A unique question I kind of feel bad about to ask. (Mature Content)

I don't know how else to explain it. She can't consent because it's not an option to her and it's not an option to her because of something she can't change by herself. That's all there is to say, basically.

 

Maybe watch Ex Machina.

Your character is not neurotypical, she has some sort of disorder. Yes it is one, because she can be physically harmed and does not actively avoid it.

Or it is--bear with me--like beastiality. The dog likes pleasing its owner in whatever way possible, but if the owner is perverse and taking advantage of it, it doesn't cognitively fathom what is going on or that it is even being violated, molested, and physically harmed. Which is why it is such taboo and frowned upon in society. Not only is it sodomy, it also is harming another living thing for no reason other than banal pleasure.

Or the situation is a robot/AI, or a robotic type person, which is why I recommend you watch the movie I suggested at the top. Also won an Oscar a few days back for best visual effects, which is a bonus.

Maybe it's just that I can't relate to the situation or characters.

Why does your villain want to become God? How does this sexual encounter with the female character intertwine with this?

 

The issue I have with your arguments Oscar is that you talk as if you know what you are talking about.
As if you're the authority on mental illness and have this character all figured out.

I am not representing anything, I am giving an alternative approach to a character based on the information given to me.

I'm not a submissive and I don't live the lifestyle but I am open to the idea that people may have urges I don't understand. I don't automatically assume she has a condition she must overcome, just that she is different and what does that mean?

Unlike you, I've not said anything about if she is truly happy with her choices or if she really is strong.
All I've said is that I'm not convinced she is a victim because she ultimately has control over her destiny and has to hold a certain amount of accountability. The rape argument for this character just smells to me but I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.

I feel that @GuardianWynn is still trying to flesh out her character and if anything, I am simply encouraging her not to feel pressured to write the typical poor victim of mental illness being used and abused and needs to be saved. That might be the story you want to read, but not me.

 

I say she has a condition because the initial premise and other comments by the author clearly specified so, and because with the symptoms described it's clear something is wrong; it's just illogical to behave like this, and deeply unhealthy. I don't need expertise to make that recognition, in the same way as you don't need to be an expert in electricity to know blue cold lightning would be weird. And I'm not advocating any change in the character at all. Just the recognition that this is a wrong state, it is not a powerful state, and while she is not entirely a victim, she does have a certain victim-hood. Perhaps this could be included in how the character is done, probably given that if affects the nuances of her as more tragic. But it doesn't have to. And regardless, at least in her ill state; she's a ruthless bitch. I have no problem with that idea. Of course she can be antagonistic if that's who she is. All I'm doing here is essentially arguing for the sake of the specific argument, because it has reached a point where I feel somewhat committed to stressing this point.

 

I'm not going to jump into the debate here, because I'm hopeless at quantifying my thoughts on this stuff, but I am on the side of it being less-than-consensual.

Shifting away from the morality of the character, I will say that I could never read her. It seems like a very flat take on mental illness, and based on the OP's comments, there's no nuance to her. The boss says jump, she jumps, the boss says hump...

From here, she looks just like a robot, and not even much more advanced than we have today. She does what she's told and that's it. There's no selection process in who's giving the orders, either, given that you said she just picks the first person she sees. When you, the OP, talk about how she can't stand thinking or being idle, it rings false for me because not only do those two things seem entirely out of sync with the rest of humanity, you've gone to great trouble to tell us how she doesn't have wants.
For me, either she does what she does because that's all she literally can, in which case she's a robot rather than a character, or she does it because she hates thinking, in which case she's an incredibly strange person whom I would struggle to push through my suspension of disbelief.

 

I'm not sure what else to say, because to me it's straightforward: She can't refuse, and therefore she can't consent, and therefore sex would be rape. That's that. I fail to see any substantial nuances.

The idea that her incredibly deep-seated disorder could be regarded, at some level, as a choice, doesn't change that fact. At this point, I don't see how it could possibly be regarded as STILL being a choice--at the most, it's the consequence of a past choice, and that doesn't transform her failure to say "no" to sex into consent. When a snake-phobic person flees from a snake , that fear isn't a choice. If someone tells them, "Have sex with me or I'll lock you in a room with all these snakes," the sex isn't consensual.

The only way that I can see it being consensual is if (1) she suggests sex and (2) her disorder is NOT such that she's driven to guess what her Alpha wants, beyond just taking his orders. In that case, the suggestion would presumably actually be her suggestion.

