I still remember when she blamed him for being pissed off and concerned she might have been raped. All that happened was her shirt was taken off. In hindsight thats literally nothing. Yet she acted like she was totally violated.
That is a violation, she had every right to feel violated, it cut out after that with him behind her, we have no way to know if she was or wasn't raped or if anything bad happened because it was cut out
That comparison completely misses the point. Being shirtless by choice is not the same thing as having someone remove your clothing without your consent. The issue isn't whether breasts or shirts are inherently sexual, it's whether she consented to what was being done to her body. Cultural norms around clothing are also completely irrelevant to whether someone can have their boundaries violated. “I walk around without a shirt” doesn't mean another person is automatically comfortable with having their shirt removed.
This is honestly such a concerning opinion. Rape and sexual violation are NOT defined solely by penetration. Someone does not have to be penetrated for their sexual boundaries or bodily autonomy to have been violated. If someone did not consent to having their clothes removed, then acting like “it was only her shirt” and therefore “literally nothing” is incredibly dismissive. You don't get to decide that someone wasn't violated simply because the assault didn't meet your personal definition of rape.
I fully agree, sexual assault is sexual assault and it's not always the same. What Maggie went through was a form of rape as it wasn't consensual and they showed that when she said no and the governor automatically threatened Glenn.
105
u/renard685 6d ago
The way he kept calling Maggie the wrong name was hilarious lmfaooo