I'm sorry, what? When did I give the idea I care about this whatsoever? Facts are simply facts and all I did was state them. The law isn't arbitrary like a "hypothetical" emir's decree, it's built on principles of consent and harm prevention, universally recognized in modern legal systems.
If you say so.
Lana's "permission" in a fictional context doesn't override the reality that unconscious people can't consent, and minors can't legally consent to adults, especially not parents. This isn't about Daval's opinion, it's about objective harm, statutory rape, incest, and non-consensual acts are crimes for good reason.
There is no "objective" harm in this matter, when it concerns the behavior of two subjects, i.e. Daniel and Lana. Everyone is a subject in their own lives and the subjects of their own actions; hence, there is no objectivity. It may make you feel better to think that your statements are divorced from how you feel by citing "law" but all law is, whether arbitrary and/or "universally recognized" is a collection of feelings.
And yes, Daval's opinion matters most. Why? Because he's both Lana and Daniel. He knows better than anyone how they feel, how they think, what they both accept and don't accept, and what they can or can't consent to. You can't have it both ways: don't argue that Daval's portrayals are divorced from what you deem as "reality" and then react as though they were tied to what you deem as "reality."
Equating personal preferences to legal and ethical standards is a false equivalence that ignores real-world consequences.
Wrong. I haven't equated them at all. In fact, my argument has been trying to reinforce that the priority of personal preferences takes precedence over legal description especially as it concerns two or more parties decisions in sex.
Hence why he's on Subscribestar and not Patreon because Subscribestar doesn't enforce many laws on cartoons because they are cartoons, but doesn't change what this is, which is: rape. His opinion as well as yours are irrelevant due to the laws of the place where the game is provided, and it's not Qatar. "Dura lex, sed lex".
Once again, you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. And my opinion on this matter is as relevant as anyone else's not named Daval. The only people trying to have a dispute over legal definition are the ones who feel as though it would provide an authority to how they feel. Newsflash: it doesn't. The law has no moral priority over how a person chooses to behave their own body. Repeating what the law states is no different than stating "this person said this..." Hence, my Emir anecdote.
And as far as the differences between Patreon and Subscribestar, you're only making my point on how depictions being "okay" here, and not "there" is just arbitrary.
Now, while some countries in Asia and Africa may not criminalize marital rape, every nation in Europe, the Americas, and Oceania would call you wrong.
"Marital rape"? Daniel and Lana aren't married. And the term rape doesn't need a modifier.
I'm not saying some regions are inherently better
But you're going to try...
and the others are savages who stone homosexuals and value cows over women,
Called it.
but the contrast in legal protections for consent and autonomy speaks for itself.
The protections for "consent" especially in the countries you've listed does everything but service autonomy. If you can have a law that states that a person cannot provide consent to an act even if they've done so before, or after the fact, then autonomy is already out of the window. It's more so about protecting the image and interests of the legislation.
Regardless, it's fucking cartoons, who gives a shit?
Once again, you're proverbially speaking from one side of your mouth and another. If it's "just cartoons" then why not leave your statement at that? Why did you feel it necessary to regurgitate a legal description of rape? For "objectivity's" sake? Are you under the impression that I don't know what "legal rape" is? Or is it just my disagreement that has fueled your desire to be "objective"? And I'm using the term objective facetiously here because no one seems to have an interest in owning their opinions. I am giving my opinion. And so are you no matter what authority you believe citing legal definition provides it.
If you want to have a REAL debate about laws, morals, and ethics, feel free to message me.
With that said, I only entertained this post because I thought it only fair to hear you out given that I was the one who quoted you. But I meant what I said, I've grown tired of this discussion. This has taken up way too many pages, and consumed so much time. And I'm sure it's only a matter of time before some of these posts here are "cleaned up" so I won't waste more time beating a dead horse.