We need to stop that

her right to consent does not trump the rights of literally everyone else to have lives that isn't just sleeping 100% of the time

go fuck yourself

so someone's right to not get kissed is more important than hundreds to thousands of people's right to have a life? Yea totally logical

Well- regardless of the version of the story (original where it’s a creepy and arbitray old stranger kiss, and Disney where it’s a life saving and likely welcome true love from a future husband kiss), pitting an entire town under a magical spell without consent is certainly a larger violation by numbers effected. In the “original” version it shows the clear attitude that a single “noble” life or the single life and “possession” of a beautiful maiden was worth more than thousands of more common or less “worthy” lives. In the modern version it is a fantasy of selfishness in which a single person is the center of attention and care- so important that their world literally freezes to a stop when they are gone. Either way though we can’t really chart equivalency for such things. Is it worse for 1,000 school kids to be flashed by a pedo at a concert, or 1 house painter to be murdered, or 3 college women date raped? What about 5 date rapes to 2 1 on 1 force ally rapes to 1 gang rape? ...

We can’t really compare horrible things like that and say unquestionably which is worse, and the more people we deal with the more complex it gets. If 1,000 townsfolk are put to sleep- how many will actually be happy about it? How many will not really care, and how many will be upset? If you grab a strangers butt in a bar and they like it and you go out- is it still sexual assault? If they don’t like it, it is certainly sexual assault. The initial action is the same- but until they consent or not you are Schrodinger's sex offender. Best to avoid the action if you don’t KNOW there is explicit consent- but as I say, the fact there isn’t explicit consent doesn’t always mean something is a crime- it does mean that you have violated their right to consent by not giving them a chance though, but given that “magic” is at play, for all we know the fairies can get telepathic or aura consent. Who fuxking knows. But it is interesting that you are the first person I’ve seen being up that aspect.

Kudos. I think you’ve shown a social predilection to female victim status as a default, and to the selfish lens this story has us walk in the “avatar” of most people’s choosing. That a single attractive female is the enter of attention in a consent debate where tens if not thousands of people were denied right to consent. Kudos indeed @bethorien.

The thing is here that one can say with absolute confidence that one person getting kissed without her consent is objectively better than an entire kingdom of people being forced into a situation where they cannot even attempt to live their lives.

I’m not so certain we can. If we only view the practical side of it- they weren’t so much stopped from living their lives as they were “paused,” as they were essentially frozen. Given the time period and setting- it’s quite possible that most of them had little or no contact- or at least regular meaningful contact, outside the kingdom. So if we imagine the entire earth being frozen for a moment in time- even a century, it wouldn’t much matter to us that the rest of the universe wasn’t. Your life as you know it would just reassume with you almost unaware of interruption. On a philosophical level- If we wa t to compare two wrongs, we must compare their total harm. That includes any emotional distress. So to compare one person getting kissed to a kingdom getting “paused” we would have to take a sum total of the emotional anguish of all people being “paused” and compare it to the distress of the person who was kissed against their will.

We cannot actually do this, and there is no way to compare emotional distress. For example, who is more distressed- a person who’s direct parent dies, or a persons who’s grand parent dies? It’s possible that one person was raised by and very close to that person, and the other was distant or even happy to see them go. It’s possible if the relationships were somehow “equal” in weight to both people that one person is more effected by death. So if someone put a lot of weight on a kiss- especially a first kiss- and the towns folk were largely not intensely effected by the “pause,” that we couldn’t say that was true. Take for example- if the person who was kissed killed themselves because of it, or was forever unable to have a “healthy” relationship because of issues that caused them- but all the townsfolk survived and had no ongoing mental baggage- which would be the greater wrong? We can say that for you personally, that you wouldn’t care as much about being kissed in your sleep...

... as much as you’d care a whole town was frozen- or that if you had the choice you’d take kiss in the sleep over freeze a whole kingdom, but not that universally one is a greater wrong or more grievous offense.

Where in the material does it say they are paused in time? People tend to still age when they are asleep. When the average lifespan of someone is around 30-40 losing a portion of that is a big thing. Also if they never woke up from the sleep, seeing as no one would ever end the curse cause she'd never get kissed, being frozen for the rest of time would be effectively killing them

For the record I don’t onow why you got and dv and it was not me. To the matter at hand- in original narrative versions, sleeping beauty is asleep for some version of many years (100, etc.) and the person who finds her is born far after her. When she awakens- the people who were “put to sleep” in the vernacular of the period- are still in the castle alive. So i posit that it is safe to assume that “sleep” is put to the common folk of the time as a substitute for the idea of suspended animation- and it is in fact even in recent times a term used to refer to suspended animation of some sort such as the sci fi fantasy term “cryogenic sleep” which just adds a technological word to an existing concept to differentiate it as a form of suspended animation that uses cold in its workings. The Disney version differs from the originals in that the prince and her are already in love, and the fairies overhear his existence after casting the spell, and he is able to reach her without much delay....

... in the Disney version, they place her in the tower to await rescue- as in older versions, and begin to fortify the tower (implying they assume there will be some delay in that rescue,) reinforced by the fact that they cast a spell to put everyone “to sleep,” which logically I say we must assume is suspended animation, because what would be the purpose of just putting them to sleep and letting them rot? Why not let them live and rot? The intent seems clear- to preserve things at the moment of occurrence so that later she will not wake to find her world gone, and when she is awoken the people will have their beloved princess as opposed to living out their lives assuming she is dead or likely to not wake in their life times. It is not, in any version I am aware of explicitly spelled out, but all context in the versions I am aware of where such “sleep” spell is used, points to it being more accurately called “preserved suspended animation.”

I think “sleep” is a vocabulary/science/genre development type artifact from a time where either the concept of suspended animation or the like wouldn’t be understood or accepted, or wasn’t in the authors tool kit so “sleep” was used. The literally “freezing of time” wouldn’t work with the narrative as events are required to unfold elsewhere to progress the story, and it allowed them to clear clutter like people spreading the tale and 1,000 dudes coming to kiss the pretty sleeping lady sword in the stone style, or a bitter seeet ending where she wakes up to a sleep kisser and a dead family in the distant future. It keeps things clean narratively and doesn’t require localized time dilation or anything more complex that might miss the average peasant.