Mushoku Tensei ~Isekai Ittara Honki Dasu~ - Vol. 20 Ch. 94 - Norn Greyrat

[PLaci1982]

"also this time it was my mistake anyways, to lure the master and-" page 5.

Rape victims don't intentionally seek work with their rapist. Rape victims don't intentionally go around seducing their rapist.
You can accuse him of being forceful or overbearing sure, but trying to call him a rapist is trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

I don't care if you just pretend to be or you are really this dense/blind, but:

Chapter 10.5, Greyrat Family’s Maid, page 4, 1st panel:

IN FACT, I HAD MY FIRST EXPERIENCE FORCEFULLY TAKEN BY HIM BACK THEN.

Spoiler: Image reference:

Everybody speaks about that incident when they wrote rape, and you repeatedly try to refute them with a completely different one.

 

[Amplify]

I don't care if you just pretend to be or you are really this dense/blind, but:

Chapter 10.5, Greyrat Family’s Maid, page 4, 1st panel:

Spoiler: Image reference:

Everybody speaks about that incident when they wrote rape, and you repeatedly try to refute them with a completely different one.

Yes, forcefully, as I said in my post. Show me one use of the word "rape" anywhere in the original source material, either that chapter or another, because to restate what I am saying and you are deliberately ignoring:
If that first time was actually rape, she would not have sought him out or seduced him. Rape victims do not do that. I'd also like to point out that's the way the translator chose to translate it into English rather than exactly what she said, but I have no doubt that if she'd said it was rape or alluded to it, they'd have used the word for the translation. She didn't so they didn't.

'Forcefully' does not equal rape by itself.

 

[PLaci1982]

Yes, forcefully, as I said in my post. Show me one use of the word "rape" anywhere in the original source material, either that chapter or another, because to restate what I am saying and you are deliberately ignoring:
If that first time was actually rape, she would not have sought him out or seduced him. Rape victims do not do that. I'd also like to point out that's the way the translator chose to translate it into English rather than exactly what she said, but I have no doubt that if she'd said it was rape or alluded to it, they'd have used the word for the translation. She didn't so they didn't.

'Forcefully' does not equal rape by itself.

Forcefully means without consent, meaning rape.

 

[Amplify]

Forcefully means without consent, meaning rape.

forcefully
/ˈfɔːsfʊli,ˈfɔːsfəli/
adverb
adverb: forcefully

1. in a strong and assertive manner; vigorously.
   "he argued forcefully against reform"
   • using considerable physical strength or violence.
     "he forcefully shoved her back into the wall"

"Forcefully" in English has two definitions. Being assertive, and physical strength or violence.
Using physical strength or violence to obtain sex is known as "rape", yet the translator did not use that word, therefore it is the other definition of "forcefully".
Additionally, as I keep pointing out, if she was raped she would have avoided him, not sought him out.

Conclusion: he was a bit too assertive and domineering for his own good, but he did not use physical strength or violence. That is not rape.
This is all known as evidence, it's the thing you completely lack.

 

[PLaci1982]

You can try rules-layer around reality, but it was rape.
A rough intercourse with consent would have not resulted Paul being expelled.

 

[Amplify]

You can try rules-layer around reality, but it was rape.
A rough intercourse with consent would have not resulted Paul being expelled.

The law favours the protection of women, we don't know the exact situation or who said or saw what but it's true that he got expelled, though we don't know exactly how the events went down. One such scenario can be that her room mate or somebody else reported him and rather than do a thorough investigation or whatever of the situation they simply decided to cut ties with him in order to avoid any trouble or stain on their reputation. It may even be as simple as having sex on campus grounds being forbidden and that's enough to get you expelled. We do know however that the woman herself isn't calling it rape and instead of avoiding him, sought him out and seduced him for more sex. That is a fact.

You have three options, I don't mind which one you pick.
1: Show me one single instance of her calling it rape, or of the author confirming she was raped or otherwise confirming that Paul is a rapist.
2: Show me solid, irrefutable evidence from the whole situation that at least heavily points to it actually being rape.
3: Keep howling uselessly while making leaps of logic that are unsupported by the source material.

 

[PLaci1982]

You still try to rules-layer around.
It's a medieval setting, Paul is a member of a noble house. Nothing else than rape would have the consequence of expulsion over a sexual intercourse.

 

[Amplify]

You still try to rules-layer around.
It's a medieval setting, Paul is a member of a noble house. Nothing else than rape would have the consequence of expulsion over a sexual intercourse.

