The Day I Decided to Make My Cheeky Gyaru Sister Understand in My Own Way

[BuyVelomobiles]

I think the poster is just genuinely unaware of the age of the heroine or the particulars of the Fanbox extra.

No, she's already decided it's a rape, and she'll twist and fabricate anything to support that in her mind. If she accepts FMC isn't a teenager, she'll just move on to the next age group, and repeat the rest. Probably throw something in about how she was scared for her life or something.

If only in my experience, there was initially an extreme lack of clarity about what was going on in regards to both the manga and the reactions to it.

That's why I've made it my mission to translate everything at this point. There can be no doubt as to what happened. There is an objective record for the events that's been available for weeks. If you see it all, and conclude it was rape, then you don't know, or care, what rape is. The only thing that's unclear is what your first language is.

 

[Eighty-six]

No, she's already decided it's a rape, and she'll twist and fabricate anything to support that in her mind. If she accepts FMC isn't a teenager, she'll just move on to the next age group, and repeat the rest. Probably throw something in about how she was scared for her life or something.

But it really seems like the poster doesn't know about the particular happenings of the Fanbox extra. They're talking about "involuntary sexual responses" in a conversation about a narrative wherein the heroine was apparently gyrating and taking unsolicited initiative. Clearly they're not on the same page, and whether they care about that remains to be seen.

That's why I've made it my mission to translate everything at this point. There can be no doubt as to what happened.

I don't mind, but you don't think that kind of resolve is a bit much for a scuffed budding romance narrative with arguably striking art?

 

[BuyVelomobiles]

But it really seems like the poster doesn't know about the particular happenings of the Fanbox extra. They're talking about "involuntary sexual responses" in a conversation about a narrative wherein the heroine was apparently gyrating and taking unsolicited initiative. Clearly they're not on the same page, and whether they care about that remains to be seen.

This is a recurring theme with the "IT'S RAPE!" crowd. Here's hoping she answers your question. And you mine.

I don't mind, but you don't think that kind of resolve is a bit much for a scuffed budding romance narrative with arguably striking art?

This isn't a bad story because it's boring, it's a bad story because it's poorly thought through. If the author focused on any angle at all, instead of trying them all at the same time, we wouldn't have a single bad thing to say about this. With that in mind, I think it's damn disrespectful that we've got a bunch of amateurs, who don't seem to care enough about the source material to render it faithfully, making the story seem even worse by cutting out important characterization due either to their incompetence, or their apathy.

This woman clearly has a talent for art. As for her storytelling, she just needs to take in feedback, and get some experience. God forbid what seems to be her first attempt at an actual story not be perfect.

 

[AGhostButBetter]

The original work involved the brother sexually correcting her in her sleep. He meant for her to "understand" the true pleasures of sex. This is a failed attempt at re-working that into a wholesome story. The title is basically just a holdover, at this point.

Oh



oh

 

[BuyVelomobiles]

Oh



oh

For the record: The reason for the rework is that the old story featured incest and non-con. These are against Pixiv TOS, apparently. Let no one tell you there's rape here.

 

[LesbianAnimeism]

She's an adult. She's older than the ML. How would she be at a mixer with alcohol without being at least 21?

For the record, the legal drinking age in Japan is twenty and underage drinking is very common in Japan (even in official settings), but you're correct about her being older, that was my mistake going off the summary MangaDex provides which I'm assuming was from the original version of the story.

To get it out of the way, I have read the fanbox extra showing the sex, even before I made my comment, and it still comes off as coercion and rape to me from her initial discomfort and their insistence that she keep drinking despite how poorly she handles alcohol (which they know and comment on before pushing her to drink more). As a result of that, I still firmly believe that the situation falls under intoxicated coercion which is nonconsensual.

 

[Hicleric]

You kinda did, since this talk about "blaming a rape victim" doesn't make sense unless you actually think she was raped.

Hmm, was wondering what all that frothy buzzing noise was. On the plus side, I now have a better understanding of how the forum manages the visibility of notifications, comments, and threads when a member is on the ignore list. But I deign to reply here because it seems warranted.

