@veralol thank you so much!

@veralol do you have any other recommendations? I really appreciated your analyses btw!

@Simply simp coercion is grape, so yes, he did grape Dan.

@juneee I appreciate and respect you advocating for victims. It's very respectable, especially if you haven't experienced it. But being in that line of work, and being a victim myself, can sometimes put you in an "all or nothing" state of mind where your reasoning around these situations is so rigid that you can't see beyond it. I was like that until what happened to my family member.

I would never defend a r*pist. Ever. Not now. Not then. However, I helplessly watched as people spread the word of a false allegation and stigmatized an innocent person. I watched as everything he worked hard for in life was taken away from him within days. I watched everyone turn their back on him and treat him like the scum of the Earth. I watched everyone berate and shame him anytime he tried to defend himself. And when he was proven innocent and the girl admitted that she lied, I watched everyone turn away with indifference, rationalizing that he still must have done something wrong for her to make up those allegations. You may not get it. Prayerfully, you won't have to experience any of what I did to understand where I'm coming from 

Labeling Jo a r*pist doesn't make me uncomfortable; it's just not the right thing to do. Like I said before, your understanding of consent is correct; but your refusal to acknowledge the entire context of the situation is where your reasoning is skewed.

It seems like a whole army of professionals, victims, or whoever could tell you that, given these specific circumstances, what took place was not r*pe and you would tell them they're wrong too. You need that type of firmness for the work that you do, but in spaces like this, maybe you should try to open your mind a little more. Things aren't always as black and white as we want them to be.

@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.

@juneee the author literally said this scene was not ra** on their Twitter. I have a screenshot, but this website does not allow you to attach files. If you or Mari or anyone else can provide me with some other way of sending it to you, I would be more than happy to do so. That way you can hear/see it directly from the author herself.

@bibliophage I live in America. I can't speak for every state, but in my state, what took place between Jo and Ian would not classify as ra**. Before I wrote any of those replies, I asked a family member who is in law enforcement and a friend of mine who is a lawyer did this constitute ra**. Both said no. I also asked my mom and a few friends if they would consider this situation ra** and they also said no.

My intention any time I write something on the internet, especially regarding topics as serious as assault, is to spread factual knowledge. Even if my personal opinion does not align with those facts, I will still state what I know to be true.

I appreciate the way you offered your insight on the topic and understanding of my pov, despite disagreeing with some parts. A healthy conversation around this topic is great for people to understand that sometimes things aren't always as simple as we'd like them to be. And I agree with you -- survivors of assault are faced with way too many barriers in seeking justice. The law is often unfair to them.

However, the law also has a responsibility to protect against false accusations and nuances. Because Jo was already on the brink of org*** when Ian passed out, and only continued for mere seconds afterwards, the law would not recognize that as a violation of consent. He had no control over the fact that Ian passed out. And the law would argue that he stopped as soon as he could, therefore not violating the consent that his partner had previously given. Does that make what he did okay? No. At least, not in my opinion. But it wasn't a crime. That was the point I was trying to make.

Personally, I don't care about endgame. I don't think that Ian should be with Jo or TJ. He needs extensive therapy. I just want him to heal and be happy. But I'm not gonna falsely demonize Jo when he doesn't deserve it. That's not right either.

@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.

@Mari The law isn't "faux-intellectual." It does have precedents for these situations because they are nuanced. Was Jo wrong? Yes. Did he ra** his partner? No. Life isn't black and white. And that is the whole point of the story.

Stop projecting your narrow-minded views onto these characters and manipulating the events of the story to fit your false narrative. And stop trying to badger me for calling you out on your bullsh!t. You're wrong. Stfu.