Truth Dares

I am just coming up with them because they are a very typical example for that it happens and works without any particular problem. I could come up with others if I start thinking but I did not. Earth Cooheart and Santa may well be another basket case, but I am still not convinced whether they are really together. It is not quite conditional because ab ovo it is not illegal to start such sexual act, but later on there could be certain risks. Yet it does not make it de jure illegal.

Why the BL audience is so worked up about age gap is completely different, and honestly it is beyond me. And what I particularly cannot get myself over is how the same people who are so aware it is disgraceful to label couples of different race or sex unabashedly and vocally call couples with age gap "weird" and "creepy" straight away.

Like I said it happens, Newyear and Both are a very good example. And they have been together for 10years. That is why I said every case needs to be examined separately and individually.

It is not illegal for adults to have sex with minors over 15 in Thailand. Indeed there is a penal code called Statutory rape for some cases of adult having sex with someone over 15 but under 18, but that primarily applies, when it is proven the minor has been schemed into the sexual intercourse by a sort of authority figure like teacher or coach. In general, it is very debatable, and especially when it is proven by the court the minor has an active sex life via dating apps, it rarely qualifies as grooming or such.

You said yourself that the Thai rock star slept with the teenage girl legally and consensually. He only received suspended sentence because the girl later pressed statutory rape charge by parental pressure once it turned out to be that she was pregnant. Normally, it is not illegal to have sex with a minor over 15 even if you are an adult assuming it is consensual. The Thai dream couple Booth and Newyear have started their relationship when Newyear was 17 and Booth was 24. I doubt they were waiting a year to have sex and no one arrested Booth.

It is not illegal for adults to have sex with minors over 15 in Thailand. Indeed there is a penal code called Statutory rape for some cases of adult having sex with someone over 15 but under 18, but that primarily applies, when it is proven the minor has been schemed into the sexual intercourse by a sort of authority figure like teacher or coach. In general, it is very debatable, and especially when it is proven by the court the minor has an active sex life via dating apps, it rarely qualifies as grooming or such.

Furthermore, in The Warp Effect Joe told Army that he was going to get him arrested, and that is total nonsense, since it is not a criminal offence, and a third person cannot submit SR charge. In each case there are court procedures whenever someone is charged, but only if the minor decides to press charges. A third person cannot.

Then Army suggested Cha Yen to have sex with someone of his age. That is a typical western hang-up while the Thai penal code does not have close-in-age exemption, so if the statutory rape charge were really taken that seriously, that could technically be applied against a minor too (even if it rarely happens).

That was total bonkers in The Watp Effect, and I cannot help but feel it was put there with the purpose of catering puritanical western viewers. That is not how things work there. My bf was Thai so I do have some direct info. The Thai dream couple Booth and Newyear have started their relationship when Newyear was 17 and Booth was 24. I doubt they were waiting a year to have sex and no one arrested Booth.

I agree with nearly everything what you said, but there is one thing you are certainly wrong about. Wang indeed planned to go to In's house and set his mother up. In has asked him so many times whether he came to see him purposefully, because he suspects that too, but Wang actually confesses this was his plan all along - in his inner monologue when he is walking up to In's house in episode 1.

"You're right, I lied. This here isn't the latitude of 18.8801518218 and the longitude of 99.347722166. But what harm could it do? It's not like Mom has been completely honest with me either. Who knows? Going off course for a few steps could bring a big change in your life".

That is why he took the pictures of his father and In together from their college years with himself. He planned to show them in advance to In.

I was just about to write the same. Whereas I agree that there are no cartoon villains and saints in this show, thanks god, and that all characters are layered, including Mol, but saying she was pushed into the arms of a gay man is such a ridiculous spin of the events as to be faintly absurd.

Not just from what In said, Mol literally admits she used In to get Siam for herself when she kept nagging In to help her. It is when she tries to ask In to help to lead Wang back to the right path (just before she flies away to the award ceremony). It is also strongly hinted that she was aware of not only Siam is not into her but also him not being into women and being in love with In as well. She clearly thought she could "fix" / "cure" him.

Like you said if anyone was pushed into this marriage it was Siam - by Mol and In. But I would hesitate to call "push" what In did. In just stepped back by the influence of Mol's manipulation and also to repress his own attraction to Siam, but without Mol's determination to get Siam for herself In would not have picked up a random girl to matchmake Siam with.

