@juneee no, I wouldn't agree with the author in that situation. The author probably wouldn't defend that either, as she did include a gang r*pe scene (David Kim) and didn't defend it. She went as far as public defending Jo against r*pe allegations and condemning those who argued against her when she cleared it up because that's not what took place in that scene. She said the point was to show Jo's growing obsession with Ian, but he did not r*pe him.
I'm 31, and I am a survivor of sexual assault. I'm also the family member of someone who was falsely accused. As someone who has experienced the trauma and devastation of sexual violation, I wouldn't consider this r*pe. As someone who has experienced the devastation of watching my family member's life crumble for being falsely accused, even after he was proven innocent and the girl admitted that she lied, I do not considered this r*pe. I consulted with both a cop and a lawyer, per this specific situation, and was told it is not r*pe. The author herself said it is not r*pe. Are these people also unqualified to have conversations about consent because their opinion and expertise is different from yours?
Idk what else you would need to understand that you are wrong about this specific situation. While your understanding of consent is correct, context is also important. Taking a snippet of a situation and focusing solely on that instead of the situation as a whole, labeling it as a crime, and falsely condemning someone -- fictional or not -- as a perpetrator of said crime is extremely harmful. Morally what Jo did was wrong. Legally, he did not commit a crime. If you can't understand that, it's simply because you don't want to.
I'm 31, and I am a survivor of sexual assault. I'm also the family member of someone who was falsely accused. As someone who has experienced the trauma and devastation of sexual violation, I wouldn't consider this r*pe. As someone who has experienced the devastation of watching my family member's life crumble for being falsely accused, even after he was proven innocent and the girl admitted that she lied, I do not considered this r*pe. I consulted with both a cop and a lawyer, per this specific situation, and was told it is not r*pe. The author herself said it is not r*pe. Are these people also unqualified to have conversations about consent because their opinion and expertise is different from yours?
Idk what else you would need to understand that you are wrong about this specific situation. While your understanding of consent is correct, context is also important. Taking a snippet of a situation and focusing solely on that instead of the situation as a whole, labeling it as a crime, and falsely condemning someone -- fictional or not -- as a perpetrator of said crime is extremely harmful. Morally what Jo did was wrong. Legally, he did not commit a crime. If you can't understand that, it's simply because you don't want to.
