"Why I did not report my rapist"

meeeeh

Even if she wasn't posting here, she would probably find out about it anyway.

To be honest I find the argument she is attention seeking a bit pointless. She wrote it as reply to another discussion, if that will make her more money so what. There are very few people/media outlets who are not paid to write/talk about news, opinion, experiences. Does that make their opinion irrelevant?

The question is was a woman who repeatedly said no while kissing a guy raped after he wore her down and she decided it will be easier to just grim and bear it. It doesn't matter if she is femist, anti-femist, nice, a bitch , influencer, teacher or whatever. Bad things don't just happen to good people. Just because people don't like someone they can't ignore what they are saying. They can disagree though.

.......

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I agree... until you continue being intimate with that person.

_Whimsical_

neonsofa wrote: »

Absolutely, 100%. But let's pretend she didn't give that insight to her reasoning. We didn't know she "chose". We just know she stopped saying no...did he rape her? Considering she said no and he continued to have sex with her despite that. As far as he was concerned she told him no and he continued, he didn't know if she stopped out of "convenience" to avoid awkward conversation, or out of fear or out of desire. If he couldn't read that she didn't really want to have sex then can we really assume he knew that she wasn't going along out of fear either.

I think we can assume that. She did not say she was afraid, even with the distance of 15 years she made no reference to having been afraid, no mention of it being a hurried encounter, she mentioned that they "kissed for a while" once her top came off.
They slept together the week before, cuddled and he told her he really liked her and was happy they'd been together. He'd come to her room and asked if he could kiss her. She said he wasn't aggressive, wasnt physically pushy which makes me think he didn't pull her clothes off and she didn't feel in danger. There's nothing in the order of her mentioning she became afraid he would have sex with her without her consent.
I don't think from reading that he'd have any reason to assume she was afraid in the moment.

TheChizler

LexieOnRale wrote: »

She'll have no problem posting info to the posts she doesn't like on her own social media for her followers to abuse.

You can't control what someone else does, but you can control your own and consider whether they're decent or not.

infogiver

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Holy f*cking Christ. There is a long way to go with men in this country.
If someone is reluctant to have sex - don't have sex with them!

Exactly. If your reluctant to have sex, make your mind up and then open your mouth and say " I don't want to have sex with you. Not now and not ever. Go away".

TheChizler

Wibbs wrote: »

If someone outlined what was written in that blog to me in person(including the explanation for going through with the sex), I would fire the same questions at them as I have in this thread. Especially if they accused another of a crime where even the suggestion alone could cause major issues. Actually I would likely be more not less likely to call shenanigans in person. I'm usually far more reserved here on Boards.

Absolutely call shenanigans. I would agree. I'm more talking about the outright insults, people calling her a whole etc. No need for that and it doesn't help the debate.

timmy880

meeeeh wrote: »

Even if she wasn't posting here, she would probably find out about it anyway.

To be honest I find the argument she is attention seeking a bit pointless. She wrote it as reply to another discussion, if that will make her more money so what. There are very few people/media outlets who are not paid to write/talk about news, opinion, experiences. Does that make their opinion irrelevant?

The question is was a woman who repeatedly said no while kissing a guy raped after he wore her down and she decided it will be easier to just grim and bear it. It doesn't matter if she is femist, anti-femist, nice, a bitch , influencer, teacher or whatever. Bad things don't just happen to good people. Just because people don't like someone they can't ignore what they are saying. They can disagree though.

It was "I'm telling my story" rather than a reply. She just used the other article as her intro. Anyway it's irrelevant really.

I think the confusion is the kissing part rather than "he wore her down." It's intimate, they slept together before, they were getting naked. While of course he should be listening to her words I can understand (not endorse) why he thought it might be leading to sex. Not stopping the intimacy is where people are getting confused here with her story. It rules out the frozen with fear element which is a perfectly likely scenario in such circumstances.

It's a very tough situation to assess as we don't know the tone etc. We're just having to guess that her "no!" were firm and clear while still getting intimate... but that doesn't really match the rest of the story so... tricky one!

retro:electro

TheChizler wrote: »

You can't control what someone else does, but you can control your own and consider whether they're decent or not.