Why am I not surprised? The standard petulant, immature and thick SJW tantrum. You don't know what consent is, you are totally clueless about alcohol consumption, you talk stupid crap about justice system, you cannot even expound a scene, you don't know what you are watching, and when your bullshit is confronted with facts (that is what is called argument, you are not arguing, you are just parroting your crap), you are escaping to your safe space. You are all the same. Boring af. Grow up and learn to argue, kiddo.

Utter balls

Another clueless nutjob who knows nothing about sex or alcohol. "There's no such thing as consensual drunk sex." Have you been to bars, night clubs or house parties, where poeple go to drink and then hook up with someone, kiddo? Are you suggesting they all rape each other? Or are you another 12 years old clueless brat who does not know shit?
Bloody hell, in the hotel room XS is the one who wants to kiss YJ on the lips and asks him why YJ does not want to return it. You don't wanna kiss someone on the lips you have no romantic and erotic feelings about. XS is clearly attracted to YJ and you are in denial about this. I have elaborated many other metacommunications and gestures about that, I won't repeat them again. XS clearly declares romantic love in the hotel room, and he wakes up as if he was in the 7th heaven. He only freaks out when his societal inhibitions return. Those were lowered by alcohol the day before, hence he could be himself and free his emotions to his step-brother. Afterwards of course he denies that, to YJ and himself again, but only because he thinks that is what he has to do. He is constantly worried about that he might have taken advantage of YJ and not the other way around, his entire conversation with Li Cheng and Mu Ren are about these concerns. You don't do that if you feel "assaulted", and you only do that if you feel you initiated the sex - rightly so, in this case. The fact that YJ knew how XS possibly reacts under the influence of alcohol to his confession does not change this.
Try to grasp and understand what you are watching once you reach 15. Then educate yourself about law, sex, alcohol and life in general.

Asian BLs are full of step-siblings love, so it is not unusual there. As a matter of fact, it is not unusual in the Western culture either that two not blood-related people - irrespective of their sex - fall in love. There are tons of literate materials on this subject.

Bloody hell, in the hotel room XS is the one who wants to kiss YJ on the lips and asks him why YJ does not want to return it. You don't wanna kiss someone on the lips you have no romantic and erotic feelings about. XS is clearly attracted to YJ and you are in denial about this. I have elaborated many other metacommunications and gestures about that, I won't repeat them again. XS clearly declares romantic love in the hotel room, and he wakes up as if he was in the 7th heaven. He only freaks out when his societal inhibitions return. Those were lowered by alcohol the day before, hence he could be himself and free his emotions to his step-brother. Afterwards of course he denies that, to YJ and himself again, but only because he thinks that is what he has to do. He is constantly worried about that he might have taken advantage of YJ and not the other way around, his entire conversation with Li Cheng and Mu Ren are about these concerns. You don't do that if you feel "assaulted", and you only do that if you feel you initiated the sex - rightly so, in this case. The fact that YJ knew how XS possibly reacts under the influence of alcohol to his confession does not change this.

And no, you cannot be so drunk to have sex with someone you did not want to have sex with - this way. "that XS didn't want this to happen (i.e., lack of consent)" - that is utter bullshit. Many people consciously and deliberately have sex with someone every day, under the influence of alcohol, which they might regret the day after, for various reasons, but that that not make the sex non-consensual in retrospect. And that is exactly what happened here.

I am "presenting consent and morality as two entirely different things" because they are different, at least for those with sense of grey areas and not black and white thinking. You can do something wrong sex-wise without involving non-consent. YJ exactly knew that XS has feelings for him, but due to his societal inhibitions and being in the closet, he was unlikely to let his guards down and free up his feelings. So instead of waiting for XS to come to terms with himself and tell YJ how he feels, YJ decided to trick and seduce him while drunk, and he ignored whether XS was ready for that or not. Hence the situation is both properly consensual and morally questionable.

XS clealry initiated the sexual intercourse, I have detailed the evidences above extensively, and honestly I am quite sick up to the back teeth that you are still crawling up to the glass wall to deny it. If you cannot be able to see "XS's actions as initiating sex or giving proper consent", then I am sorry, but you don't know what you watched.

"Xing Si also didn't willingly drink in order to drop his inhibitions about sex with his step brother, he drank because he wanted to drink, to enjoy the alcohol enjoy being drunk."
He know his own limits, nad he received clear signs in advance, and you ignore the metacommunication and touches of XS over the bar scene.

"not to mention, YJ says that he intended to have sex with XS whether he was willing or not"
Not true. He has never said that. He says that he wanted to have him for his birthday knowing that XS might regret that later, but he never wanted to do this against his will. If he was willing to do that, YJ would not have instisted on XS being in his senses, hence the conversation. For YJ it was essential and important XS knowing and wanting what he was doing.