For the record, and for those who are confused about the hullabaloo (TL;DR at the end):
1) A user (I'll just call her the original poster, and leave it to her whether to jump in to this side argument) posted a comment noting that she had been raped, and her thoughts on the rape argument in this thread. Keep in mind, this is a real human being who is making this comment, not the girl in the story. There is an actual, real life rape victim here.
2) @BuyVelomobiles posted a response to this original poster's post that cannot be read as anything other than making fun of her horrific experience, and blaming the victim (again, an actual human being, not the girl in the story) for her experience. That it was thinly (and badly, at that) disguised as a rhetorical question about the definition of rape has no bearing on the intent of this comment, since it was directly and indisputably targeted at the original poster. I don't see a need to break down exactly how, but I can if necessary.
3) I call him out on this comment, which is objectively disgusting, has zero usefulness in the discussion, and should be treated as a violation of forum rule #1 (I'm not a mod, so I can't say). Keep in mind, my comment is written solely about the personal attack on the original poster-- I do not mention, nor imply, any position on whether the girl in the story was raped. My interest here is in maintaining a (low) degree of decorum in the forum, solely as a participant.
4) @Kierlak either conflates the original poster with the girl in the story, or otherwise joins @BuyVelomobiles in his personal attack on her. He seems to double down on the latter when I point this out, so I assume there's no confusion on his part.
5) Lots of bad feelings all around. I note nobody has defended substance of the post from #2 yet, so...that it is a personal attack should be accepted as fact now?

TL;DR A user revealed she is a real life rape victim, @BuyVelomobiles vomited victim-blaming on her, I called him out because it's a horrible thing to do. This manga's story had nothing to do with it.

 

[BuyVelomobiles]

1) A user (I'll just call her the original poster, and leave it to her whether to jump in to this side argument) posted a comment noting that she had been raped, and her thoughts on the rape argument in this thread. Keep in mind, this is a real human being who is making this comment, not the girl in the story. There is an actual, real life rape victim here.

Considering she read the Fanbox, then said that was rape, I'm pressing X on that one. It's like someone telling you they think it's child abuse not to buy your kids toys, then following up by saying he was abused as a child. FrySquint.gif

2) @BuyVelomobiles posted a response to this original poster's post that cannot be read as anything other than making fun of her horrific experience, and blaming the victim (again, an actual human being, not the girl in the story) for her experience. That it was thinly (and badly, at that) disguised as a rhetorical question about the definition of rape has no bearing on the intent of this comment, since it was directly and indisputably targeted at the original poster. I don't see a need to break down exactly how, but I can if necessary.

So your white knight instincts kicked into high gear, and turned the explicitly rhetorical questions into a series of personal attacks on the other poster. And you also missed the actual content of the questions, to boot.

3) I call him out on this comment, which is objectively disgusting, has zero usefulness in the discussion, and should be treated as a violation of forum rule #1 (I'm not a mod, so I can't say). Keep in mind, my comment is written solely about the personal attack on the original poster-- I do not mention, nor imply, any position on whether the girl in the story was raped. My interest here is in maintaining a (low) degree of decorum in the forum, solely as a participant.

Then, loaded with the zealous fury of a member of The Order of the White Knights, you decide to boil down everything I said to "bullshit victim blaming", then proceed to say literally nothing other than "Do better, Senator." and go on a thing about blocking high-quality content because of your... let's call it a misunderstanding... and the belief that you have to like me personally to follow my work.

4) @Kierlak either conflates the original poster with the girl in the story, or otherwise joins @BuyVelomobiles in his personal attack on her. He seems to double down on the latter when I point this out, so I assume there's no confusion on his part.

You then double down when a second guy comes in, unrelated to the original conversation, who like me, charitably assumed you had not gone on a hysterical White Knight Crusade, and were, in fact, talking about the character in the story.

