ChibiP's Topics (237)

He called him that when they played b-ball too :>

Are you referring to the raws or the translated version?

Translated

the redhead is a shitty friend, comments saying what he's doing is good do you seriously think that, like if you are so reassured that a friend is in love with you and they dont confront it themselves then don't take advantage of that situation? he clearly taking advantage of it, borderline manipulative whereas heesu acknowledged and let go of his possessiveness

opps meant to be comment not a reply to this hfhfhdh ┑(￣Д ￣)┍

others are even started to notice heesu’s behavior. chanyoung is only trying to distance himself so heesu doesn’t put all his time and energy into chanyong it’s overbearing and cha young doesn’t want heesu to be ostrasized or anything when people realize he likes chanyoung

He's not "just trying to put some distance between them"... Go read the manga and come back when you have a basic understanding of the events... If he had responded to Heesu correctly by simply confronting him, they could be well over this by now. Lets put aside confronting Heesu, if Chanyoung had JUST not said anything, i don't think anyone would've complained, it's because of his current methods that almost everyone is irritated with him. He purposely went out of his way to say things to hurt Heesu into giving up, when that didn't work he'd get with multiple girls and introduce each of them to Heesu before going out of his way to ignore plans he'd made with Heesu and ignore Heesu entirely in favor of his girlfriends, not because he liked them, but because he wanted Heesu to see him with girls to make him give up. When that didn't work he noticed Heesu spending time with someone other than him and saw that as an opportunity to try and direct Heesu's feelings onto him. He didm't even know Seungwon was gay till now, he made the plans to try and get Heesu to fall in love with Seungwon while still thinking he's straight. ╮(￣▽￣)╭

Both, cause why not

Yassss
take his virgi...uhm I mean his first kiss (ノ≧∇≦)ノ

╥﹏╥ my thoughts exactly

it works wonders in the yaoi world (⌒▽⌒)

the dumbass got pregnat when he were in heat... so... i dont get it why the hater for my sweet alpha boy <3

he already pregnant..

uke raped him too, ch 10

Can we all agree that getting him pregnant so that he wouldnt leave is just wrong? Dont focus on the rape part.

Cos ur sweet alpha boy is a rapist regardless of the pregnancy and unlike the omega he has admitted to being in full control of his actions. The omega did not rape the alpha. He would have to applied force on some way either which he didn't- assault sure rape no. Can't say the same for sweet old alpha boy.

I was just about to point that out on another comment. I hate how rape is normalized, but I find it weird that most people did not notice that the uke did not wait for consent, and forced the seme to have sex with him, which is rape.

" Uke did not wait for consent " dude, Uke did not wait for shit, cuz he dosent have the thought capability nor the mental coherency to even know what the fuck he was doing. He's in heat, which in real world could be equat to being drugged or drunk( simply put he's not in his right mind). Dojin knows that he's not in his right mind, know that he neither like it or want it, and will blame everyone for it afterward, still proceeds to sex him anyway, despite the proof that he can stop. So, is it really rape?

Do you say yes everytime you have sex? 'cause I don't. When someone clearly protests that they DO NOT want sex I feel like it's obvious that that person does not want sex. When the uke initiated sex with the seme, the seme did not protest and went along with it sooooo... that's rape how? The uke clearly, twice, protested to having sex and the seme still went ahead. I now this is a manga and not a real situation also taking in to account that this is "Alpha and omegaverse" but I feel like we can all agree that raping someone (with or without the motive of making them pregnant) is wrong, no?

Dude! You and your comment are wrong.

But, luckily, my academic and professional background is in law and psychology, so let me tell you why it’s wrong.

First:

What is “thought capability?”

I have never hear of that and that’s not a legal or psychological term.

Honestly, it sounds like you thought it sounded “legal-ish”/legalese and threw it in there.

“Thought capability” sounds like someone is trying to figure out if someone is brain dead or like it related to some weird IQ test.

