i don't get it

You are correct. I will leave this comment thread. The ones who will keep talking claiming to be ''me'' and say I am the ''cyberstalker'' are them. They are obsessed.

thanks for taking my words as they are and not taking them the way you like... people here minced my words and made their whole another argument

Okay, I agree that I did lie. Let's go to the next part, because I think it will help address your addition—that you have the choice to play games or go back home.

So you're at my apartment now, and I've said that instead of movies, we're going to play games. And actually, my bad for adding this detail in late—when you first got to my apartment, you see that I'm in an argument with someone else I was playing games with. The argument is really heated. I threaten to hunt that person down and beat the shit out of that person if they ever fuck with me again, and I even end up throwing something in the midst of it, or pushing that other person during the argument, before that other person leaves.

So back to the present moment. You don't want to play games, and you didn't think that you were going to come to play games. You wanted to eat something and watch a movie with me. You know you're going to have a hard time finding something to eat, now, too, because you don't have food at home, and now you can't go out and buy something to eat because all the corner-stores are closed. You tell me that you don't want to play games. I tell you that you're free to leave, but I will not give you the food that I'd previously promised to give you—the food that I said I would give you if you came over to my apartment in the first place.

I'll ask a few questions here. 1) Again, did I or did I not lie about what would happen when you got to my apartment? 2) You do have the choice to leave, but would you feel safe, free, and comfortable leaving after you saw me threaten to find and beat up another person right in front of you? Someone who I had also been playing games with? 3) Would you feel safe, free, and comfortable leaving, knowing that if you leave, you might not be able to eat until the next morning, and I'm the only person who can give you a substantial amount of food right now?

i saw that you were not heated at first but the other person started saying bs about you and only then you got agitated.
you lied. i would not feel comfortable but when i said i don't want to stay and i wanna leave you were ready to let me leave peacefully. and if i feel that staying with you will be more harmful then leaving then i will surely leave.
i think starving is different than having sexual intercourse but i will still reply according to the manhwa but in the words of your given situation.
i will stay if it's do or die situation without food. but i will leave once I'm full. and I've seen your tactics now so i wont involve with you any further

The main targets of this individual are TM and MD. TM has not responded since March, while MD has been silent since May. The targets have made genuine efforts to communicate, seeking to understand and resolve issues. They’ve tried to correct misinformation and even extended forgiveness, but the harassment continues.

These individuals are cyberstalkers, resorting to these tactics because TM and his friends stand up to them. They are conflating me and my friend with TM and MD, which is a clear intimidation tactic. Anyone with a differing opinion is at risk of harassment, as they aim to discredit their targets. Their behavior shows no signs of stopping, and they will involve anyone they can in their efforts.
They are pretending that we are stalking them as a way to deflect attention from their own actions. By falsely portraying us as the aggressors, they attempt to manipulate the narrative and discredit our valid concerns. This tactic is a common form of gaslighting, aimed at creating confusion and fear among their targets. It's important to recognize this strategy for what it is and to remain aware of their deceptive tactics.

md thinking people actually gaf about you being impersonated, please feed me more of your outbursts

I did not specify whether or not the person had said shit about me before I began threatening to hunt them down and beat the shit out of them, throwing things at them, and/or pushing them around. You walked in and we were in the midst of it. Even then, can I ask—is it a reasonable reaction for me to threaten that person's safety and life? Wouldn't you be concerned about my temper?

I agree though, I did lie to you. I also agree that I wouldn't feel comfortable leaving that situation. Can you explain a bit of why YOU might not feel comfortable? For me, personally, I would be kind of worried about getting beat up by this person. And I personally don't think I would be able to trust that I could refuse them or leave without coming to some type of harm, because this person has already lied to me before, and seems to have an intense temper, based off of what I've seen of them. I think I'd still leave, but I would be pretty scared to leave, because I don't want to get beat up!

We'll get to the starving part soon but, yeah—I agree, I would also stay and try to put up with playing whatever video game, because I'm already really hungry and I can't really get much food anywhere else. And I agree, I'd probably leave after playing and eating, too. I also wouldn't want to get further involved with that person.

