i love yikyung sm's Topics (374)

Your comments are so funny

OMG THANK YOU

OMG UR NAME GOJO

HAHAHAHAHAH SHOCKING ISNT IT

YEAH OH MY

I THOUGHT YOU WERE EXAGGERATING... YOU WERE RIGHT

LMAOOO OMG HES ALWAYS JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS AND BEING SO EMBARASSING

yes and yes – they've first mutually expressed their feelings in ch. 105, though...

WHAT.

Permission from a drunk guy?

yeah but its still permission.

THANK YOU

No it isn’t.

permission is permission. whether hes drunk or not?? yeah hes drunk but considering he knows who hes with he wouldve said no if he didnt want to

Please, stay away from bars. I am afraid for your safety.

It’s not. tf is wrong with you, creep

okay ive realised what i said sorry guys!!

thanks for worrying about me and im sorry

Drunk that was half a spoon wine! The MC is literally acting all drunk and weak. Waiting for ML to use that 8 box of condom

He is said to be a lightweight. xD Half a spoon.

He wanted it. The slowness of things is a dead give away he is consenting. Sooyoung is not dead drunk.

literally

spoilers.
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m

m
mm

m
mm
m
m
Said that to his bloody square. What is next? A sleeping person is a consenting one? He ghosted the ML the following day.

You said that, not me. Sleeping and dead drunk are hard no's because they cannot literally consent - they are more dead than a fish.

He ghosted because he was damn ashamed. He was dumb, if it isn't obvious and he knew he was dumb. But he was very much a willing participant, from the moment he agreed to talk in his apartment.

Tf is wrong with you? People can change their mind at any point and decide they do not want to do something… doing it anyway is assault. When they’re intoxicated or semi- or fully unconscious they cannot say anything… doing it anyway is assault. If someone is not an enthusiastic participant at any point or says “no” (and any fucking derivative of that full sentence) at any point (even if they said yes before) IT MEANS NO CONSENT. FFS why do people not know this stuff

Yes, technically you’re correct. It could still be considered sexual assault if someone says “no” and the other party ignores it and continues. Even if the MC’s actions seem contradictory, what matters most is whether freely given consent is present. In real-life situations and many legal systems, “no” means no, regardless of body language or mixed signals.

But we all can see MC’s enjoying every second of it.

You must be fun at parties I assume.

Did he say anything in between?

So many points where he could have said no. The moment he was taken to the bed, ML's hands creeping it's way to his waist, to his skin. His fingers going to unbutton his pants. He never shoved him. Its no different from denying you took illegal drugs, knowing it's illegal but since you didn't buy it, it was only given to you, you deny any fault for consuming it.

Also, I have to add because it seems non verbal communication is a foreign concept, how do you determine a non-enthusiastic participant? Do they have to jump for joy, talk dirty or something? He was enthusiastic enough for me.

woah the amount of replies

Hmm, I’d say the absolute lowest threshold to determine ‘a non-enthusiastic participant’ would be a state of unconsciousness solely based on the assumption that a human being has had sufficient exposure to the act of SLEEP from birth to right fucking now to accurately and reliably interpret it’s presentation as a non-foreign non-verbal communication of, “NO CONSENT”…but I do concede that I can only speak for human beings NOT FUCKING MONSTERS LIKE YOURSELF. Enjoy eating your words over the next few chapters buddy. Also, FYI: if you have to resort to “technicalities” re consent, you’re doing it wrong.

What part of a drunk/sleepy person is an incapacitated person don't you get? He said he wanted to sleep few panels ago.

The drugs example is a false analogy. Drug possession/use laws are about criminal behavior. Consent laws are about a person's capacity to make decisions. Your example anyway shows a case of an informed decision to partake in reprehensible activities; if the law says "consumption/use of drugs is illegal", whether you buy it or not does not matter. Our issue is very 101: Drunk people do not make the best decisions.

"Someone who is incapacitated cannot consent to sex." — RAINN.org

“Penetration... without the consent of the victim, including instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of... intoxication.” — FBI

"Consent cannot be given when someone is incapacitated—whether from drugs, alcohol, or unconsciousness." - NSVRC

"“Drunk means no. Passed out means no. Silence means no. Only an enthusiastic, sober yes means yes.” 101 ED.

Non-verbal “consent” is not reliable, not safe, and absolutely not a defense when someone is visibly drunk, tired, or otherwise vulnerable. Being passive isn’t consenting. Being too drunk or sleepy to protest isn’t consenting. Ambiguous body language can’t override clear signs of incapacitation. You won’t even manage to win a case— In real life, if a case goes to court, ambiguity benefits the defense, and that’s why it’s crucial to stress that only clear, sober, affirmative consent counts. I can hardly call the MC ‘enthusiastic’ here. He just looks taken advantage of at best.

Furthermore, r@pe victims also orgasm, but we do not go ahead and conclude things were consensual. if the MC decided to pursue charges (which will never happen), he’d have strong legal grounds in many jurisdictions. Finally, marital or domestic rpe is one of the most under-discussed and under-prosecuted forms of sexual violence, precisely because of these blurry lines.

They are "technically" incorrect, which is even weirder.

You must be fun at parties - like the other guy just said. Accountability is another blurry concept with you.

I'm sorry, I cannot always side with one. Because there is as much as falsely accused people, as there are actual perpetrators. Anyone can claim to be assaulted, even if at the time they are actually fully conscious but because they have consumed alcohol, they can claim it was assault. Can be used for revenge or just simply incriminating someone. It's their word against the other person.

I am not saying victims are non-existent, nor I am victim blaming. Just saying, every choice leading to that event must be accounted. Knowing the risks and possible outcome yet still going is accountable.