5) Lots of bad feelings all around. I note nobody has defended substance of the post from #2 yet, so...that it is a personal attack should be accepted as fact now?

You're the only one that assumed it was a personal attack on her, so @Kierlak 's response didn't register as a defense of my point to you.

TL;DR A user revealed she is a real life rape victim, @BuyVelomobiles vomited victim-blaming on her, I called him out because it's a horrible thing to do. This manga's story had nothing to do with it.

TL;DR: White Knight goes feral; milady hath yet to reward him.

I'll at least thank you for spelling out your perspective for us. It was genuinely helpful, and I appreciate it.

P.S: Thank fuck you're not a mod.

 

[Eighty-six]

To get it out of the way, I have read the fanbox extra showing the sex, even before I made my comment, and it still comes off as coercion and rape to me from her initial discomfort and their insistence that she keep drinking despite how poorly she handles alcohol (which they know and comment on before pushing her to drink more). As a result of that, I still firmly believe that the situation falls under intoxicated coercion which is nonconsensual.

They weren't forcing her to stay. Being persuaded to stay and drink is not being coerced. Coercion has a very specific definition, and peacefully appealing to her people-pleasing inclinations (without even hinting at a threat of physical violence or blackmail) doesn't fit the bill. Furthermore, in chapter 4, we see that there isn't any real negative consequence for her choosing to not hang out with these guys-- they'll just "leave her out". If she's not being coerced in that interaction (in fact, she visits the sex mook herself), it's unlikely that there's a history of coercion in this group.

Aside from her only being persuaded (and not coerced) into drinking, she also wasn't intoxicated enough that she couldn't give or retract consent with a clear enough mind. We still hold drunk people responsible for their crimes and other actions-- what it takes for sex with a drunk person to be rape is them being at least on the verge of passing out, slurring their words and struggling to stay on their feet on account of their progressive loss of consciousness, to the point that they can't be expected to even vocalize consent, denial, or the retraction of consent. And according to recapitulations of that Fanbox material, she's very ambulatory and coherent, gyrating on others and taking unsolicited initiative. At that point, she wasn't "drunk enough". She became such by the time she returns home-- inebriation to any extent takes time-- but there's no indication that she was "drunk enough" while still engaged in the orgy.

Nobody is capable of taking responsibility for another's personal lack of resolution despite their own sufficient agency and sobriety. If one was expected to, you could never have any security in persuading even someone that was difficult to persuade. This is different from physically forcing someone to commit acts, coercing them under the threat of violence and/or blackmail, taking advantage of their incapacitation, inducing an incapacitation to thereafter take advantage of them, or taking sexual advantage of the physically and/or mentally disabled-- such would be rape.

"Rape" would also be the mangaka's original first Fanbox extra, which was removed by Fanbox administration, wherein the stepbrother (then brother by blood) had sex with her when she was sleeping in order to-- as he declared in the first chapter-- "make her understand".

 

[home7]

I just wanted to find out why there are 3 damn copies but I find pages of arguments about whatever lore is going on behind the scene. It's too much BS to read through but my experience tells me that Hicleric is clearly wrong and that BuyVelomobiles is an ass but clearly not wrong. It's like the difference you see between someone who knows they are over 21 and someone who knows they are not at the bar, it's the way they act.

 

[BuyVelomobiles]

I just wanted to find out why there are 3 damn copies but I find pages of arguments about whatever lore is going on behind the scene.

The first TL's were bad, so I stepped in to fix them.

It's too much BS to read through

TL;DR:
"She was raped!"
"She participated enthusiastically"
"They pressured her to drink: she couldn't consent"
"Nobody threatened her. And drunk people can still consent"
"Reeeee"

BuyVelomobiles is an ass but clearly not wrong.

Story of my life!

 

[home7]

Ah, that kind of argument, the kind of argument where one side advocates personal responsibility and the other infantilizes adults treating them like children.

Spoiler

I'm definitely not going to get in trouble for saying women should be treated like children so I guess I know what side I'm going to say I'm on.

