So basically, the MC wasn't opening up about something he was intentionally avoiding and didn't want to talk about, and the ML's genius fucking solution was to drug his wine and rape him just to make him talk. Wow. So apparently if someone doesn't want to tell you something, you don't communicate, you don't give them time, you don't confront them—you drug the motherfucker and sexually assault them until they finally open up. What the actual fuck is this logic? They could have literally talked it out, but apparently rape was the author's idea of a communication method.
And then the best part? It's barely treated as rape afterward. The MC basically brushes it off, and because he physically enjoyed parts of it, we're apparently supposed to pretend nothing serious happened. Bitch, a physical response is not consent. He was fucking drugged. You cannot drug someone, rape them, and then go, "Well, he enjoyed it, so I guess it's fine." NO. That's not how consent fucking works.
And don't even get me started on Chapters 2–3. The ML was drugged by another person, not the MC, and while drugged, he was the one who forced himself on the MC. Then he turns around and tells the MC that he could be charged for drugging him and rape if it came out, despite the MC not even being the person who drugged him. So the story clearly fucking knows that drugging and sexual assault are serious enough to talk about legal consequences when it's convenient.
But when the ML intentionally drugs the MC and fucking rapes him later? Suddenly nobody gives a shit. Suddenly it's just another romantic conflict that everyone can brush under the rug. If you're going to write rape, fucking acknowledge that it's rape. Don't use "he enjoyed it" as some bullshit excuse to erase what happened. Just because it's BL doesn't mean consent magically stops existing. The ML being the love interest doesn't give him a fucking rape pass.
So basically, the MC wasn't opening up about something he was intentionally avoiding and didn't want to talk about, and the ML's genius fucking solution was to drug his wine and rape him just to make him talk. Wow. So apparently if someone doesn't want to tell you something, you don't communicate, you don't give them time, you don't confront them—you drug the motherfucker and sexually assault them until they finally open up. What the actual fuck is this logic? They could have literally talked it out, but apparently rape was the author's idea of a communication method.
And then the best part? It's barely treated as rape afterward. The MC basically brushes it off, and because he physically enjoyed parts of it, we're apparently supposed to pretend nothing serious happened. Bitch, a physical response is not consent. He was fucking drugged. You cannot drug someone, rape them, and then go, "Well, he enjoyed it, so I guess it's fine." NO. That's not how consent fucking works.
And don't even get me started on Chapters 2–3. The ML was drugged by another person, not the MC, and while drugged, he was the one who forced himself on the MC. Then he turns around and tells the MC that he could be charged for drugging him and rape if it came out, despite the MC not even being the person who drugged him. So the story clearly fucking knows that drugging and sexual assault are serious enough to talk about legal consequences when it's convenient.
But when the ML intentionally drugs the MC and fucking rapes him later? Suddenly nobody gives a shit. Suddenly it's just another romantic conflict that everyone can brush under the rug. If you're going to write rape, fucking acknowledge that it's rape. Don't use "he enjoyed it" as some bullshit excuse to erase what happened. Just because it's BL doesn't mean consent magically stops existing. The ML being the love interest doesn't give him a fucking rape pass.