"eventually lust (specifically, alcohol induced lust) takes over XS as YJ kisses him so he willingly responds."
Nonsense. You completely ignore the lucid and meaningful conversation between them before the action, including the mutual love confession. It does not happen to someone who is black out drunk. Alcohol is not sort of love potion or metamorphosis-indicator, as many of you try to make it seem, that transforms you into someone else. It just helps you doing what otherwise your societal or other kind of inhibitions or lack of self-confidence might prevent you from doing. You don't put your arms around the neck of someone, you don't initiate kiss on the lips in the bed, you don't ask why he did not wanted to have French kiss, and you don't confess to love someone you otherwise have not feelings for and you do not wanna have sex with. XS initiated the sexual act, plain and simple, no matter how hard anyone tries to twist the narrative into something else to meet an agenda. Whether XS has ever initiated sexual intercourse without lowering his inhibitions by alcohol is another matter, and here comes the morally questionable part of the hotel room scene. But that is a moral issue, and not sexual consent issue. People over this board conseqently fail to make this vital difference.

"Should add that filming a sex partner without their consent and/or knowledge IS a
criminal act in a lot of countries."
If the other party reports it or they feel they need to report it. It is not ex officio prosecutionon on its own.

Another clueless, sexually frustrated SJW on board who cannot be arsed - or just intellectually incapale of - comprehending what she saw.

The hotel room scene:
YJ: Xing Si do you recognize me?
XS: smiles: "You're Yong Jie
YJ: I want to tell you who I like, OK?
XS: Yes.
YJ: I wanna tell you about my love. It was a sad and painful love.
XS: Why was it and painful? Then why didn't you stop loving him?
YJ: I can't
XS: Who is that person?
YJ: It's you
XS: Me?
YJ: Yes, the person I'm deeply in love with is you.
XS then subsequently puts his arms around YJ's neck and pulls him close): 'Then that's great that you really love me. I really love you too."
(YJ then kisses him on the forehead and cheeks, and XS attempts to kiss him on the lips but YJ pulls back)
XS: "Why don't you kiss me on my lips?"

XS then starts kissing him on the neck and the love-making begins.

So:

XS was not only totally concscious, not only he had a lucid and rather versatile and meaningful conversation BUT HE HIMSELF INITIATED THE EROTIC ACT!

So when the stupid sob below says it was a sex without permission, she is either lying or being thick as pighsit who does not understand what she is watching. Does a person initiate sexual intercourse if being "sexually attacked" or "being taken advantage"? Of course not, that is an oxymoron for everyone with basic common sense.

It is extremely difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who either does not pay careful attention to what is happening on the screen or deliberately twists the narrative to fit an agenda anyway. "Unilateral love". Holy shit. How blind and stupid one has to be to miss the mutual love confession and once again that he made the first erotic act in the hotel room? Or when he applied sun scream on the beach, YJ started to play with XS's nipples? And XS's stare? Or how XS caressed YJ's cheek in the bar? It was a totally mutual sexual attraction and he kind of knew what was coming.

And once and for all. It all does not mean what Jong Yjie did was morally right. You can do a scheming, twisted, morally reprehensible "seduction" without sexually attacking someone. Many of you should try to differentiate instead of "all or nothing" black and white way of thinking.

Knowing that someone wants to have sex with you but he is afraid of doing it due to his inhibitions, hence having him drunk (Not forcing him top drink! He was drinking on his own choice), then achieving him wanting to make consensual sex with you (Xing Si made the first erotic step, people constantly ignore this, because it does not suit the agenda) is called "seduction". It may well be a shceming and morally reprehensible thing to do, but it is anything but sexual assault.

If a grown up person makes the decision to drink, and finally have consensual sex with someone, no one else could be blamed.

And that goes for XS and everyone else, especially if you are the one who initiates. You can expect to respect that you would not do that, even if you initiate a sexual advance while drunk. You could have such expectations, but you cannot call the other one "rapist" or "sexual assaulter" if they take the chance. You can hate them for the rest of your life, your choice, but you cannot call them rapists. No court would ever find them sexual assaulters either.

But it still does not mean whatever happened was not morally reprehensible while not being sexual assault. The problem is that one-dimensional people with tunnel vision cannot make a balance. Sexual intercourses are not black and white, and have many grey areas.

Another indoctrinating pissbaby with this ridiculous bs about drunk sex equals non consensual sex. Have you been out in real life at all?

