Not to be insensitive here, but genuinely *who cares*? Like, yeah, I guess by definition it was rape, but in reality they're dating, they were both drunk (not just the top that time), he just said he regrets it and they're both in love. He woke up, thought he was hallucinating having sex with the person he loves and fell back asleep. Like, it's only an issue if it's an issue.
Also, unless they discussed it and they made it a rule that he needs to get consent if he's sleeping, I think it's pretty commonly just the unspoken rule that of you're in a committed relationship the consent is implicit just inherently.
I mean, sure, if he finds out about it soon (which I'm sure he will since that he feels guilty about it has already been addressed) and feels raped then that will be another discussion, but till then I'm going to be surprised if he even does feel raped in that situation.
THANK YOU! its is rape by definition but if you consider the circumstances, is it really that deep?
No... It's very obviously not that deep. Nothing about that situation screamed red flag imo. It was only "rape" in the sense that he didn't verbally consent before it, but the sex itself came with none of the rapiness of actually forceful rape with intention
i sorta agree with you on what you said but please don't say that "it's pretty commonly just the unspoken rule that of you're in a committed relationship the consent is implicit just inherently" i think it's just a shit thing to encourage to people
this is a terrible way of thinking tbh because a person needs to give consent every time in a relationship, it is not inherently given just because people are dating. just because you're in a relationship it does not mean you can fuck your partner anytime based on the logic of "the consent is there inherently" that's just a rapist mindset and i'm sure you didn't mean it that way but just thought to let you know to maybe not word it like that
I don't think there's an issue with the wording, that's exactly what it is. Anyone with reasoning skills will understand that I'm not saying that the consent applies to anything, ever, no matter what. But something like this is pretty much within that gray area that most would think implied consent because they're in love and in a relationship. It would surprise me if he felt raped in that situation, he was with his significant other, they were drunk and it's not like there was any level of "whoa, stop" or some kind of background info that would justify feeling raped in that situation, like past sexual trauma.
What that wording means, what everyone understands it means, is that you can initiate sex whenever. That doesn't mean you can follow through with the act regardless of how your partner feels. It might sound dumb to word it like I'm about to, but when it becomes rape is when it's rape. But yes, as a committed partner, everyone has an understanding that you can attempt sex without the other person feeling like you're a rapist. You aren't strangers and their attraction to you is already established.
Red haired guy is fine with what happened so it's retroactively not rape. Get over it. Also they aren't real.
i wasn't talking about this story and that scene in particular.
i was talking about that specific sentence you used to talk about consent in relationships. your wording was like so exactly "it's pretty commonly just the unspoken rule that of you're in a committed relationship the consent is implicit just inherently". you are saying that consent is always there if you are in a relationship with someone, which is not true at all and wrong to think that's why i'm telling you to please be careful about what you write
Okay, but I'm speaking about a concept in that sentence that people understand. If someone tries to use that same wording to justify how they raped their S.O. they'll just look like a clown because everyone knows that there are limits to the concept. It's not all encompassing.
I'm making the point that, no, the wording i used *does not* imply the amount of umbrella space that you're saying it does because people have basic reasoning skills. The sentence *does not* say that consent is always there, you should have the basic reasoning skills to know that on reading the sentence. Of course there are limits.
your sentence literally says exactly this bruh are you actually gonna try and gaslight me into thinking it doesn't???
"Also, unless they discussed it and they made it a rule that he needs to get consent if he's sleeping, I think it's pretty commonly just the unspoken rule that of you're in a committed relationship the consent is implicit just inherently."
that's exactly what you wrote. that sentence implies exactly what it says. you are saying: unless discussed beforehand that he needs to get consent while sleeping, the consent is there naturally bc it's just common in relationships. there is no other way around it you just don't want to admit that what you wrote is incredibly immoral and implies a rapist mindset. please be better and just grow up i'm not here to fight you i'm trying to let you know nicely to not say things like that because it's not right.
Maybe I'm not being direct enough. What I'm saying is that you're taking what I'm saying and applying it to anything and everything rather than what it's actually being applied to. I'm specifically speaking of whether or not consent is implied in the context of being within a loving relationship, specifically initiating sex with your sleeping partner (a common practice). You're looking at that and warping what I'm saying into a statement that if that's the case, then what I'm saying applies to other scenarios, which is not what I'm saying. Obviously it's case by case depending on the context and obviously the concept I'm referencing in what I said is not all encompassing. Your interpretation of what I'm saying is very literal and without the basic amount of nuance that goes without saying. When you read things there's supposed to be a level of understanding that goes without saying. I don't need to spell out for you that I'm not saying "rape is justified by this". It goes without saying and most people who read what I said will just understand that.
Specifically within the context of "whether or not initiating sex while they're asleep is okay", it makes sense for a discussion on that to be bad rather than for the person to immediately feel raped by their S.O.
I don't know how I could possibly better explain the same thing I've been repeatedly trying to get across now and you're getting a little uppity and getting dangerously close now to implying that I have a rapist mentality with that last reply, which is really just offensive so I'd rather you just read this, absorb it and then not respond.
This is great and all, but I do hope y'all are not forgetting the rape a few chapters ago.....