So let's actually get to the video game part. You said you would stay to eat, which means you now have to play a game with me. The thing is that I didn't tell you what game we'd be playing—I only said we would play a game, and that through playing the game, I would give you food. I decide we're going to play a horror game. The thing is that you hate horror games. They're gory, scary, they stress you out, and you know that if you play the game, you will probably end up having panic attacks and nightmares about it for the next week. You tell me that you'll still play a game with me, but that you would really, really prefer to play a different game. Something like a dating simulator. I ignore you and put a horror game on for us to play anyway. When you reiterate that you really don't want to play the horror game, or that you at least need some time to mentally prepare yourself to play, I say that you can leave, but I'll beat the shit out of you if you do.

You agreed to play a game with me—but does that mean that because you agreed to play A game with me, that you agreed to/should be expected to play ANY game with me? Especially one that you know will have lasting impacts on you? You agreed to play a game with me, but when I told you what game we'd be playing, did you or did you not express your discomfort with playing that particular (type of) game? Would you feel safe, comfortable, and free to just leave now, after I've directly threatened to beat you up if you tried to?

If you observe the individual you've been engaging with, who is pretending that their targets are stalking them, you'll notice that their tone shifted after I made a comment. Their main targets are TM and MD, and MD hasn't responded since May. They have incorrectly labeled me as MD, which highlights their obsession with her.

They’re attempting to gaslight you and portray themselves as victims, but it’s difficult for them to maintain that facade when their true goal is to harm others.

I'm so sorry that you're writing so much for me but tbh I'm tired of you and md and tm and morning something and whoever... i don't want to have headache just because of my opinion on some fiction. again I'm sorry that you had to write sm and had to invest so much time to help me understand your pov.
if i can clearly see that the longterm results is worse than short-term then i think obviously i would try to leave as soon as possible.

i will be afraid of getting beaten up but i would try to leave and run whenever i get a chance. i agreed because i needed something and because i was scared... but mainly because i needed something and i hope you keep the your story ditto to the jinx story as I don't think i would want to have conversation on a whole different story and approach.
and in jinx after dan saw that guy getting beaten up he still tried to leave after jaekyung clarified the situation for him. and surprisingly jaekyung was ready to let dan go without any harm but it was dan who needed money aka food urgently so he stayed. it was his compulsion to stay. jaekyung would not give a whole 5 grand

I want to apologize if my previous messages caused any confusion or frustration. My intention was to warn you so you wouldn’t be gaslit, not to give you a headache. I was trying to protect you.

You’re right in your opinions. To add, Jaekyung was going to let him go and call someone else, which suggests he doesn’t want to force anyone. It seems Jaekyung has a trigger and Dan did not trigger his response in the same way that the other guy did.

that ex of jaekyung imo clearly insulted jaekyung and a guy with jaekyung's temper won't take insults silently. dan is a super nice guy so he didn't agitate jaekyung. jaekyung has a bad personality but not that terrible that he will try to kill an innocent guy without any reason... the headaches are not from you but from your ongoing argument with tm and whoever. thankyou for you efforts sincerely :) ... really tysm.. but i don't like jinx or love jaekyung that I'll get gaslighted... I'll just leave jinx if it gets bothersome.. i left jinx after chap 20 got released as it was boring and cliche and i needed a break from yaoi.. i wanna explore the shounen ai and bromance now.. need some sweet cute stuff to heal my yaoi angst era

you're a sweet person so i actually hope this drama gets resolved for you and you have some peace <3 and thanks for bearing with me till the end...
have a nice day gurlie <3 ( dw my age is fake and I'm not actually 17.. keeping a young fake age online keeps hate comments and insults away to sone point :3 )

I'm sorry the conversation's been stressful, I can be more direct.

You said would stay because you'd be afraid to leave, and because you needed something. If someone does something because they are afraid of what will happen if they don't do it (whether because of a perceived threat or an ACTUAL threat), or because not doing that thing would result in something important to them being withheld from them, then they can't be said to have ACTUALLY consented to doing something. They were pressured, or coerced, into doing something that they otherwise would not have done. It's like if you give someone money because they're holding a gun to your head. That's not a freely made choice.