 

[BuyVelomobiles]

They weren't forcing her to stay. Being persuaded to stay and drink is not being coerced. Coercion has a very specific definition, and peacefully appealing to her people-pleasing inclinations (without even hinting at a threat of physical violence or blackmail) doesn't fit the bill. Furthermore, in chapter 4, we see that there isn't any real negative consequence for her choosing to not hang out with these guys-- they'll just "leave her out". If she's not being coerced in that interaction (in fact, she visits the sex mook herself), it's unlikely that there's a history of coercion in this group.

Aside from her only being persuaded (and not coerced) into drinking, she also wasn't intoxicated enough that she couldn't give or retract consent with a clear enough mind. We still hold drunk people responsible for their crimes and other actions-- what it takes for sex with a drunk person to be rape is them being at least on the verge of passing out, slurring their words and struggling to stay on their feet on account of their progressive loss of consciousness, to the point that they can't be expected to even vocalize consent, denial, or the retraction of consent. And according to recapitulations of that Fanbox material, she's very ambulatory and coherent, gyrating on others and taking unsolicited initiative. At that point, she wasn't "drunk enough". She became such by the time she returns home-- inebriation to any extent takes time-- but there's no indication that she was "drunk enough" while still engaged in the orgy.

Nobody is capable of taking responsibility for another's personal lack of resolution despite their own sufficient agency and sobriety. If one was expected to, you could never have any security in persuading even someone that was difficult to persuade. This is different from physically forcing someone to commit acts, coercing them under the threat of violence and/or blackmail, taking advantage of their incapacitation, inducing an incapacitation to thereafter take advantage of them, or taking sexual advantage of the physically and/or mentally disabled-- such would be rape.

"Rape" would also be the mangaka's original first Fanbox extra, which was removed by Fanbox administration, wherein the stepbrother (then brother by blood) had sex with her when she was sleeping in order to-- as he declared in the first chapter-- "make her understand".

Like I said: I'll have an easier time getting you to tell me your first language than you'll have getting a straight answer out of her. Once a woman says she's been raped, one of two things happened:

1) She was raped: You can expect rape victims to think calmly and rationally about sex in the first place.
2) She wasn't raped: Best case scenario, you've got one of those Commies who don't know how to be Human, and think that every negative experience they have must be someone else's fault. Regret sleeping with someone? Rape. Feel insulted? Word violence. Worst case scenario is you've got a malignant narcissist who's pretending to be raped to gain a twisted form of power over you. Case in point: her ploy here got her a white knight, and she just ignored your post.

 

[Hicleric]

P.S: Thank fuck you're not a mod.

I think we can agree on this. My standards of decency and decorum would, if rigorously enforced, quash just about every productive forum because toxic behavior is what powers the Internet. That doesn't mean I shouldn't call out despicable forum behavior when I see it.

Kinda sad you felt obliged to lean on the white knight card. It's almost like I was actually getting under your skin and you didn't have a good argument to fall back on. Maybe you're getting nervous about exposing your rotting pith that acts like a soul? Regardless, I wasn't expecting you to pull a "reeeeee!" so early like those snowflakes you deride.

And again...nothing wrong with calling out bad behavior when I see it. Whether or not my deeds are acknowledged is completely irrelevant to whether it's the right thing to do. Why? Because doing the right thing is the point. I wouldn't expect a sociopath to understand.

you decide to boil down everything I said to "bullshit victim blaming", then proceed to say literally nothing other than "Do better, Senator."

So let's get to the meat of it. Given your command of English and repeated emphasis of discussing context and meaning in your TL-related posts, I have to believe every word you chose and every sentence you crafted is written deliberately, with no accidents in language or structure. Consequently, it's exceptionally difficult read to the lack of actual rhetoric, and likewise the overflowing malice, in your response as anything other than intentional.

Spoiler: Detailed argument hidden for convenience.