So, I am going to do what my old law professor did and take an imaginary red marker and cross that part of your argument out (because it is irrelevant and worthless, btw, this has been said in many legal class) and then I’m going to give you and your comment a disappointing and poignant look.

Second:

What is “mental coherency?”

Again, I have never hear of this term and it’s definitely not a legal or psychological term.
This too sounds like you thought it sounded “legal-ish”/ legalese and threw it in there.

Did you mental capacity? Or mental competency?

Mental capacity, and specifically low mental capacity does not get you out of a crime.
At the most, it’s used with children to decide if they should be tried as a child or adult. But, they are still going to be tried.

Or if someone has a mental disorder/behavioral disorder (or low IQ) and is not and should not be held responsible for their actions. But, even if this is the case, they are not just let go without consequence. Especially when an illegal act was committed.

Mental competency has to do with someone’s ability to stand trial. And this has to do with their ability to be present and to participate in court and it’s not related to the crime (or judging if someone committed a crime and/or if that person is guilty).


Next:

Your comment: “In real world could be equate to being drugged or drunk (simply put he's not in his right mind)”

Me: Well, no.

In the real world this would not, could not, and should not be equated to being drugged or drunk.

Btw, this would not, could not, and should not be equated to being drugged or drunk in the “legal world” or “psychological world” too.

No, lawyer or judge (and definitely no psychologist or neuroscientist) would related these events, because they are unrelated.

Remember in the SATs when you had to do analogies and comparisons [you know: blank is to blank as blank is to blank]. Well, most students hate these and think they are pointless and stupid.

But, in actuality, the teach students how to form logical “relevant” arguments.

Case in point, “being drugged or drunk” is not the same thing as being in “heat” (in other words a chemical imbalance.)

Being drugged or drunk is the result of an outside source/stimuli, without the presence of that outside source you are fine and don’t react. While, chemical imbalance is not from an outside source. The reactions happens due to you own by causing the reaction.

They are not the same thing. Apples and oranges. And no lawyer, psychologist, or neuroscientist would argue this, at least not a good or competent one would.

Now, if someone rapes you and they state that they only did it because they were drunk, you okay with that?

Are you going to say, well you only did it because you were drunk or on ecstasy so let’s forget about it?

What if someone claims that they have a sleeping disorder (i.e. sleep walking) and they rape someone?

Is the sleep walker not at fault because of a chemical imbalance?

(Btw, these are real-life examples when sleep walking, a chemical imbalance in the brain, is used as a defense in rape cases and murder cases)!

Lawyers, judges, police officers, psychologist, and neurologist are all depending the validity of this defense.

But, let say that the sleep walker is found to not be at fault, and you are the rape victim. How are you going to react?

Last:

“Despite the proof that he can stop”

What proof are you talking about?

Are you referring to the fact that he’s a man? His size (his weight, his height, his muscle size)? His age?

What proof are you talking about?

Question, can an adult woman rape an adult man?

What about Ronda Rousey, Amanda Nunes, Holly Holm, Gina Carano, and Laila Ali.
Do they have the same standards as other women?

What happens if they accused a non-muscular man of rape?

What proof are you talking about?

How does someone prove their proof?

Is there a particular way to stop someone or is any method/technique okay?

Can you murder someone to stop them or can you only push them away?

What if, you keep pushing someone away and they keep coming at you?

What if, you stop pushing them away?

What if, you get tired and cannot physically push them away?

What if, the normally strong seme worked out earlier that day and is suffering from temporary muscle weakness and although they can normally fend for themselves, they currently cannot?

What if, despite his size and appearance the uke is actually stronger than the seme?

Because smart people understand that muscle size does not equal strength.

Hence, I am a 5 foot tall woman, and I’m a trained boxer, who prefers to fight men, because as my uncle once said, “you short, but you strong as hell.”

So, again, dude, your comment is wrong.

And watching TV shows does not make you a lawyer or mean that you understand the law.

