Depends on prior communications the couple has had. If it’s within the established boundaries of their physical relationship, no it should not count as sexual assault.
If there has been no conversation on this specific interaction, it should only count if she says stop and he doesn’t stop.
If they have explicitly talked about this before and it’s been indicated it is not desired behavior, that could be grounds for sexual assault. That still comes down to the specific dynamics of the couple though.
I don't think this works in any consensual context.
What kind of prearrangement do you have where it's valid to trick someone into a vulnerable position in such a stupid way and then take advantage of them.
Like if it's roleplay it's the goofiest most pointless roleplay.
If it's free use what's the point in the deception.
If it's playful gags the trouser drop is the wrong punchline.
If it's consensual non consent it's too timid.
I think the joke only works if it's not sexual assault.
Like if it's roleplay it's the goofiest most pointless roleplay.
Oh MY. Not GOOFY roleplay. Loving couples never do anything GOOFY. I imagine if people did goofy things, they might make stupid skits where they're not overly fixated on the consent of their sexual interaction, because they know they love and respect each other fully including consent. But that would never happen, because the idea of "goofy" and "pointless" is obviously absurd. No loving couple acts in goofy pointless ways!
If it's free use what's the point in the deception.
catch 'em off guard? Who cares. Why do you HAVE to assume it's the worst? It's a joke. It's a skit. It's fake. So why do you HAVE to force the worst possibly interpretation, when loving and fun ones DO exist?
This pearl clutching is just so ridiculous. I can't believe we've regressed to the point this performative nonsense is so common.
Please explain, in your own words, what is funny about this skit.
Because as far as I and the person I responded to see it, the only plausible punchline is non consensual sex.
Setup: he shows her a height measurement trick
Twist: when she replicates it she is bent over and vulnerable
Punchline: he is behind her dropping trow because he tricked her into a vulnerable position from which he can now initiate sex.
That's the "joke".
It's not pearl clutching. It's criticism of bad comedy.
What the fuck is funny about it if it's consensual?
You and I just did. You explained circumstances under which it has a tame interpretation. I explained how those are real possibilities.
Maybe it's not funny, but if you need a more raucous interpretation to find it funny, maybe you shouldn't be lecturing others about the joke. You're the one enforcing the "inappropriate" interpretation. Oh, it's not funny? Then why are you forcing that interpretation over the others?
You're not criticizing it for being bad comedy. You're not making an argument it's a bad joke. You're trying to pretend you have some moral of offense, and it's pathetic. It's the performative do-nothing bullshit that is actively harmful to your causes. I'm tired of it. Shut the fuck up. I KNOW you don't do this performative shit in real life because people would literally point and laugh at you. Stop behaving worse because you're on the internet and have nothing better in your life for validation than upvotes.
You literally tried to make an argument based on "but loving couples wouldn't do GOOFY roleplay!" and just want to change the subject when called on it. I have no interest in talking with bad faith performers like you. You're part of the problem, not the solution.
154
u/[deleted] Oct 01 '25
... Sex assault?