It doesn't really matter whether or not Jaekyung would've let Dan leave without hurting him. Dan had sufficient reason to feel afraid of consequences from saying no to Jaekyung. It's not just that he'd walked into Jaekyung's apartment moments before Jaekyung SLAMMED A GUY'S FACE INTO THE WALL right in front of him. It's that Dan saw even beforehand that Jaekyung had a bad temper, and he had already known and been told by Jaekyung's OWN COACH that if he pisses Jaekyung off, Jaekyung can and will beat the shit out of him. And as the interaction between him and Jaekyung continues, Jaekyung several times uses threats of violence as well as physical force, besides just ignoring when Dan says no/stop/wait to force Dan to do what he wants. If you blatantly say no to something and someone ignores that no, are they not violating your consent? Can you be said to be consenting if the alternative is getting beaten?

You also agreed in the hypothetical that I lied to you, changing the terms of our agreement after you'd already accepted one set of terms. Jaekyung pulls the same move—he lies to Dan saying he only wants physical therapy and that he'll pay Dan to do physical therapy, and it's not until Dan gets to the apartment that he tells Dan that he wants sex, and that he won't give Dan money unless he has sex. This is coercion through deception. Even if Dan weren't in the tough financial situation that he was in, Jaekyung still would've been pressuring Dan into doing something he otherwise wouldn't have done. Again, it's not really consensual. If Jaekyung had been upfront to begin with and then Dan agreed, to sex, it would've been consensual.

I used the video game example to show also that just because someone agrees to do one thing, doesn't mean that they're agreeing to do anything and everything. And just because someone agreed to do one thing at one point, doesn't mean that they're agreeing to do that thing all the time/every single time. Even in the case of something like blanket consent—something like Jaekyung and Dan's "contract"—where the parties involved negotiate and decide that certain things can be done without asking for explicit consent every single time, each party can ABSOLUTELY take that consent back, and if that rescinding of consent isn't obeyed, the interaction becomes nonconsensual.

Is this making sense? Let me know if anything's unclear.

I also want to clarify part of why I'm so invested in clearing things up here. Like you said, this story is fictional, and like you said, Jaekyung probably isn't the worst of the worst when it comes to yaoi protagonists. The thing is though that even though the story is fictional, the way that they respond to the story is real. The arguments that Dan and Jaekyung's relationship is consensual/that Jaekyung can pretty much do whatever he wants with Dan despite his protests because Dan agreed to have sex with him when the alternative was him ending up on the streets, in crippling debt, with a sick and dying grandmother in the hospital...the arguments that Dan should just leave but since he doesn't, what Jaekyung is doing to him is ultimately consensual and even okay/justifiable/Dan's fault...it's really, really concerning to me. It indicates to me that the person arguing like that doesn't understand how consent works, and that they wouldn't be able to identify a nonconsensual and coercive situation in real life, which is harmful not just for them, but for people around them, too. If they met someone who was in a coercive situation like this, would they use these same victim-blaming statements against them? Tell them that because they agreed to one sexual act with someone, that they can't/shouldn't be upset, or say that they were raped, because the person they were engaging with did things they were uncomfortable with? Or that they should've just exited a situation that was difficult to exit? These are the types of things people say to real life victims of rape and sexual assault. And it makes their trauma so, so much worse as a result. Because now they're sitting there thinking and feeling that what happened to them was THEIR fault, that they're responsible for it, instead of them understanding that at the end of the day, it was all the RAPIST'S fault for what happened.

well said

can you just clarify this thing like, dan and Jaekyung did it for 5 grand... and only after that Jaekyung proposed to dan the ideo of dan being his prostitute. dan unwillingly agreed to Jaekyung but the unwillingness did not arrive from Jaekyung but from Dan's own financial situation. i agree that dan didnt wanna do it with Jaekyung but he did it eventually. he was forced by his own financial pressure and not by Jaekyung. and i think after the first 5 grand one, dan knew that Jaekyung wouldn't listen to him no matter what so he knew beforehand how Jaekyung will do it if he signs up for that 11grand one... it was consensual for Jaekyung because he is not obligated to give money to Jaekyung for nothing and he's not obligated to consider Dan's financial situation. for him dan gave consent whether it was because of money or fear. and i think dan admires how strong Jaekyung is. fear was not the main driving force for dan to sign up. it was money.
if you look at it like I'm not obligated to give money to a homeless person because it's my money and i will whatever i want with it. if i suggest the homeless person that I'll give him money but he has to work for me and the homeless person accepts it because he needed money. i won't consider the fact that the homeless person is also a disabled person who can't work. i just need to get my work done and I'll pay the homeless person. I'm not obligated to consider the homeless guy's situation.
given Jaekyung's personality that is.
i would simply choose another person who'll do the same work and get the same money but the difference is he can actually work unlike the homeless guy.
so I'm just saying that Jaekyung is not obligated to give dan money for free. he will just choose another guy but it was dan who absolutely needed money.
from jaekyung's pov dan agreed.
but from Dan's pov he agreed because he absolutely needed money and he has to do it even if he doesn't want to
but jaekyung is not obligated to consider that situation of dan