Your original post:

It's nice to hear from someone with personal experience. Tell me: Did you enthusiastically beg for more halfway through? Maybe take a little extra time to enjoy the moment despite your abuser telling you to hurry things along? The questions are, of course, rhetorical. If you were raped, then you definitely didn't do any of the above. Guess what she did.

Let's break it down sentence by sentence, and then take a broader perspective just to see why it's obviously a personal attack on LesbianAnimeism instead of an actual argument about whether there was rape in the story.

"It's nice to hear from someone with personal experience." ... What.The.Fuck. You say that to someone who tells you they're a e.g., a bartender, NOT something you say to someone who just told you they are a victim of rape (or indeed, any crime). As a purely rhetorical device...I suppose it's fine out of context, but there are at least half a dozen easy ways to acknowledge the perspective she brought to the table even if you disagree with it. Look at Eighty-Six, he managed to do it without stumbling out the gate. You, on the other hand, deliberately chose a response that's either mindlessly glib or intentionally meant to spit in her face. And because I don't believe you're mindless, it must have been the latter.

The alternative reading is that you unilaterally decided that she wasn't actually a victim and consequently decided to mock her for it. More on that in a bit.*

"Tell me: ...." Ah, this is a classic cynical rhetorical strategy to preface a series of rhetorical questions solely for the purpose of mocking the point you intend to argue against. I use the word mock here because it demonstrates no intent to actually listen to the other party. So let's look at those questions to see how they're used, eh?

"Did you..." --> Because this question immediately follows the clause about "experience" (which we know to be the original poster's status as a rape victim), we can transpose that into a preceding clause.
Therefore, "Did you" is read as "[When you were raped], did you..." Again, What.The.Fuck. You are telling the victim of a rape to relive the crime committed against her. Under what rhetorical structure should this be considered appropriate? We're not investigators or therapists, we were (originally) debating whether a fictional character experienced a rape. Compare and contrast, by contrasting the story elements against the original poster's argument? OK, that's an awful way to go about it, but for the benefit of the doubt let's see if your questions actually referred back to the point of discussion. The only logical (and indeed, legitimate) way to do this would be to change the subject of the question from the original poster to the girl from the story. Or, refer to the argument she raised about what constitutes rape. Otherwise, the question remains focused on the original poster and apply to her and her alone. You could accomplish this easily by using the pronoun "she/her" because you are responding to the original poster by "you/yours". Or maybe just say "In the story, the girl..." So, let's take a look at the rest.

"Did you enthusiastically beg for more halfway through? Maybe take a little extra time to enjoy the moment despite your abuser telling you to hurry things along? " (ug, vomiting a little lot as I read this) Let's see...huh, that's weird, I don't see a single instance of "she" in this pair of questions. Or "her". I see three instances of "you" (again, preserving the original poster as the subject of the questions) but none indicating that the line of questioning was meant to tie back to the girl in the story. Conclusion: this line of so-called "rhetorical questions" is in fact NOT meant to refer back to the story, but instead is meant to apply solely to the original poster. Probably with a predatory leer. But do they address any of her arguments? I don't see them referenced here....

"The questions are, of course, rhetorical." Thanks Captain Obvious. So you're saying that forcing the original poster to relive being raped had no logical value and was just for kicks. Her actual contributions to the debate have been disregarded without a single attempt to refute them. Great job! (...and what would you have said if she'd said "yes"?)

"If you were raped, then you definitely didn't do any of the above." Oh. This. This is the kicker. This is direct victim-blaming, no if, ands, or buts about it. I imagine you could see this exact phrase pulled from real life rape trials where the character of the victim was attacked by scummy defense attorneys as the means of swaying the jury to find her assailant not guilty (aka "she deserved it"). A woman told you she was raped, and then (need I remind you, right after you asked her to relive the crime) you tell her maybe she wasn't, without any factual or logical support. There's no debate, no setting of frames of reference and weighing of factors, just outright rejection of the proposition. And it doesn't address the actual substance of her argument, either. So...if you're not responding to her actual argument, then what are you doing? Targeting her with victim-blaming bullshit, by telling her that her experience is irrelevant. Great way to win the argument in a jury of your peers! I dare you to find me a legal manual that says otherwise.