Note: I’ve met some crappy lawyer and some talented non-lawyer who are law smart and can be lawyers. But, you are not correct in your understanding of the law.

I'm not trying to be rude or mean, I'm just truthful.

Have a great day! :)

P.S. if this has any grammar mistakes, then I'm okay with it. See how long it is, I'm not proofreading this for grammar errors...

Also, I'm not sure why you pick my comment, when I was just agreeing to someone else's comment, but okay!

I don’t know who your comment was addressed to, but I’m answering anyway. Because your comment is factually wrong.

Let’s pretend this is a legal class, the professor presented a case in class, and we have to debate among our classmates:

The question is about a person’s legal duty to give efficient consent for a sexual act.

Which is based upon your comment: “Do you say yes every time you have sex? 'cause I don't. When someone clearly protests that they DO NOT want sex I feel like it's obvious that that person does not want sex”.

If you don’t say no, which is a verbal act, does that necessarily mean you want to have sex.

So, what if someone is deaf, mute, or both?

How do they approve or disapprove/ give consent or not give consent?

Because it has to be the same across the board. You cannot say they have a different set of rules legally for others.

So, based on your comment, someone who is mute, do they have to say “no” or “yes” to not approve of a sexual act?

So, if they don’t say no, then they are approving of a sexual act?

Or is “saying no” one of many many ways to disapprove of a sexual act?

Answer: “saying no” is one of many many ways to disapprove of a sexual act. You can disapprove of someone or something without verbally doing so.

Also, what constitutes as “clearly protests”?

My Questions to you:

Is saying no one time a “clear protest”?
Is saying no two times a “clear protest”?
Is saying no more than three times a “clear protest”?

What if someone says no in the beginning and then stops protesting? Are they now consenting to the sexual act?

What if they fight back? What if they don’t fight back?

Some police officers give PSAs and public speech on how to survive an attack.

Do you know what their advice is to victims? Don’t/Never fight back!

Because some police officers believe that you are more likely to be killed or severely injured if you fight back.

While some sociological and psychological research show that fighting back is the difference between life and death. You more likely to die if you don’t fight back.

So, how are we to interpret these mixed messages?

You have to both resist to show that it’s not consensual, but not resist too much so that you can live another day?

Honestly, this is confusing to me. How exactly is this “opposite/dualism” properly executed?

No, seriously, I am curious, how one would go about this seemingly impossible behavior.

So, a potential victim would have to meet police standards (which is not the same a legal standards) to get the police to take their claims seriously.

And for those who have never been a victim of a crime, you need the police to believe you as a victim and to take your allegations seriously in order to properly succeed.

For a real-life example: look up the tragic case of Denise Huskins and other victims who have stated that the police did not properly take down their statement.

And, at the same time, meet legal standards.

Okay! Note, this only sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous.

What if someone have limited verbal capacity and limited physical capacity?

How much resistant do they have to show? Is it the same amount as someone with full verbal capacity and physical capacity?

What if someone have a lower IQ? Are geniuses held to a higher standard them someone with an intellectual disability?

Does it matter if the person with the high IQ is the victim or perpetuator?

Does it matter if the person with the low IQ is the victim or perpetuator?

What if someone orgasms during an unwanted sexual act, does it mean that they liked it?

What if they are a child? How much is a child supposed to protest? What constitutes as a protest from a child? What if the child is 1 or 2 years old?

What if the child does not know what’s going on, how can they protest, what if they don’t protest? (And yes, I know that minors have a different set of laws and criteria, I just wanted you to get my point).

So, my point is this: your personal experience, behaviors, or characteristics does not set the legal or psychological standard? What’s reasonable to you might not be reasonable for someone else.


Btw, my comments were based on these very wrong/flawed statements from you (also, I put quotation marks around words I found to be “interesting”:

-Do you say “yes” every time you have sex? 'cause I don't.

-When someone clearly protests that they DO NOT want sex I feel like it's “obvious” that that person does not want sex.