"I don't have any evidence and can't refute your logic so I'll call it rules lawyering!"
You'd make a shitty lawyer, and a worse judge.

I easily refuted your logic in two lines and ten seconds. Mine however you can't come up with even a vague explanation to refute it, which makes mine 'irrefutable' evidence.

As for being part of a noble house, you can easily be expelled despite being a noble. Spoilers for an epilogue story that we probably won't see for another decade or so in the manga if ever, but there's one epilogue chapter covering

Spoiler

Christina Greyrat

where she was in the Asura Royal Academy and a noble girl called Viola, the literal fiance of the prince of the Asura kingdom itself, who tried to cause trouble for her got expelled as a result of it. Nobles don't have as much power as you seem to think that they do, even the daughter of a Duke can't run around causing trouble and then simply say "Don't you know who I am / my father is?" or anything like that.

 

[PLaci1982]

You confuse the modern rule of law with the medieval world of this manga.
That's why is your rules-layering is in vain.

 

[Amplify]

You confuse the modern rule of law with the medieval world of this manga.
That's why is your rules-layering is in vain.

Would you prefer I just say "I directly refute you with chapters 28, 29 and 30 of Mushoku Tensei Redundancy"?

I have explicitly refuted the central point of your imagined hypothetical of how you think the world works, with an entire three chapter mini-arc. There are plenty of manga and LN etc settings with nobles who are practically untouchable and whose noble houses act like higher powers than god, but the nobles of Mushoku Tensei are the antithesis of those nobles and are practically just the same as anybody else; they have more money, but otherwise living practically as equals.

Cope harder.

 

[PLaci1982]

You didn't refuted anything because you did wish to do it.

https://imgur.com/aimRuAI

You will not prove that it was not rape by abiding the modern rule of law.
You will not prove that it was not rape by questioning Paul's status.

If you want to prove anything, prove that Paul was not expelled over rape. You have not done yet that.

 

[Naian]

@Amplify

I don't know what to tell you, but PLaci1982 is right. In the manga page he provided :
1) Lilia explicitly says she was forced into sex, as in rape. You arguing that it's Paul simply having consented rough sex with her is asinine, not with next speech bubble, and not with the way the sentence is made. Lilia wasn't telling a lewd story between her and Paul, but to showcase what a "bad boy" Paul was.
2) School treated it an incident, and it was grave that Paul got expelled for it. A consented sex will not yield to that, in a world where it is known that nobles are known to have depraved sex life in the Mushoku world.
3) This is further reinforced in the next panel where Rudeus is apologizing for his father past deed. It would be silly to apologize for a consented sex, even if it's a rough one.
4) And to hammer the nail, still on the same page, Lilia about using their "acquaintanceship" to get a maid job. Notice acquaintanceship being under quote, this is Lilia using the incident as blackmail material/pressure. It wouldn't being an effective blackmail/pressure if it was simply a consented sex.

Not sure why you're trying so hard to defend Paul, he is a flawed character, as evidence of his flawed parenting, his cheating and so on. The past rape is another case of his very strong flesh desire.

 

[Amplify]

You didn't refuted anything because you did wish to do it.

https://imgur.com/aimRuAI

You will not prove that it was not rape by abiding the modern rule of law.
You will not prove that it was not rape by questioning Paul's status.

If you want to prove anything, prove that Paul was not expelled over rape. You have not done yet that.

You are making the claims, the burden of proof is on you. I am not trying to disprove something that is established by the source, rather you are trying to claim more than it says by jumping to conclusions.

You claim that Paul is a rapist, you claim he was expelled for rape, you claim that it's impossible that they could possibly have expelled him for anything but rape as 'nobles have too much power'.

The only 'evidence' you have presented for these claims is that he was expelled at all, and that she was "forced". Both of which I easily picked holes in.

Your entire first line is gibberish btw, it's a nice reflection of your state of mind right now.

@Amplify

I don't know what to tell you, but PLaci1982 is right. In the manga page he provided :
1) Lilia explicitly says she was forced into sex, as in rape. You arguing that it's Paul simply having consented rough sex with her is asinine, not with next speech bubble, and not with the way the sentence is made. Lilia wasn't telling a lewd story between her and Paul, but to showcase what a "bad boy" Paul was.
2) School treated it an incident, and it was grave that Paul got expelled for it. A consented sex will not yield to that, in a world where it is known that nobles are known to have depraved sex life in the Mushoku world.
3) This is further reinforced in the next panel where Rudeus is apologizing for his father past deed. It would be silly to apologize for a consented sex, even if it's a rough one.
4) And to hammer the nail, still on the same page, Lilia about using their "acquaintanceship" to get a maid job. Notice acquaintanceship being under quote, this is Lilia using the incident as blackmail material/pressure. It wouldn't being an effective blackmail/pressure if it was simply a consented sex.