You’re literally victim blaming. And sexual assault is one of the most under reported crimes. Raping your wife wasn’t even legally considered rape until the 90s in the UK. And in the US, the current president and multiple members of his cabinet are sexual predators but, alas, they maintain their position because of people like yourself and a justice system that doesn’t treat it with the seriousness it deserves. It isn’t just about what happens physically, it’s what it does to you mentally. It fucks you up for life and unlike other survivors of violent crimes, victims are burdened with additional shame and anxiety that is a direct result of a culture that blames / disbelieves them and a legal system that, more often than not, fails to provide any justice for what they experienced and carry for the rest of their lives. If you had any real knowledge on the topic, I’d take you seriously, but you are very clearly speaking from a place of ignorance and a complete lack of empathy. I pray for you.

Yeah. Fucking yikes. And people out here saying I’m not fun at a party. The fact that they are implying rape makes parties fun…….. (⊙ _ ⊙)

You really trying to say that rape makes parties fun? wow….uhm… u trying to tell us something?

thank you pennyinheaven

No girl. Thats on you again. Lol. I'm just going to go with your logic, if someone can say no at any point during the act, then they can also say yes at any point. Being fully aware matters. Our MC? He is.

Ma'am/Sir or whatever, if you have the time to gawk at a fully erect penis, you are aware and conscious. He regretted the next morning but he is damn aware he wanted that penis.

The fact you keep insisting that a drunk/sleepy person is fully aware is legally and medically incorrect. Please, make your point without perpetuating misinformation.

‘Knowing the risks and possible outcome yet still going is accountable’ — that’s textbook victim blaming. Same vibe as saying people may rp at bars, so by going there, you're accepting the risk of being rpd. That’s a fallacy, and it’s simply untrue.

Back to our case — going to the ML to talk is not an invitation to be drunken (MC did pour more wine in his throat to "ease" him and the MC was confused about what he meant) or taken advantage of. Implying otherwise edges close to justifying predatory behavior.

And for the record, laws and moral philosophy are VERY clear on this. I’m sorry to inform you, but this incident — and the chapters that follow — do not depict anything close to ‘enthusiastic consent.’

If you truly believe this incident qualifies as enthusiastic consent, I need to say it plainly: your sophistry doesn’t override basic legal standards or sex education. You don't have to side with anything or anybody, you just need to stop spreading misinformation or I don't know, take a 15 min to read about it online. Knowledge ain’t infused. Resources ain't lacking.

Oh boy. You don't have to ACCEPT getting raped but ALWAYS be cautious because it might happen. So you're saying, if you go to a bar, you are not cautious? You just drink EVERY drink given to you, even from strangers? Not considering that it might have been spiked? You can't control how bad the people you might encounter, so how do you help yourself? Isn't it by being prepared the best that you can? By avoiding what can be avoided? Do just trust that people around you are safe to be with? It's on them for doing bad things, but it's also on you to protect yourself. If you did everything that you can to avoid what can be avoided, at least you can say you did what you can. You didn't just jump into a bad situation by being naive or dumb.

What do you think waivers are for? In the context of rides or whatever. Because you are informed of the dangers the activity but you are willing to still go at it.

So in this case, MC is AWARE the ML is dangerous. Yet he still went to his apartment. Still drunk wine.

It's the same thing when people insist of cheating and saying, they were drunk. They didn't know any better, when in fact they knew what they were doing. There is a range. Not all drunks are the same. You can't say that being tipsy on 50ml of wine is the same as dead drunk at 1L of tequila.

To give you a break down. ML, being as cunning as he is, purposefully gave MC just enough wine to loosen him up. Combine the amount he drunk, it wasn't even a full glass. ML is gauging what MC will do.

1. He could have run and try to leave - which (a) ML will either let him go or (b) force him to stay, tie him up and all.

2. Or SEDUCE him to having sex - which exactly what happened. Is seduction not a thing anymore?

Another example. There is this area in my country where it is always crowded and robbery or phones/bangs/jewelries being snatched from your body is rampant. So if you go there, people already warned you to be careful, would you still not be cautious? Would you still wear jewelries? Wear luxury bags? Keep your bag open? Hold your phone instead of putting it in your bag?

In the end, it's your job to protect your belongings.

That’s not my logic at all lol

Wow i love how people are like “I’m not victim blaming” then proceed to write multiple paragraphs on different ways to blame assault victims for getting assaulted.

What’s on me btw? Be clear.

Stop with the examples. Follow the laws.

Ah, yes. Never protect yourself. Got it.

You don't want to admit you can do something to protect yourself. Protecting yourself doesn't remove the fact you were a victim. Its just you were simply outsmarted or happen to be physically weak, not dumb. But with your mentality? Its just babying weakness and gnorance.

If this is truly what you’ve taken from this exchange, then I have to be honest: your reading and comprehension skills are seriously lacking. Talk to me after you've actually educated yourself on the subject. I can’t afford to lose IQ points for your sake. Thanks.

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.

Sorry OP, victim mentality is strong on your post/comment.

Amazing. Did pennyinheaven actually block me after calling survivors of rape dumb and weak? Talk about projection. Person sounds super lonely.

I blocked them first. I've read enough inepties/misinformation/fallacies for this week. You can't fix stupid, only wonder about it.

Stupid is as stupid does

(⊙…⊙ ) More chapters are dropping and people are waking up.

Lol yup

its okayy

People comment by chapter ffs. Some just don't get it.

ikr omg?? its literally soohyuns fault he was barely drunk

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.

yesss he literally bled and tried to make it stop but he kept going??? whay the hell

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.

yessss you understandd