coaltide | Offseason #1

Entry tags:

offseason

Offseason #1

Use this post for any exchanges running from January onwards into the first quarter of the year. Try to keep final Yuletide thoughts in the last coal post of 2019 for ease of conversation.

Coal Friending Meme
2020 NYR Collection + 2019 App
Yuletide, Exchanges After Dark, & FFA Discords.

Flat / Recent | Top-Level (Last) | Search

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

DC It reads to me as a foursome in two bodies since they're getting willingly re-possessed. If anyone's getting dubbed it's the husbands being yanked from Heaven into another bout of widow sex.

+1

This does not seem like an ambiguous consent situation.

The ODs suggest the requester doesn't think so either. Which is a worry if they haven't considered the connotations of possessed sex... What if the writer doesn't capture exactly the tone they imagined when prompting, and it crosses the line from happy ghost orgy to a modcall for DNW violation?

At the very least they should provide some further info about where that line is for them. Like if the women must be conscious at all times and able to communicate, or if they are not conscious then do they need to give explicit consent to whatever the husbands do with their bodies beforehand, etc.

Look, you don't have to treat anyone you don't want to treat but I am seriously not worried about any of this being an issue, going by what's in the letter.

The fact is their DNW conflicts with their request. You're saying it doesn't matter and treaters should knowingly ignore a DNW? For real? In this economy?

I'm assuming you have been living under a rock for the past several months of exchange wank specifically regarding DNWs and what counts and what doesn't. You missed some good times.

I agree with you, but I think the people going OTT are right too. Clearly they aren’t the type of writers who can knock out this prompt. They’re blaming their inability on the prompts/letter when it’s mostly them, but this is a textbook case of a bad match. They definitely shouldn’t treat this/similar letters because they probably will inject something(/miss something) that’ll lead to wank.

The right author for this letter will treat it if they exist. The right treat recip for these coalies will reveal themselves if they exist. The wrong kind of author nopeing out is an “everybody wins” situation.

Lol dude just add a dnw out to your request. Unless you're hoping for wank? Because that's likely to happen (I mean, it's already happening) when someone writes you the dubcon you're requesting while having a dubcon dnw.

dc

I wouldn't touch that with surgical gloves. Possessed sex is dubious consent until the consent to be possessed and have whatever done with your body is spelled out, and even then I'd be wary. Anytime the person doesn't have full agency, it's dubcon. Their DNW (for me) would override any requests.

Nah, write them their ghost possessed widow porn, tag it dubcon because that's what it is, and see how fast they go running to the mod because of receiving a dnw.

You're being really wierd all over this thread coalie. The requester clearly considers this sort of thing to be consensual and your need to punish them for that interpretation is pretty creepy.

Idk man, it's a perfectly fine request except for that dnw. If Corpsebrigadier is here or on ffa then they're aware there's confusion over their prompt/dnw clash and the cool thing to do would be to just add a bit of clarification such as: 'I don't consider sex while under the influence of ghosts to be dubcon, please just have the widows super psyched about the ghost sex and we're golden'. It would be a total non issue at that point.

Say someone shows up next week worried about an assignment where they're unsure how to write a prompt because it seems to hit a dnw. Wouldn't we see twelve replies advising them to ask for clarification through the mods? Because that's our standard response to that kind of uncertainty? People in this thread pretending otherwise are the weird ones imo.

dc

It couldn't hurt to ask. But really if CorpseB sees dubcon as women being victims, and they request that women bring the men down and are all right with sex after being possessed (or inhabited, maybe is better), and I'm going to assume the husbands aren't going to be all omg gross sex nooooo, there's probably nothing to worry about. If they thought it skirted their DNW, they'd probably say something to that effect.

You could contact them yourself or check with the mods before matching starts.

The DNW is fine and you're being really ott about this. They make it very clear in their letter that they usually like non-con/dub-con and believe their DNW covers the pairings they don't want to see that for. They don't need to add a clarification that they do indeed want the exact thing they just spent paragraphs prompting just because one coalie has a dubcon definition that includes "enthusiastically and deliberately getting themselves possessed for sex".

+1

Dubcon is something everyone interprets differently and it's clear that the recip doesn't see any conflict there.

If Corpsebrigadier is here they're aware you're being silly about this, you mean.

Punish them by ... not writing their prompt?

Punish them by wanking up and down coal how you think their requests are in violation of their DNWs. No one cares if you write for them or not.

By writing it and tagging it with dubcon so that when they shake it they're upset that their DNW was violated, are you as illiterate wrt coal as with their letter?

CYRT for what it's worth I agree that's what they seem to be after, but in today's exchange climate I'm not going to chance it. 'Sex while possessed, with someone else also possessed' is not a situation where consent can be fully established for all parties at all times, it's an inherently dubcon-ish situation or at least brushes up against the dnw close enough that I'd want a clear 'hey, don't worry about consent issues for this request, we'll assume everyone is okay with what's going on even if they're not always able to say so!' in the sign-up before ever considering writing it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Offseason #1

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion

Re: Chocolate Box - Letter Discussion