
And this is irrelevant. In a court case — with a victim and an abuser — the question is not whether the individual was cautious. That has little to no bearing. The only question that matters is: Did X rape Y? Not: Did Y protect themselves well enough? The law doesn’t waste time with logically inconclusive or morally empty questions. It is a criminal offense.
1) It is all about Consent and Capacity.
2) Victim’s “Precautions” Are Legally Irrelevant.
3) Stupid questions like “Did the victim protect themselves enough?” is a red herring and shifts blame from the abuser to the abused.
If you still can’t respond without committing even one fallacy, then seriously go educate yourself first. Don't talk back to me until you are able to display proper understanding of the subject—rhetoric grounded on reality, laws, morals and at least basic logic.
Instead of yapping here, you’d be better off watching a 15-minute educational video on the subject. Yikes.

Why are you pushing such a toxic narrative? I can understand seeing the Uke as irresponsible, but you lose me the moment you start blaming him for being taken advantage of.
- He’s not “barely drunk” — he is drunk. He’s a lightweight; some people simply have a lower alcohol tolerance.
- He is not the one at fault. It’s not as if he’s the one driving a saber into someone’s chest until they bleed.
1) Being drunk doesn't erase the crime. Voluntary intoxication of the victim does not excuse or invalidate crimes committed against them. If someone rapes you while you're drunk or remotely stupid, it's still rape.
2) Low alcohol tolerance is not a fault. Biologically, alcohol tolerance varies. Blaming someone for their body’s natural reaction to alcohol — especially in the context of harm they suffered — is both unfair and inaccurate.
3) While some might criticize a drunk person for putting themselves in risky situations, the responsibility for a crime lies with the perpetrator. Being unwise is not the same as being guilty.
4) Committing a crime is the objective fault. Morally and legally, the one who commits the harmful act is responsible for it. The term objective fault reflects that the core wrongdoing lies in the act — not in what the victim did to be "in that situation."

Well, the part where Sooyoung went to the apartment was his fault. Drinking was his fault. He wasn't drunk, btw, he was just tipsy. He was almost convinced to have sex, until Jihwan went crazy. That part was Jihwan's fault - it's partly due to his condition but that was his fault, not Sooyoung's. Let's be clear on that. I stand by my opinion that Sooyoung allowed to have sex, blowjob to be exact, and was not completely drunk, but that was last chapter. He clearly refused penetration, especially that Jihwan did not prepare him, this chapter.

That's part of being psychotic. He basically blocked out everything and just obsessed with the need to release. Blud probably didn't let out a single cum the whole time Sooyoung ran away. The backed up libido and added mental condition made him a total mad man. Or if he did release, it wasn't enough to make him a little bit normal.
atleast hes askijg sooyoung for permission.. sometimes