Which is a larger question--is she capable of forming any personal preferences at all? If she's faced with a buffet of food, does she stand there and go hungry until her Alpha tells her what to eat? If not, then how does she sync her refusal to have opinions with the fact that when eating from a buffet, you are absolutely expressing opinions with your actions?

Everything that every human does is an expression of opinion--what you eat, how you eat it, what you wear, how you put it on, what street you walk down, how you adjust the seat in the car, EVERYTHING. Where does she allow herself to have opinions, and where does she not?

I've posted somewhere about a study about people who had brain damage that kept them from having emotions. They learned that those people couldn't make the smallest of decisions, up to and including choosing which color pen to fill out a form. Things that look like they have a separate existence, like emotions in that study or opinions in this scenario, really color everything.

 

In the case of the villain. I made a point of saying he doesn't have sex with her. The point being that for not being the rapist he was far worse. The other stuff you said I didn't full understand. Oh, and well, it is hard to explain why he wants to become god. He is just arrogant. He thinks he deserves it. He doesn't have an exact purpose. Which may be his weakness.

Oh! You keep inspiring good questions!

Earlier, I said I could see the heroes thinking she is a victim and trying to save her based on the fact that she wouldn't understand that she is a villain. Do you think this is the wrong approach, and that it is only pushing her back into that shoe-horned typical villain role? If so I would love to hear if you have an alternate idea?

Yeah, it is kind of weird. If I have made an error in logic though, I would love to hear it. Explaining her is hard. I think the issue is she is not perfect, even by her own standard. And she wants to be like the robot almost. Which is a desire. A desire to not have desires. She is screwed! In case you missed it, because I think I said it before. She has a black white view. It extends so extreme that she views non-important opinionated issues as ones that hold a right and wrong. But they don't, and because they don't she can't figure out the right answer and that frustrates her beyond belief. So the idea is she is giving the decision making to someone else to avoid that frustration.

I didn't understand your number 2 in how it could be consentual.

Yes actually, too. She is able too form personal preferences. My guess, is that at a young age certain ideals were instilled to her to the point that an Alpha telling her they are wrong is more likely to cause her to doubt them and abandon them. Like, the only weapon she will use is a knife. Even if commanded to use a sword, she would likely refuse. Her knife is her weapon, anything else is just wrong and she doesn't like it and she will dislike you trying to order her to do otherwise. She has a similar issue on speech. Not sure how she developed that one exactly. She prefers to not speak. She will if commanded, but she doesn't like it.

Well, the buffet one is an interesting one that I was thinking about just yesterday. The idea was her origin. And someone gave me some ideas to her origins. The idea was that her condition worsened with age. By which I mean that school, the structure of having to be there at X time, having a X time to eat and ext. It supported her condition and as such, she almost seemed normal. She didn't have an Alpha. But she still relied on others. Like, for example, in the lunch line. She would never be first, because she would mimic the person in front of her. Taking the same items they do. You could say she would do a similar thing with lets say coloring. Unable to pick a color, she would look at another kid and mimic them.

So she doesn't relay on direct orders. I picture this for example. Think of her mother taking her dress shopping, and her mother asks her which one she wants. She is much more likely to stare at her mothers face, searching clues to which one her mother likes better. She is very good at reading peoples faces and reactions.

Does that give you an idea of how she works?

Would she starve before picking food when she literally had no one would to help her decide? I think no. Her goal is to be right. I think the pain of hunger would be a signal that what she is doing is wrong. I think in this situation she would develop an internal rule. Like, the one that is close to me is right or something similar. Does that make sense?

She does kind of remind me of that brain damage issue you mentioned. Which is interesting! Because my theory was that she was a brain damaged savant. And it sounds like that was the right track.

 

This means that my (2) doesn't work and I see no way for sex to be consensual. (2) is dependent on the idea that while she may know what someone wants or doesn't want, she doesn't have to give it to them unless they specifically ask for it, AND she can ask for things that she wants. In that scenario, if she asked for sex, it would be consensual. But if she's asking because she knows that someone wants her to ask, consensual is gone.

 

Yeah. That is right. I mean about her being proactive. Not sure if I mentioned it yet, so in case I will repeat it or say it. Well she is proactive! To the point that if she saw you upset cooking breakfast. Then she might try to make breakfast for you the next day. In this way, I think she can function. She just needs direction. In this case, the direction is feeling a need that she thinks must be fulfilled. So, lets say he was out of food after making breakfast. She is fully capable of going out to get more food supplies. Again, I think this dials back to her internal rules. Such as maybe. The store closest that has the brands he had is the store I should go to.

The trick is, her desire to fulfil that need in no way is skill. Even if she watched you, she isn't perfect. Soo... you may wake to a big mess. lol. But she tried?