Not sure why you're trying so hard to defend Paul, he is a flawed character, as evidence of his flawed parenting, his cheating and so on. The past rape is another case of his very strong flesh desire.

See, now unlike @PLaci1982 you seem capable of arguing your way out of a wet paper bag and using circumstantial evidence to your advantage.

1: The problem is that she's too vague about the details. She doesn't say it was rape, she doesn't even seem particularly broken up about it. I have an incredibly hard time believing that an actual rape victim would not only ever willingly be in rough proximity to that person 24/7 for SIX YEARS after that, but then also intentionally seduce them into having more sex with them.
2: Again, we just don't know enough of the details. Without more details about the incident, noting concrete can be concluded one way or the other about the why.
3: Rudeus isn't the most socially adept person in the world, about the extent of what he knows for how to deal with situations like these is to apologise profusely and hope that works. Still though it's something. I would like to point out that they did have feelings for each other that were all but verbally said out loud as noted at the end of that same page, so by the sounds of it, if it wasn't 100% consensual then they were most of the way there already and Paul jumped the gun a bit after getting too impatient.
4: Sure, but how else could it be put other than "acquaintanceship" in quotation marks? They hadn't explicitly declared their love for each other, but yeah using the incident as leverage is a perfectly valid take. It doesn't make it rape though.

Perhaps the problem is that we have different definitions for "rapist". To me it's a very serious word with very serious connotations that needs to be backed up by very serious evidence. There's a million negative things I'd be happy to call Paul, but "rapist" I don't really buy. Was it rape, as least in the way that I consider rape? As far as I can tell by her attitude and the things she's done and said since, I don't think so.

 

[Lolitsnugget]

The progress of this manga is surprisingly slow. So many pages but (looking back from a year ago) we were barely rapping up the last arc. Im hoping this is the end of this whole arc... too much drama and not enough progress for me.

 

[PLaci1982]

unlike @PLaci1982 you seem capable of arguing

I know from myself that sometimes I can't express myself like I would like.

But this topic is not something to argue about (in my view). You have the right to have an interpretation/opinion, but your opinion will not be auto-magically reality. You are the one who (suddenly) claim it was not rape, not everybody else the opposite. It's not you vs me, it's not like I would be the only one who interpret chapter 10.5 as Lilia telling Rudeus that Paul once raped her. Prove your own point. You did try, but you did not.

 

[Naian]

See, now unlike @PLaci1982 you seem capable of arguing your way out of a wet paper bag and using circumstantial evidence to your advantage.

1: The problem is that she's too vague about the details. She doesn't say it was rape, she doesn't even seem particularly broken up about it. I have an incredibly hard time believing that an actual rape victim would not only ever willingly be in rough proximity to that person 24/7 for SIX YEARS after that, but then also intentionally seduce them into having more sex with them.
2: Again, we just don't know enough of the details. Without more details about the incident, noting concrete can be concluded one way or the other about the why.
3: Rudeus isn't the most socially adept person in the world, about the extent of what he knows for how to deal with situations like these is to apologise profusely and hope that works. Still though it's something. I would like to point out that they did have feelings for each other that were all but verbally said out loud as noted at the end of that same page, so by the sounds of it, if it wasn't 100% consensual then they were most of the way there already and Paul jumped the gun a bit after getting too impatient.
4: Sure, but how else could it be put other than "acquaintanceship" in quotation marks? They hadn't explicitly declared their love for each other, but yeah using the incident as leverage is a perfectly valid take. It doesn't make it rape though.

Perhaps the problem is that we have different definitions for "rapist". To me it's a very serious word with very serious connotations that needs to be backed up by very serious evidence. There's a million negative things I'd be happy to call Paul, but "rapist" I don't really buy. Was it rape, as least in the way that I consider rape? As far as I can tell by her attitude and the things she's done and said since, I don't think so.

