This is absolute nonsense.
Right, so all he has to do to defend himself from the breaking and entering, property damage, and assault and battery charges is say he had permission to be there. Yea, that'll work.
Bingo bango bongo. All tybalt can prove is that he was there and he has permission to be there. Dipshit poster has nothing because those are the facts.
He's wearing a suit he stole. Oops. He assaulted someone who definitely has permission to be there. Oops. He caused property damage by clogging a toilet. Oops. He made his presence known to several of the other suests at the party. Oops. He ran out with Derek in tow and was seen by everyone. Oops.
I agree with you about the interpretation of facial expressions and gestures. But one could also draw another conclusion from it. That her experiences with sexuality are negative and that's why Jill doesn't like to talk about this topic or doesn't talk about it at all.
That is true in any case. I have formulated my argument only somewhat exaggerated to clarify my point.
The reason I posted the previous picture is because it contains the MC's question. "You did? How did that happen? I thought this place is DIKs only." This might indicate that this rule can be interpreted in a more spongy way.
At the actual party in EP6, Mona will definitely not have talked to Heather. However, Heather supports Sage in her role as a mother and may have followed Mona or talked to her on the phone. This intimate togetherness of Sage and Heather could indicate a common understanding. But how did this come about?
Yes, but what bothers me about the conversation between Jill and the MC is that she explicitly mentioned the rule of threes. My very first impression when I read that was, how can a woman like Jill fall for such crap. For me, it made sense that it happened to her and asked the MC to make sure that he does not know this rule.
None of that is provable.
*whispers* Thank you very much!
Exactly this, there is no way to prove that our MC did any of that. there's gotta be evidence to prove any of that in court. it's just "he did, she did" MC will just say he was there because he wanted to meet jill and Jill explicitly gave him permission to, and i'm more than sure jill will support that statement.
But with the "3 date" rule, would she really do it with someone she doesn't like just because she feels she has to, let alone even get to the 3rd date with someone she doesn't like? Everything about her says that the answer is a resounding 'no'.
Given Jill's lineage, it's very possible she was raised to believe this, that this is the "proper" way of dating. I don't think it's unlikely that a girl from a rich family of high class and stature was raised to believe in more traditionalist and demure ideas of dating and intimacy. People here in this thread seem to think that such concepts are long dead and that nobody thinks this way anymore, but they do.
who knows what his face will do when he finds the dik pic
That doesn't work for the story.
Again self defense. Since he has permision to be there, the other charges don't apply and you are making a fool out of yourself trying to argue that they do.