-When the uke initiated sex with the seme, the seme “did not” protest and “went along with it” sooooo... that's rape how?

-The uke clearly, “twice”, protested to having sex and the seme still went ahead.



And my argument was based on the scenes from chapter 9 (page 14) to chapter 10 (page 17).

Where the seme stated:

-“What are you doing?” (chapter 9, page 16),

-“No, forget it. You should go and take the medicine” (chapter 9, pages 16-17),

-“So, stop” (chapter 10, page 5), and

-“No.” (chapter 10, page 6).

-And the seme also pushed the uke off of him chapter 10 (pages 4-5).

But, according to you, this is not a strong enough protest because you stated, “seme did not protest and went along with it.”

I'm not trying to be rude or mean, I'm just truthful.

Have a great day! :)

P.S. if this has any grammar mistakes, then I'm okay with it. See how long it is, I'm not proofreading this for grammar errors...

As much as I appreciate you putting time and effort in this very elaborate comment, most of your arguments have valid points but don't really apply to the situation at hand.
Both off the parties are in sound mind and body (with that I mean they have no physical or mental disadvantages) so both are in a state that they are able to voice wether they consent or not in this situation. I also understand that not saying anything is not necessarily consenting, what I was trying to bring across is that a sexual situation can occur without "clear" consent. When you have sex with your partner, one doesn't say yes explicitly but when your partner says No it's a much more clear indication of wether that person is into the situation or no. Which doesn't mean that that is always the case, this greatly depends on the situation you are dealing with at the time. Also I never implied that the person should fight back, but I assume in most situations when someone suggests to do a sexual action with you ,and you don't want , you would probably show this by speaking up or some kind of body language (wether it's pushing the person away, tensing up, etc.). Your statement that the seme indeed protested is right I assumed that the seme did not protest so I didn't reread the chapter and went off on memory wich was not correct, my mistake. I hope you have a great day as well and understand my comment a little bit better =).

ChibiP, it's lovely that you appreciate the time and effort that I put into my very elaborate response.

But my points are relevant and valid. And they definitely apply to this situation. In fact, I wrote the chapter and page as a guide.

It's a shame that you don't understand, but with time comes clarity. And I hope that one day you will understand my comment a little bit better.

Your new comments are still misguided. The uke is of sound body in mind...

How is the uke of sound body in mind when he did not remember what happened until later the next day? He did not even remember how he got into the seme's bed? The last thing he recalls is being in his room alone.

The uke was clearly out of it, and I'm confused about how you are missing that/this.

If you want, I think you should go back and reread that part again.

During which part of the last pages of chapter 9 to the first pages of chapter 10 was the uke showing clarity?

(Note: even if you uke did not mean to, he still force himself on the seme, i.e. committed sexual assault.)

Also, you are still wrong on "yes" and "no".

You cannot seriously be arguing that "yes" does not have to be explicitly expressed but "no" has to explicitly expressed.

If I ask you to do something, you can respond many ways:
-You can say no. Therefore, you are not doing it.
-You can say yes. Therefore, you are doing it.
-You can give an ambiguous answer. But the ambiguous answer does not mean yes! It also does not mean no. My request is unanswered. No response is not an affirmative response!

No means no, and yes mean yes. And ambiguity is not a confirmation/or a new way to say yes. If someone assumes "yes" from someone's ambiguous response, you do not have a "get out of jail free" card.

Try going to court and saying: "Your honor, I thought she wanted me to kiss her."
Judge: "You thought she wanted you to kiss her? Did she say kiss me?"
Person: "No, it was implied. She said nothing, so I took it as a yes!"

And see what happens!

Yes is yes, no is no, and ambiguity is neither "yes" nor "no"!

Anyways ChibiP, if you understand, it cool. If you don't, good luck anyways!

I'm now returning the thread back to you! Try rereading my response and you might get why it's right, relevant, and valid the second time around.

And if not, we just vastly disagree with each other and it no point in continue our conversation (and I mean this with no ill will, it just is what it is).