I don't know where you live but people all over the world, except for probably muslim countries, have consensual drunk sex every day. Sometimes they are both drunk, sometimes only one of them is drunk, sometimes they are drunk on different levels. Being drunk does not exclude sexual consent. If someone is incapaciatated, totally blacked out and unconscious, nd then being taken advantage or them physically being unable to fight against sexual intercourse, that it is rape (just like the case of Mu Ren and the vice-president, where he is drugged not by his own choice, unconscious but still repetaedly says NO. The contrast is not there for nothing) . But having sex with someone who is intoxicated on its own does not make it so. You should probably visit some bars, night clubs, disco clubs or house parties where people knowingly drink to lower their inhibitions and increase their self-confidence to have consensual sex afterwards, just like what happened to Xing Si. Do you think people in those places above all commit crimes? Ridiculous. Once again, a difference should be made between giving consent while intoxicated and being unable to give consent while incapaciated.

XS was clearly willing to take part in the sexual intercourse, and he inititaed it. What happened to him would never ever be considered as an act of crime in any civilized country. Morally it could be condenmed what the younger one did, and rightfully so, but that is different.

There are some examples for consensual sexual acts where alchohol was consumed:

www.whitman.edu/campus-life/diversity/title-ix-and-sexual-misconduct/sexual-misconduct-prevention-and-response-network/incapacity-defined

"Consent may never be obtained through the use of force, coercion or intimidation or if the victim is mentally or physically disabled or incapacitated, including through the use of drugs or alcohol. A person can be "drunk" and also have the capacity to give consent.

To better understand and determine capacity, we use the NCHERM explanation. With regard to alcohol, there are multiple levels of effect, along a continuum:"

"The lowest level is impairment, which occurs with the ingestion of any alcohol. A synonym for impairment is "under the influence."
The next level in intoxication, also called drunkenness, is similar to the state's drunk driving limit.
Incapacity is a higher level of alcohol consumption
The highest level is overdose, or alcohol blood poisoning, which may lead to coma or death.
One who is physically incapacitated as a result of alcohol or other drug consumption (voluntary or involuntary), or who is unconscious, unaware, or otherwise physically helpless, is incapable of giving consent. One may not engage in sexual activity with another person who one knows or should reasonably know to be mentally or physically incapacitated.

sexual-harassment.providence.edu/definitions/incapacitation/

"Use of alcohol or other drugs does not, in and of itself, negate a person’s ability to give consent. Alcohol-related incapacity results from a level of alcohol ingestion that is more severe than being under the influence, impairment, intoxication, inebriation, or drunkenness. Common and obvious warning signs of possible incapacitation include consistently slurred or incomprehensible speech, unsteady gait, vomiting, or incontinence. A person who is incapacitated may not be able to understand some or all of the following questions: “Do you know where you are?” “Do you know how you got here?” “Do you know what is happening?” A person who is not incapacitated at the beginning of sexual activity, may, by virtue of alcohol or drug ingestion prior to or during the activity, reach a state of incapacitation as the activity continues and progresses. Persons who are sleeping or completely passed out are incapacitated."

letsbeclear.ucf.edu/more-information/sexual-assault-and-consent/

"A person seeking to initiate sexual activity is not expected to be a medical expert in assessing incapacitation. The potential initiator must look for the common and obvious warning signs that show that a person may be incapacitated or approaching incapacitation. Although every individual may manifest signs of incapacitation differently, evidence of incapacity may be detected from context clues, such as:

Slurred or incomprehensible speech;
Bloodshot eyes;
The smell of alcohol on their breath;
Shaky equilibrium or unsteady gait;
Vomiting;
Incontinence;
Combativeness or emotional volatility;
Unusual behavior; and/or
Unconsciousness.
Context clues are important in helping to determine incapacitation. These signs alone do not necessarily indicate incapacitation. A person who is incapacitated may not be able to understand some or all of the following questions:
“Do you know where you are?”
“Do you know how you got here?”
“Do you know what is happening?”
“Do you know who is here with you?”

****
From those above only "Shaky equilibrium or unsteady gait" was probably the case or close to that, when they were in the bar, but even that one is not 100%, and above all we don't know when they have had sex, hours might have passed. Everything else was just the polar opposite.

It is extremely difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who either does not pay careful attention to what is happening on the screen or deliberately twists the narrative to fit an agenda.