I would argue that by cherry picking posts and altering them and posting them on twitter she's not giving a true representation of the considered conversation that is taking place here. She's just making the opposition look like militant crazy rape advocating idiots. There's a mature and level headed conversation taking place here, above three or four flippant insults, there is an actual intelligent conversation taking place.

infogiver

TheChizler wrote: »

Everyone might not be aware but IFAIK Rosemary posts on Boards, so bear in mind you're talking about another member. Whatever you think about her reasoning for the blog post she's probably reading the comments saying she's an "attention seeker" or worse and the ones saying you can't stand her etc. Might be an idea to consider would you say these things to someone in person, cause you basically are.

I don't understand what you mean by this. What are you trying to say?

TheChizler

anna080 wrote: »

I would argue that by cherry picking posts and altering them and posting them on twitter she's not giving a true representation of the considered conversation that is taking place here. She's just making the opposition look like militant crazy rape advocating idiots. There's a mature and level headed conversation taking place here, above three or four flippant insults, there is an actual intelligent conversation taking place.

True but how do schoolyard insults help? You're only providing her with ammo if she does indeed do that. If you keep the discussion reasonable and base it in on the content of her posts she has nothing to throw back at you.

retro:electro

TheChizler wrote: »

True but how do schoolyard insults help? You're only providing her with ammo if she does indeed do that. If you keep the discussion reasonable and base it in on the content of her posts she has nothing to throw back at you.

I've not heralded one insult. In fact I've kept my personal opinion of the girl completely separate to my argument because it's completely irrelevant here. (I realise your post wasn't directed at my posts personally but just said I'd say my bit)

TheChizler

infogiver wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean by this. What are you trying to say?

Making it personal never helps debate and at the end of the day she's a person with feelings prone to writing things that not evryone might agree with; just like everyone else here. How you feel she behaves is no reason to drop to that same level.

TheChizler

anna080 wrote: »

I've not heralded one insult. In fact I've kept my personal opinion of the girl completely separate to my argument because it's completely irrelevant here. (I realise your post wasn't directed at my posts personally but just said I'd say my bit)

Apologies if it sounded like it was directed at you individually, I mean the impersonal pronoun you.

r93kaey5p2izun

timmy880 wrote: »

It was "I'm telling my story" rather than a reply. She just used the other article as her intro. Anyway it's irrelevant really.

I think the confusion is the kissing part rather than "he wore her down." It's intimate, they slept together before, they were getting naked. While of course he should be listening to her words I can understand (not endorse) why he thought it might be leading to sex. Not stopping the intimacy is where people are getting confused here with her story. It rules out the frozen with fear element which is a perfectly likely scenario in such circumstances.

It's a very tough situation to assess as we don't know the tone etc. We're just having to guess that her "no!" were firm and clear while still getting intimate... but that doesn't really match the rest of the story so... tricky one!

If it was established (and it's definitely not at all clear what happened from what was quoted in the OP, hence all the various interpretation imo) that when he started having sex (penetration to be clear) that she stopped kissing and just lay there with no reciprocation - would that change your view of the situation? Would you deem consent to sex to have been given? Would you deem honest belief of consent to sex to be a reasonable assumption on his part? And if he honestly believed consent was there, how would you view his continuing with sex as she lay there not reciprocating?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

TheChizler wrote: »

True but how do schoolyard insults help? You're only providing her with ammo if she does indeed do that. If you keep the discussion reasonable and base it in on the content of her posts she has nothing to throw back at you.

So basically she can be free to post what she likes, be as controversial as she likes, accuse someone of raping her because she didn't want to have to tell him she didn't fancy him, and she can throw posters to the vultures on her social media but god forbid you disagree with her public blog post she's makes as a "social influencer" when you find what she's posted to be insulting and distasteful? Okay then.

I'd have some level of understanding if she wasn't a complete rent a gob on social media, constantly posting controversial topics and perpetually playing the victim. If you don't want that sort of negative attention, don't go out of your way to seek it,

TheChizler

LexieOnRale wrote: »

So basically she can be free to post what she likes, be as controversial as she likes, accuse someone of raping her because she didn't want to have to tell him she didn't fancy him, and she can throw posters to the vultures on her social media but god forbid you disagree with her public blog post she's makes as a "social influencer" when you find what she's posted to be insulting and distasteful? Okay then.