I'm saying all this considering Jaekyung's personality in mind.
the others might not have as bad personality as Jaekyung

also like child labour. the kid doesn't wanna do the work at a shop but he needs to do it because without the money the child's mom might not live. so the child unwillingly does it for money.
but the owner can simply choose an adult to do the shop's work.
the owner cannot keep his shop dirty as it is his sourse of income too. he can fire the child because it's illegal and also because he needs his shop clean but the child desperately needs money so he stayed.
the owner cannot give money to child when he's not cleaning. his sourse of income will die if his shop is not clean.
so the owner needs a cleaner absolutely and it doesn't matter to him if it's a child or adult cleaning his shop.
both child and owner are desperate in their own way. the owner is not obligated to give money to the kid when he's not even cleaning.
it's illegal but both parties needs to do it.

My bad. I see my initial response was unclear. When I first found this post I had read one of your replies first. After reading through the comments, I realized that my first interpretation was wrong. While I did mention that I knew you meant something different than what I initially thought, I didn’t fully acknowledge what you were actually trying to say. I think my comment on page 2 shows that I’ve gained a better understanding of your point.

I totally understand and agree with you.

I will just start by asking several clarifying questions because I think that we are operating from severely differing definitions and differing moral frameworks. I will go into further explanations later if you'd like, but it will be very long-winded, and I want to attempt to keep my responses shorter if I can.

What is your definition of consent? I am personally operating off of the FRIES model of consent. That is, consent must be: Freely given (without pressure, manipulation, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol), Reversible (able to be taken back at any time), Informed (all parties must disclose any information that might threaten the safety of the interaction, any information that would cause someone not to consent), Enthusiastic (parties involved are doing things they really want to do and have expressed as much), and Specific (agreeing or consenting to one act doesn’t mean a party agrees to or consents to any and all acts).

There’s also the CRISP model of consent, which keeps the R, I, and S of the FRIES model, and takes into consideration the fact that it can be difficult to always fully “freely give” consent because things like power dynamics and different systems of oppression (like sexism, racism, …capitalism, etc) can’t always be fully erased from an interaction, but can and should still be accounted for in some way. The C stands for Considered (as in all parties are given time to consider all the factors going into something and deciding whether or not they want to consent), and the P stands for Participatory (as in all parties need to be involved in the decision-making process, and each of their -making process, all parties need to have their thoughts, feelings, opinions heard and considered and accounted for).

My own nuances I’d add are: consent must be ongoing, as in should be acquired throughout an interaction (which is partially covered by the Specific clause) and that all parties, but especially the dominant/giving party or parties, are responsible for deliberately fostering an environment where consent can operate from within these models.

Under these models, Jaekyung violates Dan's consent. Jaekyung lies to Dan about the nature of their deal (violating Informed consent), uses financial coercion (violating Freely given), and ignores Dan’s requests to stop or slow down (violating Reversible consent). Even if Dan agrees under pressure, it isn’t truly consensual.

My next question(s) is (are): If someone came up to you on the street and asked you to suck his dick right then and there, in public, and when you said no, he tried to corner you into doing it instead—would you think that he was wrong to do that? Or would you think it’s okay? Why? Would your opinion of whether he’s right or wrong to do that change if he offered money for you to suck his dick in public? Why? Or, let’s not even use sex as the example. Let’s say this guy asks you to cut yourself. Would he be right to have asked that? Would he be right to ask that if he offered you money to cut yourself?

I personally don't think that either act is moral. The offer of money does not change the morality of the act itself—if anything, it makes things less moral, because now there's an additional element of financial coercion in the situation.