We know specifically who did it, since, if you use your eyes, you can see them having a conversation with her about it, and how she got her to come. In fact, it's a solid third of all the dialogue on the page. Also "drinking party". It's a "drinking party". You know "Come over and have some drinks with me"?
Got me there. I thought that part of the convo came from one of the guys, but looking back, you're right. The other girl clearly invited our heroine. But that's a minor point, and it doesn't change anything.
My argument was that the FMC was tricked into an uncomfortable & implicitly threatening situation by someone she trusted, and that she didn't know what the "drinking" (rape) party would actually entail. That's still true if the invitation was extended by the other girl present, rather than one of the guys.
Beg to differ. I don't need to explain what isn't shown or stated on the page. Everything upon which my argument hinges
is shown/stated on the page. The FMC was deliberately tricked into attending, then aggressively pressured into drinking to the point of blacking out. While blacked out, she was gang raped.
None of that is in question, afaic. I do understand, however, that you disagree, which is fine. This stuff is subjective, and disagreements are inevitable.
Everyone with an intact moral compass does.
I'd need some reliable evidence to accept that as any more than self-important hot air.
You're begging the question; everyone's drunk.
Again, there's
no indication on the page that the guys are
significantly impaired. That's merely your assumption, unsupported by textual evidence. All we know is that they're drinking.
Meanwhile, there's strong evidence on the page that she's blackout drunk.
So... she can answer questions, and balance while squatting well enough not to fall. I guess she's not "blackout drunk", since I'd struggle to do that sober.
She's initially supported by two guys and says only "it does" and "harder harder" in the entire time she's shown having sex (4 of the chapter's 6 pages). That's reasonable, ime, for someone who's wasted but has just begun to recover from being fully blacked out.
'Cept the fact that they're all drinking. At a drinking party. For hours. In fact, they'd made themselves right at home by the time she got there. Or, what, are you also going to say they actually drank non-alcoholic beer and fed her the real stuff?
People can and do pace themselves differently and therefore wind up at different levels of drunkenness after the same amount of time spent drinking. Alcohol hits some much harder than others (body size is an important factor). We're told - by the guys - that "she's so bad with booze" & "she lookin' weak". We even see her blacking out from her own POV.
Meanwhile,
nothing clearly indicates that the guys are significantly impaired.
This is a much longer-standing issue than just this generation, but a thread about a slut doing a gangbang is not the time to get into it.
Ok. I was responding to your lament about "this generation".
No, I'm stating facts, and you're actively ignoring them. I tell you who invites her? You say "Could have been anyone! O.O ".
Again, I happily grant that you were and are right about that. But it doesn't change anything, as I said above.
I tell you she came there to drink, because it's a drinking party? "They made her drink! The poor thing! "
We don't know what she was told, only that
she was invited and thought she'd be spending the evening with just one of her friends ("I actually promised it'd be just the two of us lol").
And they didn't
make her drink. They
aggressively & collectively pressured her into overdrinking -- for the express purpose of rape.
The whole premise of the story is that she's a dirty slut? "Nay! My princess' only flaw is being too trusting, and too naiive!"
I don't agree that having sex or even being promiscuous is
necessarily a flaw (though the latter can certainly be a symptom of serious issues). She's not a princess, just a person. And yes, naivete, passivity, social anxiety, misplaced trust, and biddability/suggestibility are fairly minor character flaws -- relative to deliberate, premeditated gang rape.
She grinds herself, without any coercion, or nudging, from the men? "My princess hath only just regained consciousness! Her hips- they have a mind of their own!" . And on it goes. You have a pathological need to see sluts as good people, and that's the big reason you have trouble actually appreciating the story.
No, some promiscuous people suck, while others are genuinely decent -- just like anybody else. Here, the FMC has done nothing wrong. Nothing she does is motivated by malice, cruelty, heartlessness, or greed. She breaks no law and harms no one. She is therefore, in my view, morally blameless.
The other characters conspire to rape her, trick her into attending their "party", deliberately & aggressively pressure her into overdrinking (while cruelly mocking her weakness to alcohol), and finally gang rape her. They're criminal scumbags.
The moral logic is clear, or so it seems to me...
I was not making any claims about the relative mental health of all the promiscuous people out there. I was merely sharing my own anecdotal experience. But nothing in those CDC charts undermines my observations about the
decency, honor, intelligence, loyalty, kindness and attractiveness of the (somewhat) carefully filtered subset of people I've dated and/or mated with.
In looking at that data (or any similar collection), it's important to remember the difference between
correlation and causation, especially given that other unaccounted factors could play a role in shaping any/all of the findings. For instance, if sex workers are more likely to be drug addicts (and they are), and if both are less likely to be happy and less "successful" in marriage (and they are), then the correlation between
non-sex worker, non-drug addict promiscuous people and negative outcomes may be much less significant. Factors like culture, wealth, overall mental health, and history of sexual abuse / other trauma may also figure in but aren't addressed in those charts.
I'm not saying that such information isn't reliable and meaningful. It definitely can be. But even going by those graphs alone, it's just as reasonable to infer that depression, drug dependency and failed marriage contribute to an increase in the number of sexual partners as that the latter contributes to the former. More data needed (much, much more).
Here's a more recent study that has different findings (except where drug dependency is concerned):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3752789/
