daredevilkink | Prompt Post #4

THIS POST IS CLOSED TO NEW PROMPTS.
HEAD OVER TO PROMPT POST #5.

Keep filling prompts on this post! Make sure to link any new fic on the complete or work in progress fills posts so it doesn't get missed.

Please read the current rules before commenting on this post.

Leave a prompt. Fill a prompt. Everyone wins!
Previous Rounds: Prompt Post #1 | Prompt Post #2 | Prompt Post #3

Mod Post | Discussion/Off-Topic Post | AO3 Collection | Searchable Prompts on Delicious
Fills: Completed & WIPs

Rules:
General
YKINMKATO. Play nice. If you don't like something, scroll on.

All comments must be anon.

Subject lines should only be changed if you're posting a prompt or a fill (indicators like OP or Author!Anon should go in the body of the comment).

RPF is allowed. Crossovers, characters from the extended Marvel Universe and comics canon are allowed, but must relate to the 2015 TV show in some way.

Discussion not related to the prompt should be moved to the discussion/off-topic post.

Drop a comment on the mod post if you have any questions or problems.

Prompts
All types of prompts are welcome.

Use the subject line for the main idea of your prompt (pairing or characters, keywords, kink).

Warnings are nice, but not necessary. Get DW Blocker if there's anything you really don't want to see.

Reposted prompts are allowed once one round has passed - i.e., prompts from post #2 cannot be reposted until post #4. Please include a link to where it has been previously posted.

Fills
Put [FILL] or something similar in the subject line when posting a fill.

Long fills can either be posted over multiple comments, or posted on AO3 and linked back here.

Multiple fills are always okay.

Fills can be anything! Fic, art, vids, interpretative dance...

Announce your fill on either the Completed Fills Post or the WIP Post.

If you would like to be politely banned to avoid anon-failing, leave a logged-in comment on the mod post or pm the mod account.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The fact that the redefinition still only defines rape with 'the penetration of an orifice' kinda makes me sick. Apparently, women still can't rape men...

Well, they can if they penetrate the men anally, but yeah. Rape victims who have their penis enveloped by a mouth, vagina or anus are still not recognized by the law which is bullshit.

That's why I love the rape definition of the ICC's Elements of Crime. It's not only gender-neutral and VERY broad, it also explicitly states that rape is "penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the victim or of the perpetrator".

It goes on being awesome in the later part too. I just love it. It's so GOOD. Every jurisdiction should adopt this definition, because this is as good as it can get.

I definitely like this definition much better! I think they should work on vocabulary, though. Labeling the 'penetrater' as 'perpetrator' and the 'penetratee' as 'victim' seems very leading...

To be fair, it's a definition of rape as a crime against humanity, there is no working around the perpetrator/victim terminology. But even if this was your standard national criminal code, I still think these are good words? Like, we're talking about a serious crime here. Who else can we have other than perpetrator (of said crime, and boy do I love that it's a broad-definition word, so many different forms of perpetration!) and victim (of said crime).

NAYRT, But I think anon just meant that a woman could rape a man but she wouldn't necessarily have to penetrate him to do it. And just because she is the one being penetrated does not automatically make her the victim.

That is what I meant, yes. According to the article (http://amsterdamlawforum.org/article/viewFile/209/397) that explains the definition, the one who is being penetrated is labeled as 'victim' and the one doing the penetrating is labeled as 'perpetrator,' no matter which of them is the one using force.

I disagree with that. Like, no, absolutely not. Such an interpretation LITERALLY defeats the purpose of this definition. Not to mention, even the article you quoted clearly explains that the ICC definition implies "the penetration of (...) the perpetrator by the victim".

The article never once mentions - a horrible mistaken - belief that the person being penetrated will be considered the victim even if they were the one using force. The part I quoted above clearly illustrates that. Perhaps the article's explanation of para 1(2) that uses the phrase "circumstances where the victim is penetrated vaginally or anally" is not constructed the best way, but it has to be read in the light of the previous part of the definition. The victim is ALWAYS the one against whom coercion and force are used. ALWAYS.

Yeah, this. If you read the actual ICC definition, there is nothing to imply that the penatratee is always the victim.

And just because she is the one being penetrated does not automatically make her the victim.
Of course it doesn't? I didn't quote the whole definition, but it starts with "the perpetrator invaded the body of a person". It doesn't matter who is being penetrated here; the person using coercion and force WILL BE the perpetrator. That's the point of this definition.

Prompt Post #4

Re: 5 times someone preyed on Matt sexually b/c of his blindness

Re: 5 times someone preyed on Matt sexually b/c of his blindness

Re: 5 times someone preyed on Matt sexually b/c of his blindness

Re: 5 times someone preyed on Matt sexually b/c of his blindness

Re: 5 times someone preyed on Matt sexually b/c of his blindness

Re: 5 times someone preyed on Matt sexually b/c of his blindness

Re: 5 times someone preyed on Matt sexually b/c of his blindness

Re: 5 times someone preyed on Matt sexually b/c of his blindness

Re: 5 times someone preyed on Matt sexually b/c of his blindness

Re: 5 times someone preyed on Matt sexually b/c of his blindness