- Joined
- Jan 15, 2014
The term “consent accident” is just such a weird and awkward way of putting it. I feel like if it was as simple as “they were uncomfortable about dog hair and I had no way of knowing that was a problem,” consent isn’t the issue. They consented, even if they didn’t like it. “Consent accident” implies that consent was somehow in doubt. They had to be coerced, they withdrew consent or they were in obvious distress.If it was someone who deserves the benefit of the doubt, someone who I would be inclined to believe, I would say that it makes sense if you're taking their claims at face value. Trying to explain to someone that it wasn'trapea consent accident, because who could have known the other person would be triggered by dog hair, how it wasn't intentional, and maybe stop accusing me of rape because I had dog hair on my jacket - I very much get that. I'm certain the consent accident victim is a total lolcow themselves - they'd have to be, to want to have anything to do with Fong-Jones directly.
But this isn't someone who gets the benefit of the doubt, it's Liz Fong-Jones. He's a known, frequent liar and likely by his own standards should forever be branded arapistconsent accident haver and run out of tech. But that's not how it works when the troon narc gets accused of far worse crimes than they accuse others of.
I find the whole troon scene so murky. It seems like everyone rapes someone, gets raped or both. I wonder, during the Drop KF saga, what were the most vocal troons thinking? Were they taking their fellow “victims’” claims at face value, or were they thinking, “Well, if the other rapists are doing it…”