:)!!!

I think we should agree to disagree because I feel that neither of us will stray from our opinion. The time spend needlesly and pointlessly defending our opinion can be put into something more productive ;)

Hey !
First off, thank you for taking the the time considering my thought and comment. I'm sorry that I couldn't return the favor, because some of the thing you said I don't quite understand. But what I do understand I will try my best to consider and give a response to.
First off: The word.
I do admit that I did indeed make up those words, not to sound legal-ish or stuff like that, but because I forgot the word I was going to write. It happens frequently with me. Sometimes the word I were to use suddenly gone, so I had to make up word of similar effect that is understandable. And I did think it was understandable.
You said you don't understand it. So here, I'll break it down for you.
" Thought " = idea produce by thinking
" Capability" = the ability to do something
So, Thought Capability= The ability to think.
" Mental " = relating to mind
" coherency" = clear, concise
Mental Coherency= clear mind, clear conscious

So when I said that he dosent have the thought capability and mental coherency I meant to say that he can't think straight and is not concious of what he's doing.

Next, you say that Heat can not be equat to being drugged or drunk. I think so too, but the reason I decide to equat these two term is because, human being in real world do not have heat. Or at least nor the omegaverse version of heat. When Hyesung went in to heat, he acts totally different from how he usually did and have a funky memories of it afterward( I wouldn't say it's clear since it wouldn't be). The only instances that I can think of where a human being in a real world would be in the similar state of mind would be when they're drunk or drugged.
And also, you went scientific as to how they are different, let me do the same for you.
Being drunk or drugged is caused by outside stimuli, and being in heat is one' down physical reaction. So in other word, being in heat is a natural occurrence, like having period. Can you hold in your period? ( in the case that you actually can, I beg for your method). And also, Being drunk dose not excused you for rape because everyone react to being intoxicate differently, not just to lust. On the other hand, being in heat stimulates your sex drive to a point where you're high, just as being drugged is. And don't think I didn't notice the fact that you argue for drunk rape and sleep disorder rape but not drugged. And I argue for sleep disorder case the same as drunk case, not every drunk rape people, and not every sleep disorder person rape people.
Lastly, you argue for proof. Here is the proof you want.
No dude, I can't reference to the fact that he's a man, cause both of them are men. And like you said, size, gender, age has nothing to do with strength, I believe the same.
The proof that I'm talking about, is the fact that Dojin, in the midst of it, has enough control and consciousness to push Hyesung down, get on top of him, pull out and then have enough awareness of their action and consequences to put on a condom. If he dose have that much conciousness left he also have enough to leave if he dosent really want to have sex with him. And this action alone negate all your previous argument about him not having the ability to fend for himself. Oh and if you're going to argue that Hyesung heat affect him that's why he dose what he dose, then it also applied to Hyesung in this context, then both of them would be having consensual Sex. So no rape there.
Also, I'm not being rude or mean either, and even though I do not have your training, I do have the ability to judge for myself.
And I am not trying to be rude, or pulling anyone's leg. So if my wording, grammartical error etc., offended you in somehow in my reply, then my apologies, but I won't apologize for my opinion. Have a nice day.
Ps: I'm not grammar nazi, so don't worry about your grammar errors.
PPs: I'm sorry about me coming off as if I am attacking you in my previous comment. The thing is, I've just been browsing through the comment section for Author instagram link that someone has posted a while ago, and has read too many comments bashing the Hyesung to an unreasonable extent, so I was a bit pissed. And when I see your comment saying " the uke did not wait for consent" as if the hyesung was in control of himself at that time, it kinda trigger me. I'm sorry for the profanity that I've used in my previous reply to your comment.

Hi KissMeLikeYouMissMe,

First, I know what each of the words mean separately, so I did not need a definition of each word.

But, when you put “thought capability” and “mental coherency” together, you are trying to establish that they have a legal standing, social science standing, or any standing that is already established by academia. They don’t.

