@Mari resorting to name calling now, are we? Comical. You obviously have no experience with s** or relationships, or an understanding of the law. Let this stupid person break down your argument and tell you where you're wrong. Again.
Jo did not ra** an unconscious person. Ian was fully conscious and consenting from beginning to end. Wording it the way you did implies that Ian never had a choice and never gave consent, and that is false. But I like how you use language to twist the events of the story to fit your narrative. Cute.
You said David Kim and Jo both put Ian in a situation where he was incapable of giving or withdrawing consent, and that is so factually incorrect that I want to rip my skin off. Ian wanted to have s** Jo during the camping trip. In what scene did he not give consent? In what scene did he withdraw it? I'll wait. Again, you likening that event to what happened with David Kim is purely disgusting. And the fact that you doubled down on it with an incorrect application of the correct definition of consent is even more diabolical. You seriously need help.
I stand by what I said. Ian likely would not consider it ra** because he knows what actual ra** is. He willingly had s** with Jo with full consent. Jo's actions after Ian passed out were morally wrong, but they did not constitute ra**. YOU are calling Ian a victim in this situation because that's what YOU want him to be. If you took your argument to a court of law, given these circumstances, the case would be thrown out. Why? Because the s** was consensual. (Continued below)
Jo did not ra** an unconscious person. Ian was fully conscious and consenting from beginning to end. Wording it the way you did implies that Ian never had a choice and never gave consent, and that is false. But I like how you use language to twist the events of the story to fit your narrative. Cute.
You said David Kim and Jo both put Ian in a situation where he was incapable of giving or withdrawing consent, and that is so factually incorrect that I want to rip my skin off. Ian wanted to have s** Jo during the camping trip. In what scene did he not give consent? In what scene did he withdraw it? I'll wait. Again, you likening that event to what happened with David Kim is purely disgusting. And the fact that you doubled down on it with an incorrect application of the correct definition of consent is even more diabolical. You seriously need help.
I stand by what I said. Ian likely would not consider it ra** because he knows what actual ra** is. He willingly had s** with Jo with full consent. Jo's actions after Ian passed out were morally wrong, but they did not constitute ra**. YOU are calling Ian a victim in this situation because that's what YOU want him to be. If you took your argument to a court of law, given these circumstances, the case would be thrown out. Why? Because the s** was consensual. (Continued below)