", or whatever the fuck you want to write a FULL PARAGRAPH about, but seriously, dude: maybe consider the fact that you're an ignorant motherfucker.
A contract must be looked at every time!
Well not being an srs-er but a bit of a stickler about enthusiastic consent, it's mostly a matter of absolutely needing it for the kind of sex I'm having. It's less about being afraid to fuck anyone without a sheet being between you and more about the line between kinky and traumatic being whether someone is into it. You don't need a written contract (though those can be fun), but just a bit of a run down of what they're into and not into what means stop and what doesn't. For most people though it's just a matter of being attentive. Unless you're doing something where the other person is supposed to be struggling and you've discussed that prior with safewords and the whole shebang, it should be pretty obvious whether they're into it.
The problem SRS runs into is that they have to worry about assholes that are going to look for loop holes. So the advice of "just pay attention and have the intent of the both of you enjoying yourselves" turns into a whack a mole series of unbendable guidelines designed so nobody can follow them and still figure out a way to rape someone. Because sadly there exists people who listen to, "no means no" and go, "oh so if she's cowering and whimpering clearly not enjoying it, but doesn't say the word no I'm in the clear?"
There just isn't any reasonable way to do that, you can't account for every variable and it will always come down to personal judgement.
Well, they're mostly virgins, so...
Isn't it funny people care a lot about consent!