 

A crappy kind of consent, that's teh kind.
It's like a wife who has sex with her husband, but deep down she reallllly would rather go to sleep, but she does it anyway to please him. It's consent (her husband certainly isn't raping her), but it's just not the "YES PLEASE!" kind of consent we think of today.

Also, I was under the impression that leaving willfully is an option? She wouldn't take the option unless under extenuating circumstances. The options on the table, just hidden under a few napkins and last night's pizza.

 

@GaurdianWynn
This doesn't really apply to the question of whether or not it's rape, but would she feel physical pleasure from the sex? Would she have preferences of sexual positions/motions? Surely that would be more of a physical response, or would her desire to please her Alpha override even that and his preferences become her own to reach sexual fulfillment?

 

While I don't think this is notable to the morality issues. I think it is notable to say in response to what you said. This is a magic story. And well. She is WAY faster than him. To the point that if she became afraid of him and wanted to leave. He could not stop her. At all. Nothing he could do could catch her if she took off running. And she is so agile, no form of trap could hold her long enough for him to catch up. That is her value o him. Someone so fast and so agile and so trap-proof is a valuable soldier. So yeah for all the power the Alpha has. He cannot catch her.

In this case I imagine yes she might enjoy it. I am no expert on sex. So this is tricky. I mean, there are physical/emotional responses.

She is a girl with girl body parts. So when you touch them in the correct way. That probably feels good. When reality makes an position obvious, she can make choices herself. Touching fire hurts, so she will stop. Because she doesn't need an Alpha to say stop touching the fire. The pain is a clear signal. I imagine sex would hold a similar value. When 2 ways of sex happen and one causes her more pleasure, she would lean to that one. But remember their is also the fulfilment to her Alpha. That is the emotional part to her. If he hates one position but loves another position, and it is the reverse to her preferences. She is probably going to lean towards his. Not because she can't or refuses to pick the one her body likes more, but because doing what he wants adds to her experience and doing what he doesn't like takes away from it. So in the end, doing what he wants is more enjoyable.

Does that make sense?

 

This is different from the wife. She is able to say no of whatever criteria she wants. This character can only refuse on the basis of not fulfilling the Alpha criteria. And the wife choose the husband. This character didn't choose to have this condition in even the remotest sense.

 

This is a better argument. It sounds like your saying that @Nicoel argument is invalid because a wife is a very different dynamic relationship that at one point involved consent. Is that about right?

I... not sure if I agree. But again. I feel useless. I am so on the fence I find it hard to argue either way. Though, I look forward to @Nicoel arguing back.

Thinking about it in more detail. I think I found something you would want to hear. Being that lets say, for whatever reason, she lost her Alpha and couldn't find a new one. What would she do?

Well, going back to the ideology of how I said before that she would try to give herself some sort of rule. Because she needs life to be simple. So, under these conditions, I think one of two things would happen.

1. She would become an Alpha. For something else. Obviously if she could find a human, she would make them her Alpha. So, I picture her becoming the Alpha to wild animals. Such as finding animals, any. Birds, wolves, anything really and trying to care for them. Going with the previous stuff about identifying minor details. Like how she would have looked at her mothers face in deciding a dress. She could see minor details like her mother's eye twitching or anything else. Apply that logic to animals and she could maybe read them very well. She would serve their needs. Brining them food or settle fights by standing in between them. I can easily picture her growling at a wolf. Because obviously words are useless. Before you think she is just making animals her Alpha. I think it goes back to her picture of an Alpha. Which is that an Alpha took care of her by deciding things. So that is what she is doing. Taking care of them by deciding things. Granted she is just fulfilling their basic needs. Bringing them food and expecting they would eat it and learning them better with each experience. When they turned food down, she learned they don't like that and would never offer that food again. So on and so forth? Does that make sense?

2. I see her almost becoming an animal. In the sense that she would go to where animals and mimic them just like she mimic people that grabbed food in the lunch line. The law of the jungle. She would learn it and obey it.

So what do you think?

 

If no means no yes means yes. Doesn't mean its a nice thing to do, you can screw someone over without raping them.

On a side note, I wonder where that quote ranks out of everything I have ever said on the "likely to be on my tombstone" scale.

 

Huh? I am lost

 

I was replying to the question in the original post, I didn't follow the thread so maybe the conversation is completely different now.

 

Don't misunderstand me, I understand the character perfectly well, and I don't think you've made any grevious errors in logic, it's just that I reject the entire premise of a character like this. I think it's something you could never make believable to me, no matter how much you delve into her head.