1. It may be lacking in detail, but she did described her situation as "experience forcefully taken". "Forcefully taken" is far away from meaning being consented to. This is Lilia saying she was raped. Taking this as mere "consented but rough sex", the phrasing would be different. Something like "I had my first experience with him, but he was very rough/not gentle".
As for why Lilia doesn't seem to be affected by the rape, similar to "Stockholm syndrome", rape victim can fall in love with their rapist, so there's that I suppose. I would think Lilia simply had feelings for Paul back then like you pointed out, and continued all the way to the present, which is why Lilia forced him to hire her, and seduced him despite her "experience forcefully taken".
2. Fair, but I would think "school expelling Paul for raping Lilia" is a logical interpretation than "school expelling Paul for having sex with Lilia". After Lilia saying her "experience forcefully taken by him", the next text bubble say "because of such an incident", the incident is directly linked to their having sex. At least we established this.
3. Fair, but under the assumption it is a rape, then not even Rudy's social ineptitude wouldn't recognize the gravity of what Paul did to Lilia.
4. The scene I interpret this as Lilia saying "if you don't want to babbling the school incident to your very religious wife, you better hire me". I reiterate, if Lilia wasn't raped and she was simply some past conquest girl, Zenith wouldn't care. Zenith went after Paul knowing he is a playboy scumbag.

The flow of the scene makes more sense if Paul raped Lilia than merely having rough sex. By rape, I mean Paul fucking Lilia without having her expressed consent. And expressed consent is either Paul asking her to have sex and Lilia saying yes, or Lilia never opposing Paul having his way with her (verbally saying no or resisting any touch Paul makes on her body).

EDIT : Found this reddit thread

https://www.reddit.com/r/mushokutensei/comments/rn1pqo

Interesting part is this, make of that what you will :

Paul spent around a year in Lilia's father's dojo. Other trainees got jealous of his talent. Lilia's father wants one of his discipline to marry Lilia and inherent the dojo. So he's eyeing for Paul. Then the other trainees starts picking on Paul, stole his treasured sword. Paul got pissed, then Lilia's father told him his sword is in Lilia's room, kinda implying he wants this kinda thing to happen. Paul then went into Lilia's room while she's asleep. As a revenge for her father's trick, he did the thing. Then in the next morning, he realized he played right into her father's trap, felt guilt for betraying Lilia's trust for the years they've spent in the dojo, grabbed his sword and left the dojo.

Lilia has a bit of feeling for Paul as well. Paul caught up and surpass her sword skill which she took 10 years to master just in a year. She isn't talent with sword. And she knows that she's gonna marry to one of the discipline her father picked. So when Paul did it, she isn't too upset with what he did.

Those are from the current MT phone game in Japan. Rifujin helped with the script so it's can be considered canon.

 

[Amplify]

I know from myself that sometimes I can't express myself like I would like.

But this topic is not something to argue about (in my view). You have the right to have an interpretation/opinion, but your opinion will not be auto-magically reality. You are the one who (suddenly) claim it was not rape, not everybody else the opposite. It's not you vs me, it's not like I would be the only one who interpret chapter 10.5 as Lilia telling Rudeus that Paul once raped her. Prove your own point. You did try, but you did not.

Innocent until proven guilty. Prove him guilty. If he is guilty, why can you not do something as simple as show it being called rape, either by her or the author? You want me to disprove something you have not yet proven, which is a fallacy.

1. It may be lacking in detail, but she did described her situation as "experience forcefully taken". "Forcefully taken" is far away from meaning being consented to. This is Lilia saying she was raped. Taking this as mere "consented but rough sex", the phrasing would be different. Something like "I had my first experience with him, but he was very rough/not gentle".
As for why Lilia doesn't seem to be affected by the rape, similar to "Stockholm syndrome", rape victim can fall in love with their rapist, so there's that I suppose. I would think Lilia simply had feelings for Paul back then like you pointed out, and continued all the way to the present, which is why Lilia forced him to hire her, and seduced him despite her "experience forcefully taken".
2. Fair, but I would think "school expelling Paul for raping Lilia" is a logical interpretation than "school expelling Paul for having sex with Lilia". After Lilia saying her "experience forcefully taken by him", the next text bubble say "because of such an incident", the incident is directly linked to their having sex. At least we established this.
3. Fair, but under the assumption it is a rape, then not even Rudy's social ineptitude wouldn't recognize the gravity of what Paul did to Lilia.
4. The scene I interpret this as Lilia saying "if you don't want to babbling the school incident to your very religious wife, you better hire me". I reiterate, if Lilia wasn't raped and she was simply some past conquest girl, Zenith wouldn't care. Zenith went after Paul knowing he is a playboy scumbag.

