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.
Allexxing
Recent community posts
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.
"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."
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."