Honestly, I think delving into her head might be the problem here. On the surface, looking at her simply as "lady who does what she's told no matter what", she works for me as a character. Now you've introduced these bizarre and inhuman seeming desires that aren't really desires and everything else, I can't believe it any more.

 

Well, I am thinking context may fix that.

Less is more right? Or sometimes. I am not discussing all the dynamics of the story here. I am discussing all of the dynamics of her. And there is a notable difference. I am not going to write her biography. Actually I made a point of saying she is a villain. Actually she is the elite body guard of the big bad villain. So how much of her can you really expect one book to dive into? And the less might make more. Right?

Think that helps it from a story dynamic?

 

It might well do, I can't say without having read the work in question. All I can do is comment on what I've read in this thread, and if you think I've got the wrong end of the stick, then feel free to toss my comments out, no worries.

 

Well, yeah. Of course! Except well... the book doesn't exist yet!

Not even a draft of it. So, I suppose more of a... "advice to prevent slip ups."

That is why I opened the thread. I was afraid if I expanded on her past, to the point of her being with a different Alpha, the other Alpha would have had sex with her. I was afraid that expanding on that might turn readers away on the possible rape undertones.

Does that make sense? All advice and comment are welcome. I don't come to a forum for yes men. I come to the forum to discover my weaknesses so I can improve them. So if you spotted one, by all mean, punch it.

 

I thought her whole deal was not wanting to decide / think about things? Becoming an alpha (even to animals) doesn't seem consistent to me. Obviously you have a better understanding of the character than anyone else, but I wouldn't think that someone so keen to sort of 'imprint' on someone else and assume their preferences would have such an easy time of flipping it around. I could see her accepting an animal as an alpha, which really seems more like what you're describing, but not so much the other way 'round.

 

Well, I did say that was in response to her being unable to find an Alpha.

The issue is this. Her goal is to improve her life. So maybe it is best described like this.

Alpha>Animal care taking> Normal Thinking

So if one is unavailable the next is preferred. Because it was asked how she would respond if she was ordered to die and the most likely was that she would run. She wants to improve her life. Giving away her decision making makes her feel better. So yeah, preferred.

The trick about what you were saying I think is this. Even though she serves and Alpha, she still views him as taking care of her. So... in that sense, an Alpha is responsible for taking care of her charge. Which is what she is doing. Granted, she is serving them and again she is doing this because she understands them better. she can easily find there objective needs. The relationship still seems different to me.

Sort of. In the Alpha case, he is god and she serves them.

In the animal case she is god and protecting them. I think there is a critical difference. One that stems from her talking control too. Like, imagine if she had two wolves. They are fighting and she thinks they should stop. She will force them to stop. If they were her Alpha, than she wouldn't probably do that.

Does that make sense?

 

Hmm. In that example specifically, I would think that if one wolf is her alpha (I'm assuming she wouldn't have two at once), she would still stop them from fighting to protect her alpha, it's just that if she views herself as alpha then she stops them to protect them, whereas if she views one of them as alpha then she stops them to prevent harm from coming to it - likely killing the non-alpha wolf in the process, right?

There definitely is a different relationship there, my confusion is more that she'd be able to switch to being an alpha. She's still taking pointers from others' behaviors and taking care of them, same as she does with an alpha, which she does because she doesn't want to like, form these aspects of a personality for herself. I'm wondering if it'd be possible for her to see herself as being the alpha now, w/o actually changing her behavior that much. She thinks "well, I'm the alpha now then" because not having one stresses her out, but it's just sort of a coping method to deal not having what she'd recognize as an alpha (ie a human), and in reality she's still falling back onto the comfortable alpha-following behavior.

I just wouldn't think that adopting 'alpha' behavior would come before 'normal thinking' for her, when avoiding decisions/etc is her sort of driving force. Going from that to opting to make decisions / take care of someone or something else seems like a stretch, unless taking care of them directly helped her to take care of herself ... which is kinda the point of the alpha in the first place, as I'm understanding it.

I don't know, when it comes to writing atypical characters like these who have weirder ways of thinking about things / seeing the world, I'm a psychology dork so I always come back to "what made them turn out this way?". Personality disorders came up earlier and it's important to realize that they're thought to be caused by both childhood events and brain chemistry misfires, so there's a lot that goes into making a person be like this. Knowing the cause of her brand of weirdness and working forwards should help iron out how she functions in any given situation, rather than figuring them out on a case by case basis.

 

Yeah, I don't really think I have enough knowledge or experience with this subject to further the discussion. Sorry.