"Guess what she did." ...I feel like we're forgetting something, aren't we? Oh right, the original poster's comment was responding to arguments about the behavior of the girl in the story. Here she is. Sike, mocking the original poster, avoiding actually responding to her points, and victim-blaming her for laughs was actually all about the girl in the story all along! And lol you still haven't addressed any of the points OP raised!

So, here we have a response to original poster's post that spends more than 80% of its time attacking the original poster, and 0% responding to her assertions. I can't say why, except that maybe her testimonial undercuts your convenient perspective on how women should act in a rape?

Wait, I said I was going to come back to an alternative reading of the first sentence, wasn't I?

It's my experience that when someone says "I was raped", or something along those lines, all rational discussion is out the window.

Ah, there we go. You decided that because rational discussion was out the window, rather than address the inconvenient logic behind the original poster's argument you'd just say "LOL, you got raped" (leer) and win the argument by character assassination instead. Truly a masterstroke of rhetoric, there. Please send this to your local debate club and let me know how they respond. Or even better, get a local DA on the horn, read it to them verbatim and ask for tips.

TL;DR: In your six sentence response to the original poster's statement (reminder: AN ACTUAL RAPE VICTIM) that she had been raped, you spent five of them attacking her and none addressing her position, broken down like so:

1. Mock the original poster's rape.
2. Tell her to relive that rape without connecting to any of the points she raised. Given the tone, this seems to be written with a predatory leer.
3. Do it again, for good measure. Same leer, maybe bigger.
4. Confirm that the prior "questions" were in fact not meant to be answered at all...but with no actual refutation of OP's arguments
5. Tell the victim her experience of being a victim of rape isn't relevant (or worse, that she's not actually a victim of rape)
6. Finally refer to the original story, but addressing NONE of the actual points of debate.

It took you five (of six) straight sentences of avoiding her argument and attacking the original poster before you brought up the story, and didn't even address her arguments about rape in your response.

As an argument, your response fails completely. As a targeted personal attack against a rape victim, it succeeds. Not hard to decide how to interpret it at all.

1) She was raped: You can expect rape victims to think calmly and rationally about sex in the first place.
2) She wasn't raped: Best case scenario, you've got one of those Commies who don't know how to be Human, and think that every negative experience they have must be someone else's fault. Regret sleeping with someone? Rape. Feel insulted? Word violence.

Objective sources, please. Rational discussion demands facts, not baseless assertions. (I'll wait)

It's too much BS to read through but my experience tells me

Friend...if you're going to weigh in on an argument, know what the argument actually is before letting your gut decide. My entire exchange is about how much BuyVelomobiles is an ass. We seem to be in agreement on the concept.


My piece is said, and I'm (like 90% certain) done with this cluster o' fun. (BTW I did say "block" when I meant "ignore" but you know, semantics). If y'all choose not to read actual facts and logic that's no real skin off my back, other than making the forum that much of a lesser place. I'm going to grit my teeth over the inexorable demise of civilization for a long while and head over to a fluffier section of the forum.

 

[Kierlak]

(reminder: AN ACTUAL RAPE VICTIM)

Citation needed.

 

[BuyVelomobiles]

I think we can agree on this. My standards of decency and decorum would, if rigorously enforced, quash just about every productive forum because toxic behavior is what powers the Internet. That doesn't mean I shouldn't call out despicable forum behavior when I see it.

I was talking about your poor reading comprehension.

Kinda sad you felt obliged to lean on the white knight card. It's almost like I was actually getting under your skin and you didn't have a good argument to fall back on.

Case in point: I literally state the issue in the last reply, and it looks like you missed everything other than the "white knight" observation.

And again...nothing wrong with calling out bad behavior when I see it. Whether or not my deeds are acknowledged is completely irrelevant to whether it's the right thing to do. Why? Because doing the right thing is the point. I wouldn't expect a sociopath to understand.