I'd have some level of understanding if she wasn't a complete rent a gob on social media, constantly posting controversial topics and perpetually playing the victim. If you don't want that sort of negative attention, don't go out of your way to seek it,

I don't see how my post is connected in any way to yours. Absolutely disagree with her and call her out on it, no need for anyone to stoop to petty insults while doing it.

Personally I don't agree with her and think she's wrong to call the guy a rapist.

Calhoun

TheChizler wrote: »

True but how do schoolyard insults help? You're only providing her with ammo if she does indeed do that. If you keep the discussion reasonable and base it in on the content of her posts she has nothing to throw back at you.

Someone like her will always find the ammo, its part of the new left dont you know emotions and feelings are as relevant than any fact.

All she needs is her "rape" experience and intuition and she can write the book on rape culture in Ireland. Surprised she hasnt been approached by a rag to write for them.

Shelga

I can't stick most Irish social media luvvies like Pippa O'Connor and her ilk, flogging makeup and bulls**t all day every day, but I follow Rosemary and really like her. She's self-aware and knows that this 'industry' is a bit mad, really. She's funny and I'd say a lot of people could relate to her opinion on things. She seems like a kind and decent person and I think some people here have written her off as shallow and attention-seeking without ever seeing her snaps or other blog posts.

However, I do not think the incident she describes in her blog post can be described as rape, and the use of the word makes me fairly uncomfortable. As she has put this out on a public forum I think it's fair game to discuss. She says herself the lines were blurred, and she consented in the end. Consent after three nos is still consent; she was not coerced and wanted to avoid an awkward conversation. This is such a nuanced issue and I, unlike some, think her intentions are good, but it is not rape.

r93kaey5p2izun

TheChizler wrote: »

I don't see how my post is connected in any way to yours. Absolutely disagree with her and call her out on it, no need for anyone to stoop to petty insults while doing it

Personally I don't agree with her and think she's wrong to call the guy a rapist.

You used calling her an attention seeker as an example of what you disagree with here - I called her an attention seeker so I'll respond. I don't think "attention seeker" is a petty schoolyard insult. I labelled her an attention seeker based on the full pattern of her writing online and in the media - not due to this particular piece. I firmly believe it to be true and I mentioned it in the context of why this particular scenario is a difficult one to examine as it colours perceptions - mine included. And I actually am undecided whether the scenario described would constitute rape.

professore

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more, in many cases rape victims will admit that they allowed sex to take place. Very often it's in the "because I was afraid/I was too young and scared/he was in a position of authority" context. Which is not to say that any of those apply...but those words "I let him" most certainly do not equate to consent.

On the contrary, if it was demonstrated (and given the lapse of time, it's a big "if") that she repeatedly said no and he proceeded, he would be in a lot of trouble.

Often in cases like you outline above they will say yes - BECAUSE THEY ARE SCARED TO SAY NO. The horrific account a previous poster posted is case in point. Is that fine, because they said yes or OK?

On the other hand we all know those people that don't order dessert because they don't want any and then eat everyone else's - for whatever reason they don't want to be thought of as that kind of girl.

Consent is about more than words. Unfortunately the law has reduced it to this.

TheChizler

I suppose the term attention seeker is pretty subjective, personally I wouldn't use it as I would find it insulting. It's possible she feels the need to write to get attention but maybe she honestly feels she's doing a public service. I'm not psychic so don't know.

retro:electro

TheChizler wrote: »

I suppose the term attention seeker is pretty subjective, personally I wouldn't use it as I would find it insulting. It's possible she feels the need to write to get attention but maybe she honestly feels she's doing a public service. I'm not psychic so don't know.

She is an attention seeker. And my housemate just showed me her Snapchat there where RMC is on moaning about people being mean to her on this forum and calling her names. Never one to pass up an opportunity to be a victim is she?

