Flypsyde

"Consent is often conveyed non-verbally but stating that it is only TRULY given by a verbal affirmation in the eyes of the law stands as a warning that initiators have little to no way to evade responsibility should they be charged."

Just one of the many passages from your post that beggar belief. Are you saying that someone who is accused of rape is presumed guilty and "have little to no way to evade responsibility should they be charged?"

What exactly is the point of that lengthy passage from some web site on sexual health? It is merely the philosophy and perspective of one organization and if I understand this correctly, is not actually a definition of consent included in any of your laws. Is that correct? If so, posting it may make you feel great but it has no practical application to this discussion. Just because some organization pushes the idea that you need to get a verbal "yes" with every passionate escalation that takes place during sexual activity doesn't mean that's a good or practical idea, it's just one perspective.

And it's a perspective that pretends that human beings are passionless automatons, that emotion, desire and a thousand other feelings aren't involved in sexual activity. According to this web site, acts of consensual sexual congress are mechanical, impersonal and void of all that makes us human. People having sex need to have a legal pad and pen handy, it would be a good idea to film the sexual act to provide evidence if someone regrets it the next morning and wants to accuse the other of rape, and while we're at it, it's probably best to have a few people stand in a semi-circle around the people having sex so there will be eye-witnesses to every grope, caress and moan of desire and pleasure. (Wait, was that a moan of half-pleasure with a half-tone of resistance?! Make a note of that!) Just comically insane.

What the hell do we do if someone, god forbid!, proposes a threesome or orgy?! We'll need lawyers on-site to observe the proceedings and advise their clients as they insert body parts or grope erogenous zones, just in case!

It sounds to me as if your passage actually presents as rape a situation in which a person decides to consent to sex because they perceive that if they don't do so they will get dumped, even if the other party gives no indication that this is the case. It is all about what someone might perceive as reality, no matter how far from the case it is or how "lazy" they might feel at the moment.

Perhaps most comical is the assertion that no one should ever drink before having sex so that all these negotiations, note-taking, recording and other documentation can take place in a sober and thoughtful state of mind. No cocktail parties and hot sex after two or three glasses of wine! No sipping scotch to relax and enable yourself to have fun, relax and let go of some useless inhibitions! Be sure to have a breathalizer in your pre-sex briefcase that you take with you everywhere, as we need to know if you were legally drunk or just slightly intoxicated as evidence in the coming court case.

Your comment is just one example of why PC culture has become such a joke and is largely irrelevant to the way people actually live their lives and muddle through relationships and sex as the messy, multi-layered involvements they are.

"So yes, I let someone have his way with me out of laziness," lol So...do you consider this a case in which you were raped? It's sad that the meaning of that word, which used to carry the horror and violation inherent to the act, is now being used to define a situation where someone basically says "yes, ok, fine, go ahead, I'll just watch tv until you get off."

Someone "too lazy" to prevent their own physical violation is now the equivalent of someone who fought and resisted their assailant with every word and use of physical strength possible. That those two situations are now placed under the same categorical term as RAPE is so far beyond common sense and decency and logic as to be absurd. PC culture started becoming ridiculous as much as thirty years ago and it continues to degrade our social standards and legal system to the point of meaninglessness.

I completely and totally disagree with you here. Being "talked into" sex or being "guilt-tripped" into sex is most definitely not rape. My god, by that definition the jails around the world would overflow with men and women who have talked initially reluctant partners into having sex with them. Talking is not forcing, being convincing is not criminal and if I change my mind and say "yes" because of someone's sweet words then that decision and choice are on ME and no one is being raped. We're in Wonderland now.

The "friend" said YES. That is consent. If all it takes to get her in bed is to cry a little, well then she's got problems that need to be addressed with a therapist but no one raped her.

Imagining that someone MIGHT get violent is not the same as if he ACTUALLY got violent. Imagination and reality are two different things. That I even have to type those words is depressing to me.

Your friend was not raped and your saying she was a thousand times will not make it so. She gave her consent in the form of the word "yes." To say she is so feeble-minded she couldn't form the word "no" or was so desperately tired that she couldn't stand up and say "no, you asshole. Now get out of here" or "i'm sick of listening to your bullshit and I'm leaving" is to make her out an idiot, not a rape victim. No, it may come as news to you but saying "I got raped" does not automatically make it so.

So no, I don't know how many people are raped this same way because it is not rape. Your argument that it is is comical and absurd.

Good. That's an excellent decision on your part.

You see rape. A lot of us don't. Go to the Disney Channel.

"rape supporter!" "victim blaming!" "you need to reevaluate yourself as a person!" It's always revealing to read the final comments and insults of someone who can't successfully support their argument.

Your comment is just another summation of many of the assumptions you make about the drama with which I don't agree. With personal attacks on my character tossed in for fun. So what? Saying stuff twice doesn't' make it more true the second time around.

I don't know how old you are, but perhaps your black and white, I'm right and you're wrong, you're a bad person if you don't agree with me mode of thinking will change and gain nuance as you mature. Hope so!

Have a delightful day.

lol HOORAY!

May I ask which one? :D

In what way did you find the sex scene less than realistic?

I didn't call "people" "dim-witted horse shit." That is the term I applied to the name-calling and denunciations made by all the aggressively sex-negative people in this thread.

That there was a major consent issue is not clear at all. In my book the sex was fully consensual, even enjoyable. That's what we are all arguing about. You want to pretend it's clear so you can claim some kind of moral high ground, as you so condescendingly do in your last sentence.