"There's nothing indicating that Xiao Yeh was in love with his brother"

Did you miss the mutual love confession and once again that he made the first erotic act in the hotel room? When he applied sun scream on the beach, YJ started to play with XS's nipples. Have you missed that part? And XS's stare? And have you missed how XS caressed YJ's cheek in the bar? It was a totally mutual sexual attraction and he knew what was coming, but people are in total denial about this.

"and we can see it due the fact that not only he was very traumatized by the fact he slept with his brother but also it took him a lot of time to give him an answer"

He was in the Seventh Heaven when he woke up the morning after, and only freaked out when his societal inhibitions returned.

He runs home, the scene is also made in a deliberate way to show his worry is caused by shame and a feel of guilt. He explicitly says he "slept" with his brother (not being assaulted, not raped), and he consistently tells he feels ashamed of possibly taking advantage of his "little brother" ("It was my fault, I should not have drunk", "How could I do that with my brother?", "It was probably because of my pestering", "But he wouldn't have voluntarily...", "How will I explain this to his mother?"). His whole conversation with Mu Ren and Li Cheng is about his worry and dilemma whether his "little brother" was willing or not. And he remembers everything, including that he was bottomed.

A sexually assaulted/raped person never worries about whether they took advantage of the other one. He never for a moment felt raped or sexually assaulted, as he clearly was not.

It was his own romantic feelings he was scared of against the societal expectations that he cannot have such feelings for his "brother".

For you it may well be off-limit, but it is not an exclusive principle. There are too many consensual drunk sex all over the world to make such a blank statement, like I detailed above if you scroll up.

Knowing that someone wants to have sex with you but he is afraid of doing it due to his inhibitions, hence having him drunk (Not forcing him top drink! He was drinking on his own choice), then achieving him wanting to make consensual sex with you (Xing Si made the first erotic step, people constantly ignore this, because it does not suit the agenda) is called "seduction". It may well be a shceming and morally reprehensible thing to do, but it is anything but sexual assault.

If a grown up person makes the decision to drink, and finally have consensual sex with someone, no one else could be blamed.

And that goes for XS and everyone else, especially if you are the one who initiates. You can expect to respect that you would not do that, even if you initiate a sexual advance while drunk. You could have such expectations, but you cannot call the other one "rapist" or "sexual assaulter" if they take the chance. You can hate them for the rest of your life, your choice, but you cannot call them rapists. No court would ever find them sexual assaulters either.

But it still does not mean whatever happened was not morally reprehensible while not being sexual assault. The problem is that many of you cannot make a balance. Sexual intercourses are not black and white, and have many grey areas.

No one "shipping" that couple has ever said the hotel room scene was right. But Yong Jie has paid the price for it. He was rejected not just by Xing Si, but by his entire enviroment. And he had to make a lot of things to be forgiven. Some of us simply think no one is entitled to say he does not deserve a second chance and to decide whether a relationship like that (or any) is valid. It is none of our business.

I don't know where you live but people all over the world, except for probably muslim countries, have consensual drunk sex every day. Sometimes they are both drunk, sometimes only one of them is drunk, sometimes they are drunk on different levels. Being drunk does not exclude sexual consent. If someone is incapaciatated, totally blacked out and unconscious, nd then being taken advantage or them physically being unable to fight against sexual intercourse, that it is rape (just like the case of Mu Ren and the vice-president, where he is drugged not by his own choice, unconscious but still repetaedly says NO. The contrast is not there for nothing) . But having sex with someone who is intoxicated on its own does not make it so. You should probably visit some bars, night clubs, disco clubs or house parties where people knowingly drink to lower their inhibitions and increase their self-confidence to have consensual sex afterwards, just like what happened to Xing Si. Do you think people in those places above all commit crimes? Ridiculous. Once again, a difference should be made between giving consent while intoxicated and being unable to give consent while incapaciated.

XS was clearly willing to take part in the sexual intercourse, and he inititaed it - you constantly ignore this key factor, because it shows your theory is built on a lie. What happened to him would never ever be considered as an act of crime in any civilized country. Morally it could be condenmed what the younger one did, and rightfully so, but that is different.

There are some examples for consensual sexual acts where alchohol was consumed:

www.whitman.edu/campus-life/diversity/title-ix-and-sexual-misconduct/sexual-misconduct-prevention-and-response-network/incapacity-defined

"Consent may never be obtained through the use of force, coercion or intimidation or if the victim is mentally or physically disabled or incapacitated, including through the use of drugs or alcohol. A person can be "drunk" and also have the capacity to give consent.