I'd rather be called an attention seeker on an anonymous Internet forum than a rapist on a trending public blog.

cantdecide

If she believes that pestering someone into having sex with them is rape then she should look into the faces of the men she holds dear and before the day is out, she will have looked into the face of several 'rapists'.

Shelga wrote: »

Consent after three nos is still consent; she was not coerced

It diminishes the horrifying and life and perception-altering experience of rape victims. Shame on her.

Shelga

cantdecide wrote: »

If she believes that pestering someone into having sex with them is rape then she should look into the faces of the men she holds dear and before the day is out, she will have looked into the face of several 'rapists'.



It diminishes the horrifying and life and perception-altering experience of rape victims. Shame on her.

Is that still the case if she genuinely believes she was raped, though?

r93kaey5p2izun

professore wrote: »

Often in cases like you outline above they will say yes - BECAUSE THEY ARE SCARED TO SAY NO. The horrific account a previous poster posted is case in point. Is that fine, because they said yes or OK?

On the other hand we all know those people that don't order dessert because they don't want any and then eat everyone else's - for whatever reason they don't want to be thought of as that kind of girl.

Consent is about more than words. Unfortunately the law has reduced it to this.

I absolutely agree with your point about saying one thing and doing another. And I think the non verbal aspects of consent are so important to the debate. So saying no then actively eating the dessert is fairly clear. Saying no then keeping kissing is clear. Saying no then cuddling and carressing during sex is pretty clear. What about kissing then saying no then kissing then lying there during sex without reciprocating at all but no resistance? What does that say? Yes. Then no. Then yes. Then what? It's ambiguous. That's the crux of it. Because consent is about more than words. And it's open to interpretation.

I just cannot understand the black and white stances on this.

Calhoun

Shelga wrote: »

This is such a nuanced issue and I, unlike some, think her intentions are good, but it is not rape.

How generous of her cast and accusation on someone from her past and perpetuate the rape culture myth.

Could it be the ST Rosemary was just looking for publicity, with the likes of Louise o Neill and old Una I don't blame her as you get a nice writing deal with a paper


However I would never define her intentions as anything more than self serving.

retro:electro

Ya know what? The more I think about this, the more angry it makes me. When did we as a society get like this? How is this okay? Reporting a rape isn't one dimensional in who it issues fairness to. It also ensures the accused gets a fair say, a right to be heard a fair trial and either proven guilty or acquitted. So now what does this guy get? Trial by social fcuking media. How is this okay? Don't tell me he wasn't named so people don't know who he is. Don't tell me that. He will know who he is. As will his friends, perhaps his family. He will have to live with the social implications of being called a rapist on a fcuking blog 15 years after the event for the rest of his life, with no right to defend himself. How is that fair? How did we get like this? Fcuk this sh!t.

One eyed Jack

Broody_Allen wrote: »

RMC could post that the sky is blue and Lexie would say that it's red because she has an issue with her. I'm actually amazed that a rape victim would choose not to emphathise about this over some long-standing petty beef.

The whole point of RMC's account of events and how she dealt with her experience in the aftermath of it, and how she continues to deal with it to this day, the whole point of the article is that not all people who have been raped will process their experience in the same way, will understand their experience in the same way, and will not deal with their experience in the same way, in the way other people deal with their experience, in the way they should be expected to deal with their experience.

People who have been raped, still don't fit in some cookie-cutter mentality that defines them.

infogiver

TheChizler wrote: »

Making it personal never helps debate and at the end of the day she's a person with feelings prone to writing things that not evryone might agree with; just like everyone else here. How you feel she behaves is no reason to drop to that same level.

But she's not giving much thought to the feelings of the man she couldn't have outed more clearly amongst her old college crowd if she'd actually named him.
If you want to go public with your thoughts and feelings, and you write on highly emotive controversial subjects in which you are always a victim of a man or men, throwing accusations around like snuff at a wedding, then had you not better be ready for some flack?!?
What the hell is going on? Why do you think she should be allowed to go unchallenged?

cantdecide

Shelga wrote: »

Is that still the case if she genuinely believes she was raped, though?

Genuine belief is more honourable than conscious deceit, obviously. However, you can still believe completely in something and be completely wrong.