She's not going to marry you, bro. And that's probably for the best.

So let's get to the meat of it. Given your command of English and repeated emphasis of discussing context and meaning in your TL-related posts, I have to believe every word you chose and every sentence you crafted is written deliberately, with no accidents in language or structure

I constantly update and edit my posts/uploads, even after making them public, to add more detail, and hopefully clarity.

Spoiler: I guess I'll hide it too.

"It's nice to hear from someone with personal experience." ... What.The.Fuck. You say that to someone who tells you they're a e.g., a bartender, NOT something you say to someone who just told you they are a victim of rape (or indeed, any crime). As a purely rhetorical device...I suppose it's fine out of context, but

Tone policing isn't going to get you anywhere with me. Also, my accepting her "rape" allegation is only done for the sake of argument.

The alternative reading is that you unilaterally decided that she wasn't actually a victim and consequently decided to mock her for it. More on that in a bit.*

They're both wrong. Not that I have a particular issue with mocking rape victims- I just didn't do it.

"Tell me: ...." Ah, this is a classic cynical rhetorical strategy to preface a series of rhetorical questions solely for the purpose of mocking the point you intend to argue against. I use the word mock here because it demonstrates no intent to actually listen to the other party. So let's look at those questions to see how they're used, eh?

Like I said before: Your White Knight instincts are leading you astray. You found a woman you feel protective of, and you're hyper-vigilant in your defense of her. The problem is, she's not being attacked. At all. Again, not that I have a problem with attacking her... I just didn't.

"Did you..." --> Because this question immediately follows the clause about "experience" (which we know to be the original poster's status as a rape victim), we can transpose that into a preceding clause.
Therefore, "Did you" is read as "[When you were raped], did you..." Again, What.The.Fuck. You are telling the victim of a rape to relive the crime committed against her. Under what rhetorical structure should this be considered appropriate?

"Propriety" isn't a consideration when discussing issues. "I'm offended for someone" doesn't make the point go away. You've wasted valuable thinking time working out ways to turn this into a personal attack, when instead you could have focused on the point I was making.

but none indicating that the line of questioning was meant to tie back to the girl in the story. Conclusion: this line of so-called "rhetorical questions" is in fact NOT meant to refer back to the story, but instead is meant to apply solely to the original poster. Probably with a predatory leer. But do they address any of her arguments? I don't see them referenced here....

I'd like to think you're not retarded, so if you'd used your valuable thinking time on this part here, you'd quickly realize the issue: She says she was raped, and she says FMC was raped. Immediately there's a parallel between the two. So now, we have a way to compare FMC's behavior to a (stipulated) victim's. Leading to:

"Did you enthusiastically beg for more halfway through? Maybe take a little extra time to enjoy the moment despite your abuser telling you to hurry things along? " (ug, vomiting a little lot as I read this) Let's see...huh, that's weird, I don't see a single instance of "she" in this pair of questions. Or "her".

Which is the crucial point your instincts left you blind to. Because now that the parallel has been drawn, the poster can use her own experience as a frame of reference to analyze FMC. I know I'm repeating myself, but this part really went over your head.

"The questions are, of course, rhetorical." Thanks Captain Obvious. So you're saying that forcing the original poster to relive being raped had no logical value and was just for kicks. Her actual contributions to the debate have been disregarded without a single attempt to refute them. Great job! (...and what would you have said if she'd said "yes"?)

"If you were raped, then you definitely didn't do any of the above." Oh. This. This is the kicker. This is direct victim-blaming, no if, ands, or buts about it.

Those are technically two different paragraphs, but they're related, and you didn't notice. We have the parallels, I've asked her about her experience, fully in the knowledge that the only real answers to those questions are negative (i.e.: "NO, I did not beg for cock"). Who would expect a victim to do any of that unprompted? No one. Which is the point.

Also: "Victim blaming", as you put it, I think is a thing we should do much more of. But I didn't do that either. There isn't even a way to read it into that sentence.

