@BeautyIsPain You can scream "nuance" all you want but no amount of faux intellectual posturing is going to erase what actually happened.
Ian passed out. Jo kept going. That is not consent. That is not "morally wrong but legal". That is sкxual assault. You can throw a tantrum about how much you wish it wasn't but legally and ethically, it is.
You keep whining "where did Ian withdraw consent?". Newsflash: when someone loses consciousness, consent is void. Nobody has to scream "no" while unconscious for it to be considered assault. You don't "earn" the right to keep using someone's body once they're unresponsive. This is basic, and the fact that I have to explain it to you is genuinely embarrassing.
You even said it yourself that "Jo's actions after Ian passed out were morally wrong". Congrats. You just admitted he kept going after Ian was unconscious. That's it. That's the definition. End of discussion. The fact that your brain still couldn't connect the dots says a lot about your mental capacity.
The law absolutely defines seх with an unconscious person as rаpe in multiple jurisdictions. And you defending it this hard is beyond disturbing.
"Ian probably wouldn't consider it ra**". You seriously sat there and decided to speak for a fictional victim to justify your twisted headcanon. You're using a character's trauma as a shield for your own ignorance. That alone should disqualify you from having any opinion on the matter.
You are not smart. You are not insightful. You are just so fuсking stupid it's honestly hard to read your messages without losing brain cells. Every sentence you write is a new low.
Shut the fuсk up. You're embarrassing yourself more with every reply.
Ian passed out. Jo kept going. That is not consent. That is not "morally wrong but legal". That is sкxual assault. You can throw a tantrum about how much you wish it wasn't but legally and ethically, it is.
You keep whining "where did Ian withdraw consent?". Newsflash: when someone loses consciousness, consent is void. Nobody has to scream "no" while unconscious for it to be considered assault. You don't "earn" the right to keep using someone's body once they're unresponsive. This is basic, and the fact that I have to explain it to you is genuinely embarrassing.
You even said it yourself that "Jo's actions after Ian passed out were morally wrong". Congrats. You just admitted he kept going after Ian was unconscious. That's it. That's the definition. End of discussion. The fact that your brain still couldn't connect the dots says a lot about your mental capacity.
The law absolutely defines seх with an unconscious person as rаpe in multiple jurisdictions. And you defending it this hard is beyond disturbing.
"Ian probably wouldn't consider it ra**". You seriously sat there and decided to speak for a fictional victim to justify your twisted headcanon. You're using a character's trauma as a shield for your own ignorance. That alone should disqualify you from having any opinion on the matter.
You are not smart. You are not insightful. You are just so fuсking stupid it's honestly hard to read your messages without losing brain cells. Every sentence you write is a new low.
Shut the fuсk up. You're embarrassing yourself more with every reply.