You were just putting together random words together and trying to give the impression that you have some authority (or at least knowledge) on the subject.

And truthfully, you don’t.

Hitting up an online dictionary does not give your statement credence.

“Thought capability” and “mental coherency” have no legitimate meaning, you just made up a useless statement. I can put words together too, “cognitive engagement” and “sexual inducement culpability”.

“Cognitive engagement” and “sexual inducement culpability” are useless and have no meaning. I just randomly combined words together.

To make it as clear as I can, “mental capacity” and “mental competency” are words that have already been established academically, these words have been tested through research and have stood the test of time (at least to now), and if you take a course in law or psychology these words and in your academic literature (or if you still use textbooks, the ones in the back of a textbook).

“Thought capability” and “mental coherency” are not academically established and no one in my professions would know what you are talking about or take you argument seriously.

“Mental capacity” and “mental competency” are actually principles.

“Thought capability,” “mental coherency,” “cognitive engagement,” and “sexual inducement culpability” are not principles.

But, yet you used made up word as your primary argument. You “defining” them meanings nothing.

Also, if I did this in my professions, do you know how much trouble I would be in, that’s career ending. You cannot even do that in college, or not at a good college.

I get why, at first, someone would think a “period” and “heat” is an appropriate comparison, but it’s really not. “Periods” and “Heat cycles’ do have reproduction in common, but that single factor does not make them comparable.

This is where critical thinking comes in hand, you have to go deeper academically. In fact, this is exactly what we do in law and in psychology.

So, to be clear, “menstrual cycles” and “heat cycles” are not comparable.

The reason I went with “sleepwalking” (as my example) is because “sleepwalking” and “heat cycle” both have an alternate mental state in common; in which, the person is not fully in control of their mental state.

Sleepwalking is an appropriate comparison, and a menstrual cycle is not.

Quickly:

-Stop equating drugs and drunkenness to “heat cycle” the fact that two occur because of an outside stimulus and that one is a body’s natural occurrence means that they are not related. Period.

-You [And don't think I didn't notice the fact that you argue for drunk rape and sleep disorder rape but not drugged. And I argue for sleep disorder case the same as drunk case, not every drunk rape people, and not every sleep disorder person rape people.]…

-Me: I did not have to talk about drugs because I talked about being drunk. Drugs and being drunk are the same in the law.! Your point is not good or relevant.

-Argue that if you want, it’s still a bad argument. Sleep disorder is not the same as drunk. Science shows this. Please, at less understand why these two are different.

-Proof does not mean opinion.

-Dojin (the seme) did push the uke down. But, that did not stop they uke. I explained this with ChibiP. Read my comments to her/him.

-It’s not consensual sex. (I also, explained why to ChibiP, read my comment to ChibiP for why it’s not consensual sex).

***Also, know this: Consensual sex is legally defined as both parties having full cogitative awareness. If someone is mentally impaired then they cannot consent to having sex. Period.

If one or both parties cannot consent, then legally it is rape. This is what the law says. I’m not making stuff up. I don’t know how much clearer I can be on this, either you get it or you don’t.

-Which is why their sex was not consensual
.
The law is up to legal interpretation, but not individual opinion.

-Your proof is not real proof. It’s just what you think.

Now, I’m starting a new job tomorrow, in combating national and local sex trafficking (and I’m excited because I get to use my law background and psychology background).

And I need to finish preparing for my first day.

But, here is a tip (for you and ChibiP), you can think you know what you are talking about or you can actually know what you are talking about.

I don’t know if you have started you college level career or not, but I wish you the best, and I hope that you have smart and enlightening mentors like I have had. I hope that they are tough on you as mine have been on me.

Because it’s best to have mentors that make you factually prove everything you say than to have the mentor that just lets you talk out your behind.

Opinion is not the same as fact. Fact is fact.

So, I still disagree with you. And like I told ChibiP, it’s time to end the conversation. Good luck! :)

P.S. No need to apologize, I not offended.