The flow of the scene makes more sense if Paul raped Lilia than merely having rough sex. By rape, I mean Paul fucking Lilia without having her expressed consent. And expressed consent is either Paul asking her to have sex and Lilia saying yes, or Lilia never opposing Paul having his way with her (verbally saying no or resisting any touch Paul makes on her body).

1: One bit of a problem we're having is that we don't know exactly what she said, as this is a translation of an interpretation of the LN. The translator + typesetter have gone with "forcefully taken" rather than the author or anything like that, which can be as simple as "I had my first experience with him, but he was very rough/not gentle" being way too many words to fit in the balloon and not flowing as well as it does by reducing it to two words. That doesn't really apply if it was "rape" though, that's short enough that they'd happily use that word if that's what she said. The other way to consider it is that she's talking to (what she thinks is) a 6 year old child and is using euphemisms, but that you could argue in either the rough sex or the rape direction. She may think of him as being a little adult rather than 6 though, given how on the following pages she elaborates that she knows him to be far smarter, wiser and more unusual than you'd give him credit at first glance. Who can say?
2: Honestly? Given all the context and what little clues we have I think he was reported by somebody else rather than Lilia, possibly a jealous 3rd party since I have no doubt somebody like Paul would have those - my most likely candidate being a woman who wasn't happy that Paul's attention was going towards Lilia rather than her.
3: Sure, the problem is we have no way to tell the difference.
4: Here's the thing: I think that yes the academy labelled it as a "rape incident" sure, and that Lilia may well have used them labelling it as such as leverage to get a job at his household, but I don't think that Lilia herself really believes it was rape and (again) while Paul deserves plenty of negative titles I definitely don't see Paul being an actual rapist, that's a bit too far for him.

As far as I've been able to tell from everything, the two of them do like each other, they were capable of consenting, and (mostly importantly) they did want to have sex with each other. The problem is we just don't have enough of the specific details to make an absolute conclusion in any particular way, but whatever the exact details I definitely don't see it being him forcing an unwilling Lilia to have sex with him. I could believe a "No, we shouldn't do this" or something like that came from her at the time maybe as her heart wasn't quite ready, but not a "No, I don't want to do this", if that makes sense to you. It being borderline and a bit in the grey area isn't enough for me to call somebody a rapist, it has to be in the black for such a serious accusation.

 

[PLaci1982]

Innocent until proven guilty.

You. Can't. Apply. The. Rule. Of. Law. To. A. Fantasy. Medieval. Setting.
You can write novels about your opinion, but it will not turn your (deliberate mis)interpretation into reality.
You are the one who wants to held a curt case for Paul, you want to play defense layer, you should prove your case.

You want rule of law in this story? Explain what exact crime did Sauros Boreas Greyrat to be executed.

 

[dereth]

who tried to cause trouble for her got expelled as a result of it

Christina isn't just some random commoner, you know. She is the daughter of Rudeus Greyrat, one of the Seven Great Powers and Eris Greyrat, a pretty powerful swordswoman. Not to mention the family's ties with both the Queen and Orsted, who is pretty much the strongest person in the world.

Imho, I don't think that case can really be used to showcase the difference in power between nobility and commonalty.

 

[Amplify]

You. Can't. Apply. The. Rule. Of. Law. To. A. Fantasy. Medieval. Setting.
You can write novels about your opinion, but it will not turn your (deliberate mis)interpretation into reality.
You are the one who wants to held a curt case for Paul, you want to play defense layer, you should prove your case.

You want rule of law in this story? Explain what exact crime did Sauros Boreas Greyrat to be executed.

You can apply basic rule of law to any setting containing society.
Okay then, you want to play it your way? Paul is not a rapist because there's no rule of law to judge him to be a rapist. Simple, no need for me to defend him because you can't judge him to be guilty to begin with, without the rule of law.

Sauros's crime was being in charge of the area when tens of thousands of people died and they needed somebody to take the blame.

Christina isn't just some random commoner, you know. She is the daughter of Rudeus Greyrat, one of the Seven Great Powers and Eris Greyrat, a pretty powerful swordswoman. Not to mention the family's ties with both the Queen and Orsted, who is pretty much the strongest person in the world.

Imho, I don't think that case can really be used to showcase the difference in power between nobility and commonalty.

Spoiler

She didn't use her name or status as leverage, neither did her father or anybody else.

Doesn't really matter, he made the claim with exactly zero evidence and it can be dismissed with zero evidence, just wanted to point out an actual in-novel example of a noble not getting away with shenanigans which basically runs counter to his theory.