Comment by BeautyIsPain on Mari

@Mari lol reading the breakdown of your fake argument through this sad comeback is also comical. You keep lying though. That's the part that gets me.

Saying that a man is a rap!st for cvmming a few seconds after his partner came and passed out would not match a legal definition of ra** in any jurisdiction ever. Jo did not continue intercourse for an extended period of time after Ian passed out -- he came literally right after him. And the fact that you keep purposefully dramatizing it as more than that is sick. You are making up sh!t again and manipulating what happened in the story to fit your fvcked up narrative. Yet, you say I'm the one projecting onto the characters? Take a look in the fvcking mirror.

I love how every time I prove you wrong with facts you come back with half-assed insults instead providing me with proof of why you're right. You're pretty good at deflecting and manipulating. Unfortunately, that doesn't work on me, sweetie. Try harder.

Oh, and neither does circular logic. Your "aha" moment of me saying Jo was morally wrong just proves that you lack reading comprehension. Newsflash, dumb@ss: THAT HAS BEEN MY STANCE FROM THE BEGINNING. I've said in every reply that he should have stopped immediately. But just because someone does something morally wrong it does not mean they committed a crime. You know that and yet you still continue to sit here and lie. Pathetic.

It's said when a person knows they're wrong and has no further argument, they resort to name calling and insults. Sad violin. I won't stoop to your level of childishness. Just try harder next time. At the end of the day, you are still wrong. Stfu. Respectfully.

1 Reply

bibliophageCrowd Pleaser·1 year ago

@BeautyIsPain

I'm not too sure what country and jurisdiction you live in, but in mine it is very likely that it would legally classify as ra**. The law doesn't allow you to rely on prior consent once a person becomes unconscious. Even if someone agrees to s**, once they're no longer conscious, further acts are illegal.

I think what you were trying to say is that, for better or for worse, real life is different to a courtroom. That means that in too many incidents, even ones with crystal clear, verbal, conscious withdrawal of consent, survivors are still faced with so many barriers that their injustice will likely never be heard by a judge. The reality is that what happened between Ian and Jo at the campsite would be extremely difficult to even build a case for because 1) they were completely alone and; 2) they were in the course of the act when Ian passed out—so how would Ian even know? (And that's the problematic aspect of it, bc he wouldn't know.)

People make arguments all the time that the definition should be narrower or more nuanced, but allowing offenders too much wriggle room in court, when it's already extremely unlikely to get them there in the first place, has not and will not be recommended by any stakeholders.

Originally I was under the impression that Jo would be the healthier romantic interest for Ian, but the campsite incident did change my mind. That's why I really want to see people talking about each character's development not by blindly supporting anyone, but by pointing out the major story themes. You guys literally proved just now how much else there could be to talk about.

Back to Mari