Do you see me in that thread arguing that the show should be censored or changed in other ways so that I will like it? The truth is that "hate-watching" is about a show that one finds extremely annoying in some respects while at the same time actually enjoying enough about it that I want to remain engaged. The annoyance actually adds to the experience.. I am admitting that I ENJOY the strong emotions it elicits from me, that I am getting off on my outrage at how stupid parts of it are. "Hate-watching" is an old term written with tongue in cheek. It is also true that I like the two lead actors and other quirky elements of the show. it is the stupidity of the story arc and writing I've been bitching about.

Try to get any hysterics here to admit they are ENJOYING the outrage they claim to be feeling in reaction to this show.

The problem is people are not black and white, they don't operate in a black and white world, and MOST adults use alcohol to one degree or another at times to lower their own inhibitions. That's why people drink. Do you think they drink because vodka tastes good? lol

"rape is rape" such a thoughtful, statement. I counter: "non-rape is non-rape!" Oh I see how easy that is now...

"victim-blame" lol Did you fit in "problematic" somewhere and I missed it?

You're off the rails so I'm not going to devote time right now to your ravings. I might come back later, not sure. YOU believe this was rape. That is your opinion, it is not a fact. You are also twisting my words. Never a sign of a valid argument. I've read through both of these comments and I completely disagree. Naturally you become condescending toward the end of the above comment because that's all you've got. Please point out why you think I don't know what emotional blackmail is. What do you base that assumption on?

I have never said YJ is an emotionally healthy person. I believe MOST people carry emotional damage/baggage. But that doesn't turn a non-rape into a rape automatically.

That's one of the top-ten dumbest comments on this thread, which is saying a lot. So a black person who believes all white people vote Republican is not racist as well as stupid?

"Reductive." lol A lot of people use that word who don't know what it means. I don't think you're in SJW territory yet, but getting there. Would that be "reductive" too, unlike all the deeply thoughtful and rational accusations thrown around in this thread at people who disagree with the PROBLEMATIC RAPE trope?

It is a fact that there are many, many commenters here who express great distress and revulsion at the direction of this comedy/drama's plot, especially regarding the PROBLEMATIC RAPE. Their lives would be made much more comfortable and simple and clear of those darn TRIGGERING plot elements if they stopped watching this series.

How is that reductive? Seems like common sense to me. I once started watching a hideously grotesque film called A Serbian Film." I was horrified at what I saw. I stopped the movie and never watched any part of it again. There are many fans of that particular film. Should I go on a chat board and discuss the movie and accuse all of them of being psycho perverts? I found it more logical to simply not engage the film in any way, direct or indirect, ever again.

A lot of people here should take a hint from my example.

OK, first of all: "PROBLEMATIC." lol The classic SJW cliche term which serves as code for "I don't like this part and I want it censored."

Secondly, yes, absolutely, I am one hundred percent OK with BLs or any other form of art that includes "problematic" (sorry, I can't stop giggling-are there non-problematic rape scenes??) rape scenes. This is fiction, drama, live-action film not reality. The sexual activity in question is part of a thing called a PLOT and it is being used as part of a STORY LINE. This is not a live video feed of an actual rape taking place out on the street so we don't have to worry about running out there to stop it. Rather, you simply want it censored from the story so no one else can use their brains and hearts while watching this series and experiencing what it has to say.

Many shows you've watched contain murder scenes. Are you OK with problematic murder scenes?

Stop watching. Simple.

First of all, this was not a rape, so it can't be romantacizing it. Yours is an opinion, like mine, and what you think does not make it fact. It's ok that we have differing opinions.

I'm curious as to what shows you've seen that romanticized suicide. You know, William Shakespeare did that hundreds of years ago in Romeo and Juliet. Is that revered drama now also "problematic" because of the suicides of the two young lovers?

"Deliberate sensationalism..." Interesting term. Does this mean the writers anticipated the overreaction of a segment of the audience and chose the direction of the plot based on that? Maybe that WAS a consideration. If so, I have no problem with it. Artists of all media take into consideration how their audience may react to a given content all the time. I consider pushing people's buttons and challenging their assumptions and comfort zones to be a major part of what artists should do. Finally, I believe it is only a minority of vocal, tender souls who are reacting so strongly to the sex scene.

The level of discussion on this board would be nowhere near where it is if there had been no gray-area sexual scene in this show. The scene is maybe the entire focus of the dramatic part of this drama/comedy. So they "relied" on this scene to make drama...how is that different than "basing" part of the drama on the scene?

If you think he might have stopped, you weren't paying attention. It was made clear by the older brother, the next morning after he got home and talked to his roommates, that they indeed had sex. That Yonglie had "topped" him.

Please point out where I "judged" you. Even if I did, why do you care? I am an anonymous commenter on the Internet. As are you. And everything you've written could be made up. People do it all the time.

SO telling that you're going to keep watching this series even as you claim to be so upset by its content. You are enjoying it.

omg...you are completely irrational. Your friend said "yes." How much more clear evidence of consent can there possibly be? Many fanatics have claimed you need a "yes" from a sexual partner every step of the way to make certain the sex is consensual. In your friend's case, she said "YES." What the hell, in your mind, is a STOLEN "yes?" That is just bullshit. Did the dude reach down her throat and pull a yes out of her larynx? I mean, this is true-blue, almost unbelievable irrationality.

Did your friend ever say NO, STOP, I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS ANY MORE at any point during the sex? If not we have someone who verbally consented to the sex, never changed her mind, and then afterward wants to claim it as a rape. That is absurd. That is an insult to every person who has ever actually been raped.

Please purchase a brain before replying to me, thanks.