I mean... He straight up says he consented. Vic only ASSUMED he hadn't. That was the point. Her self loathing thinking "Surely he couldn't want me, therefore that must mean I..."
Essentially, all statements from Vic and Kieran must be taken as an unreliable narrator. It's not "It happened the way Vic said and that's fine." it's: "It straight up DIDN'T happen like that. She did not do what she thought she had done."
i mean... thats bs lol. theres even comments afterward about how its still an unresolved issue . she raped him but even though he was huurting he was more worried about what was happening in her mind. so he buried his "true" feeling to put hers infront of his which is pretty much his MO.
and my issue isnt that it happened, its that there is this weird Lack of true accountability there never a conversation between them that says "hey you fucked up but i understood why and i dont hate you for it."
Instead his fucked up brain that has rationalised what happened, ends up gaslighting everyone else into thinking the same, while simultaneously the narrative throws hints that it still fucked with his head.
its actually the only plot point i have a problem with but vic is so involved in everything else that it just ruins all the good moments for me
again just a simple what you did was fucked but i still love you would of kept me invested.
"theres even comments afterward about how its still an unresolved issue" All of them from... Victoria herself. The aforementioned unreliable narrator.
But furthermore, how can you "gaslight" people into thinking you gave consent? That is straight up nonsense. If you consented... You consented. If anything, what you are suggesting would be gaslighting "I know you think this is how you felt, but you didn't "really" feel that way."
If he says he was a willing participant. Then he was a willing participant.
If he says he was a victim of rape. Then he was a victim of rape.
You're suggesting we ignore the actual testimony of the victim and say "No, no. Your choices and feelings don't matter. THIS is what you're supposed to think happened."
The idea of "You were mistaken about your own consent" is ridiculous..
Who the fuck else has the right to make that choice other than the person involved. To suggest otherwise would be to remove that person's agency and ability to choose who they want to have sex with. The very point of consent in the first place.
Imagine arresting someone for theft and then when the person they "stole" from says: "That was a gift I gave her". You say "No, no. You didn't give it to her. You're clearly delusional."
story anon seems to think I'm along the right track so I don't feel like I misinterpreted.
Also you don't think a rape victim can be psychological scarred by the act and have to use some method of repression to move past it.
and secondly.... DID YOU WATCH THE POOR KID CRYING HIS EYES OUT SCARED STIFF WITH FEAR XD.
Here's the thing. You're right. But for the wrong reasons.
Yes. We learn something later that recontextualises that scene completely in a way that ends up aligning with your interpretation.
However. Given that is a later reveal that changes the context. I must judge on your current logic.
Which basically ammounted to: "The person involved doesn't have the right to declare their own consent."
Which is something I cannot get behind.
Now. If we go by the idea that he repressed his own feelings of the matter due to trauma, as you're suggesting. Then that would ALSO not mean he was gaslighting the people around him. Gaslighting is a deliberate and cruel form of manipulation. If your brain has involuntarily altered traumatic memories, then that's not you manipulating people. You genuinely remember it differently.
And of course. Assuming that someone must be repressing their own experiences because their account doesn't match what you think happened is a dangerous road to tread.
As for the crying... I checked the scene again. You DON'T see him crying during that scene. While a later chapter flashback does show him crying, it is explicitly NOT out of fear.
I think your an idiot lol
just because I could read between the line before I see the recontextualization doesn't mean I'm wrong. weird mental gymnastics there.
to me it seems like you brought into the fact it was consented and for some reason cant stand you were wrong went back to try and find things I was wrong about and only found no tears in one scene.
now your saying because I was right early I'm wrong ??????
1.this "declare consent" bullshit. something happens you don't agree to is the definition of consent. what ever mind tricks your doing to convince your self different is weird and what rapists use a excuses.
2. even if it not intentional he still made people believe something that wasn't true. not because it was the right thing to do or because that's what he believed but just to stop everyone arguing and ensure they get along XD . while it might not be a "perfect definition" it fits pretty close. given all the talk of nuance you seem to proclaim I don't understand how you don't get that.
3.again I'm not assuming, he literally is repressing it and MULTIPLE comments are made about it not even gonna bother trying to tell you different its in the script.
4. this isn't real life sighting some rendering flaw as a reason is dumb and even then in the flashback which would of been made further into development small details like this are more likely to be added. Basically the fact its even put into the flashback shows it means something.
and how the hell can you know he's not scared with all the talk about knowing what inside some else head I don't need to be told he's scared its just a normal logical reaction to the situation.
I don't know why you cant just accept the fact he didn't consent. all the talk of gaslighting and you trying to get me to believe something that isn't true...
oh the irony XD
Nice try with the Ad Hominem.
What I said was that your REASONING was wrong. Your argument boils down to: "The text contradicted me. Therefore the text must be wrong."
This would be like watching the "I am your father " scene and insisting throughout out the rest of the trilogy "Vader is lying! Obi-wan said he betrayed and murdered Luke's father! He can't be Luke's father. Why is everyone lying to Luke that Vader is his father??"
Conversely. If you had instead said in the first movie "Oh! Hangon! Vader must be Luke's father because they said his father was a good pilot and Vader lives in space!" That logic would STILL be nonsense, even if the second movie's twist validates the conclusion.
And everything else you've said proves my point. Your argument boils down to: "I'm right. My interpretation is unquestionable, and anything that contradicts it is stupid or manipulative"
The character says it was something he wanted? Nope. Can't be. Must be lying.
"again I'm not assuming, he literally is repressing" Translation: "I can't be wrong. If he says he consented, then he HAS to be lying, or gaslighting, or repressing. ANYthing so long as I don't need to re-evaluate how I understand what happened based on new testimony and information.
The point about the tears makes that all the clearer. First it's "THE KID WAS CLEARLY BAWLING HIS EYES OUT". But the second it is confirmed you were wrong, "...Well I'm still right anyway!"
You speak of mind tricks and others being unwilling to accept things. But all this boils down to is your own unwillingness to question your own conclusions. Everything you believe is fact. Anything that challenges that is false.