Antianon's Favorite

Want to point this out bc I saw this in a comment and this is a problem that needs addressing anyways.

Legally, what happened to Kirin in the initiation may not be considered rape (depends on the law).

This is NOT my ethical view on what happened. I personally think it qualifies as rape bc the group offered no alternative for him to have access to the group when the act was needless for that purpose of group access and it was sex that he didn't want in the first place even if it was for a benefit (getting access to the group). It's similar to my thoughts on how clicking the agree option for Terms & Conditions on the internet should not be considered true consent, but I digress.

THIS IS A PROBLEM WITH THE LAWS ON RAPE!!! Barring the issue of sex/gender and some laws only requiring penetration or just physical force, most legal rape will come down to whether or not there was consent and will only invalidate consent when the act of agreement doesn't meet the requirement of consent.

Consent, under most laws, will only require
(1) that the person gave an overt expression of agreement,
(2) had the capacity to agree (meaning that the person isn't either underage or has some sort of mental incapacitation (either from a disability or via being drunk/drugged/unconscious), and
(3) that the agreement was considered free (usually meaning done without fraud, coercion, and threat of violence--but most laws focus on coercion/threat).

So, most rape statutes will see that Kirin consented to this bc he said yes voluntarily and with full knowledge of what was expected and was of age and sober mind. Legally, there's a stronger argument that he was not coerced or under duress when he gave his agreement because they gave him the option to leave. So, the initiation would not legally be considered rape.

THIS IS A PROBLEM!!! Laws have usually NOTHING about the intentions of the perpetrator(s) and it's all on the victim(s)'s actions. There was a recent case of a guy tricking a girl into sex by pretending to be her bf and got off bc the laws at the time didn't have the requirement that rape could happen via deception. There are even some laws that require the victim to fight back to be considered a lack of consent! And a lot of cases only consider a threat of violence to be the only type of threat to negate consent (so, threat of losing money, of being verbally harassed, of being humiliated, etc. would not be considered for invalidating consent).

This seriously needs to change.

By the by, I would also consider Kang Moo a victim in this case too bc the group is the one to initiate this act and set up the situation for this act to occur.

Why do people here say that Haesoo needs to decide now? Bro, he ended a relationship that lasted 10 years almost yesterday and jumped into another right after that. Of course, he is confused. Make it make sense.