"Guess what she did." ...I feel like we're forgetting something, aren't we?

Yeah: The Point. We have one woman who claims to have been raped, and a character whose status we're debating. The woman is asked if she participated enthusiastically in her rape, and the answer is assumed to be "no" before she even gets a chance to respond. This behavior stands in stark contrast to FMC, who took every chance to consent to literally everything that happened to her, and expressed great enthusiasm, and initiative, when engaging in sexual activity. Which is exactly the opposite of what a rape victim does (duh).

Ah, there we go. You decided that because rational discussion was out the window, rather than address the inconvenient logic behind the original poster's argument you'd just say "LOL, you got raped" (leer) and win the argument by character assassination instead.

I did one better: I addressed it, used the claim as a springboard to make a personal point to the other poster, then also went ahead and explained to Eighty-six that this isn't an innocent misunderstanding of the facts on her part.

Truly a masterstroke of rhetoric, there. Please send this to your local debate club and let me know how they respond. Or even better, get a local DA on the horn, read it to them verbatim and ask for tips.

I've seen "Debate clubs". I'd probably be at the "top", even if I did exactly what you said. Maybe even because of it.

TL;DR: In your six sentence response to the original poster's statement (reminder: AN ACTUAL RAPE VICTIM) that she had been raped, you spent five of them attacking her and none addressing her position, broken down like so:

TL;DR: The Frontal Lobes shut down when a man lets his White Knight instincts take over.

Objective sources, please. Rational discussion demands facts, not baseless assertions. (I'll wait)

My brother in Christ, if you really need me to explain this all to you in Current Year, I wholeheartedly, and sincerely, encourage you to DM me. I'll add you on Discord, and we can talk as long as you want about the topic, over however much time. But you are not going to get to the bottom of this rabbit hole on a thread about an NTR slut.

 

[home7]

if you're going to weigh in on an argument, know what the argument actually is before letting your gut decide.

I'm weighing in on the content of your posts, and its clear from the content and wasteful words that you're a smarmy and pretentious moralist, and I mean that in the worst way. The reason I didn't say that yet is because unlike BuyVelomobiles I wasn't sure you could take the criticism since you say you're using an ignore list. Reading the words you write in one summarizing post is enough to judge your character, as well as the character of your argument, and find them both lacking. Like some sort of evangelical used car salesmen, or an "ally."

 

[BuyVelomobiles]

Fanbox is out, and I called it: FMC is shy, and reluctant... until the Fanbox starts, then she gives an award-winning performance, and loves it when things get rough. She's blushing, she's sweating, she's moaning, and the hearts even make a comeback.

At least she's not in yet another animalistic trance, literally begging for more this time.

 

[DaBoySwag77]

Fanbox is out, and I called it: FMC is shy, and reluctant... until the Fanbox starts, then she gives an award-winning performance, and loves it when things get rough. She's blushing, she's sweating, she's moaning, and the hearts even make a comeback.

At least she's not in yet another animalistic trance, literally begging for more this time.

Fun fact: Author says now its not cannon now... yeah sure, who will even believe that lol. But if some one just checks her twitter feed, or what she retweets its somehow always have with NTR, or how she loves it in the story now. But dont forget, its not NTR because the author says so lol, and lets ignore what happen offscreen. By this logic there is no cheating or cuckholding as long you close your eyes.
Accordingly she is non-binary. I guess that somehow explains her mantality.

 

[Litreara]

Fun fact: Author says now its not cannon now... yeah sure, who will even believe that lol. But if some one just checks her twitter feed, or what she retweets its somehow always have with NTR, or how she loves it in the story now. But dont forget, its not NTR because the author says so lol, and lets ignore what happen offscreen. By this logic there is no cheating or cuckholding as long you close your eyes.
Accordingly she is non-binary. I guess that somehow explains her mantality.

I talked about this with BuyVelomobiles in the forum thread of chapter 4.5.

Also, BuyVelomobiles is banned at the moment and I believe it is because of this. I hope it's a temporary ban.