To better understand and determine capacity, we use the NCHERM explanation. With regard to alcohol, there are multiple levels of effect, along a continuum:"

"The lowest level is impairment, which occurs with the ingestion of any alcohol. A synonym for impairment is "under the influence."
The next level in intoxication, also called drunkenness, is similar to the state's drunk driving limit.
Incapacity is a higher level of alcohol consumption
The highest level is overdose, or alcohol blood poisoning, which may lead to coma or death.
One who is physically incapacitated as a result of alcohol or other drug consumption (voluntary or involuntary), or who is unconscious, unaware, or otherwise physically helpless, is incapable of giving consent. One may not engage in sexual activity with another person who one knows or should reasonably know to be mentally or physically incapacitated.

sexual-harassment.providence.edu/definitions/incapacitation/

"Use of alcohol or other drugs does not, in and of itself, negate a person’s ability to give consent. Alcohol-related incapacity results from a level of alcohol ingestion that is more severe than being under the influence, impairment, intoxication, inebriation, or drunkenness. Common and obvious warning signs of possible incapacitation include consistently slurred or incomprehensible speech, unsteady gait, vomiting, or incontinence. A person who is incapacitated may not be able to understand some or all of the following questions: “Do you know where you are?” “Do you know how you got here?” “Do you know what is happening?” A person who is not incapacitated at the beginning of sexual activity, may, by virtue of alcohol or drug ingestion prior to or during the activity, reach a state of incapacitation as the activity continues and progresses. Persons who are sleeping or completely passed out are incapacitated."

letsbeclear.ucf.edu/more-information/sexual-assault-and-consent/

"A person seeking to initiate sexual activity is not expected to be a medical expert in assessing incapacitation. The potential initiator must look for the common and obvious warning signs that show that a person may be incapacitated or approaching incapacitation. Although every individual may manifest signs of incapacitation differently, evidence of incapacity may be detected from context clues, such as:

Slurred or incomprehensible speech;
Bloodshot eyes;
The smell of alcohol on their breath;
Shaky equilibrium or unsteady gait;
Vomiting;
Incontinence;
Combativeness or emotional volatility;
Unusual behavior; and/or
Unconsciousness.
Context clues are important in helping to determine incapacitation. These signs alone do not necessarily indicate incapacitation. A person who is incapacitated may not be able to understand some or all of the following questions:
“Do you know where you are?”
“Do you know how you got here?”
“Do you know what is happening?”
“Do you know who is here with you?”

****
From those above only "Shaky equilibrium or unsteady gait" was probably the case or close to that, when they were in the bar, but even that one is not 100%, and above all we don't know when they have had sex, hours might have passed. Everything else was just the polar opposite.

*****

And once and for all. It all does not mean what Jong Yjie did was morally right. You can do a scheming, twisted, morally reprehensible "seduction" without sexually attacking someone. Many of you should try to differentiate instead of "all or nothing" black and white way of thinking.

The scene:
YJ: Xing Si do you recognize me?
XS: smiles: "You're Yong Jie
YJ: I want to tell you who it is I like, OK?
XS: Yes.
YJ: I wanna tell you about my love. It was a said and painful love.
XS: Why was it and painful? Then why didn't you stop loving him?
YJ: I can't
XS: Who is that person?
YJ: It's you
XS: Me?
YJ: Yes, the person I'm deeply in love with is you.
XS then subsequently puts his arms around YJ's neck and pulls him close): 'Then that's great that you really love me. I really love you too."
(YJ then kisses him on the forehead and cheeks, and XS attempts to kiss him on the lips but YJ pulls back)
XS: "Why don't you kiss me on my lips?"

XS then starts kissing him on the neck and the love-making begins.

XS he was totally concscious, he had a lucid and rather versatile and meaningful conversation and he himself started the erotic act.

Consequently, when you say " cause the guy not only had no condition to give consent" you are either don't know what you are watching or you outright lie. Educate yourself about what rape is.

For you, illiterate SJWs, without one single original thought, reading comprehension or intelligence, of course there is not, when you face facts and arguments. That is the point when you all crawl back to under your stones. The only problem you never stay there. The world would be a better place.

My feelings are not hurt by just another unintelligent pissbaby who is clearly thick as pigshit to argue, cannot contradict any of the facts above, but laughably thinks that repeating their crap make it somehow more valid. It won't, kiddo. There was no rape. Educate yourself about what rape is as well as about alcohol consumption, when you are let out of kindergarten, since you clearly don't know shit about either. Also, learn to argue. I only have time for grown ups.

Bullshit. Yes, you can. And you are a childish idiot who cannot argue.