"Why I did not report my rapist"

infogiver

anna080 wrote: »

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. 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.

I feel exactly the same. There is something so intensely wrong about this, all of this LON etc.
What they're actually doing is setting back gender equality by 20 years with all this crap.
I hope they and all their apologists on this and other forums will be happy when not one single real victim of sexual assault is believed because of this insidious nonsense

Penny Tration

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

I totally and utterly agree with the not fitting into the cookie cutter mentality.


Some rape survivors block out what happened to them, as their mind's way of dealing with the trauma, while some remember it all from minute one.

Some become promiscuous, while others become terrified of sex.

Some tell people, some stay quiet.

Some report, some don't.



But she consented in the end.

People have mentioned coercion in this thread.


Rape by coercion is still rape. However, to be raped by coercion, you had to have been in a position where you felt you had no other option but to consent - such as fear for your safety.

What she did was decide to just lay there and have sex because she felt awkward rejecting the guy, she even says so herself!


Giving consent to avoid an awkward conversation is not rape, and it's not rape by coercion. It's a stupid decision, that many young women make before they're confident enough to say "get lost pal."




I didn't know how to feel about this thread and her blog post earlier. I read it with interest but was conflicted. The more I've thought about it, recounted my own experiences with sex I've regretted, sex after I initially said no to my boyfriend, and (unfortunately) being raped, the more insulted I've become.

What she's done is an insult to both women and men. If I tell my boyfriend to feck off and he continues to tease me sexually until I want it, I have NOT been raped. I have consented freely because I have changed my mind - a prerogative that works with a yes as well as a no.


To imply that all of my exes and current partner are rapists is disgusting. To imply that all young women who are silly enough to have sex they don't really want have been raped, is disgustingly insulting to women who have been raped, by force or coercion, women who truly had no choice.


And that crying face.... Jesus wept.

retro:electro

infogiver wrote: »

I feel exactly the same. There is something so intensely wrong about this, all of this LON etc.
What they're actually doing is setting back gender equality by 20 years with all this crap.
I hope they and all their apologists on this and other forums will be happy when not one single real victim of sexual assault is believed because of this insidious nonsense

Ya know what really tickles me? A lot of the mentions of praise she has been getting on Twitter are from people who call themselves "social justice warriors". Christ. This is the total opposite of social justice.

mzungu

anna080 wrote: »

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 issued 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. 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.

On this I agree. There was enough information in the blog so that anybody acquainted with them 15 years ago could positively identify whomever he is. It does smack of being a kangaroo court and has the potential to get out of hand. What she should have done was to change the circumstances and stick in a disclaimer saying places and times have been changed. At least that way she still gets the story across and removes the likelihood of identification.

What was described in the article does sound to me like rape to me. However, that is neither here nor there as we have due process for a reason. Part of that is getting both sides of the story and weighing things up from there. If everybody starts going around making accusations or giving enough information to identify people via blogs then we are travelling down a dodgy road.

Mountainsandh

Penny Tration wrote: »

And that crying face.... Jesus wept.

Well put.

And I've never checked her blog or snapchat, but now I really want to see the crying face.
It smacks of people who comment on sad videos on Facebook who say : "tears rolling down my face here".

I usually avoid the new-feminist-victim posts/blogs/write ups like the plague, so I'm not really au-fait with how far it has come, although now with her blog I pretty much realize the extent. Ironically, in the same way that this young man didn't seem to "think" too deeply about their interaction on that night, she doesn't seem to have "thought" too deeply about the repercussions of her post on him.

There really should be some counter movement to this. I'm female and I'm not happy with these people implying that I'm one of them just because of my gender. I feel I couldn't voice that in any online discussion however, because I'd sound really like I love the "patriarchy", like all I want is to mop floors and have babies, and like I "tss tss" at career women while twitching the curtain

I just don't know how to voice it. I actually looked up groups against that new kind of feminism once online, I just couldn't find something that fitted how I feel.

Penny Tration

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Well put.

And I've never checked her blog or snapchat, but now I really want to see the crying face.
It smacks of people who comment on sad videos on Facebook who say : "tears rolling down my face here".

I usually avoid the new-feminist-victim posts/blogs/write ups like the plague, so I'm not really au-fait with how far it has come, although now with her blog I pretty much realize the extent. Ironically, in the same way that this young man didn't seem to "think" too deeply about their interaction on that night, she doesn't seem to have "thought" too deeply about the repercussions of her post on him.

There really should be some counter movement to this. I'm female and I'm not happy with these people implying that I'm one of them just because of my gender. I feel I couldn't voice that in any online discussion however, because I'd sound really like I love the "patriarchy", like all I want is to mop floors and have babies, and like I "tss tss" at career women while twitching the curtain

I just don't know how to voice it. I actually looked up groups against that new kind of feminism once online, I just couldn't find something that fitted how I feel.

I feel similarly about new age feminism.

I'd probably be a feminist by old standards. I believe women should be treated as equals to men, both in privilege and in responsibility. I don't think women should get more lenient jail sentences because they're women. Similarly I don't think men should get harsher sentences because they're men.


Equality means equality, not special treatment.


But apparently being an ACTUAL feminist who believes in ACTUAL equality nowadays means that you've got some internalized self hatred and adore the "patriarchy," who taught you to think this way.

One eyed Jack

Penny Tration wrote: »

Rape by coercion is still rape. However, to be raped by coercion, you had to have been in a position where you felt you had no other option but to consent - such as fear for your safety.

What she did was decide to just lay there and have sex because she felt awkward rejecting the guy, she even says so herself!


Giving consent to avoid an awkward conversation is not rape, and it's not rape by coercion. It's a stupid decision, that many young women make before they're confident enough to say "get lost pal."

But by your own definition of rape, she felt she had no other option but to consent. Her reasons for why she consented are after the fact, not before it.

Your point raises another question for me, and this is entirely hypothetical, but, if a person is raped by another person once (by your own definition of the absence of consent), then is repeatedly raped on for example a daily basis, and rather than put up any form of protest, they allow it to happen... does that mean they weren't subsequently raped after the first time it happened?

I don't genuinely expect an answer to that question and I don't mean to put you on the spot, but it's just an example of one set of circumstances where things are not so black and white, easily defined, nor as clear as some people would need them to be.

Penny Tration

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But by your own definition of rape, she felt she had no other option but to consent. Her reasons for why she consented are after the fact, not before it.

Your point raises another question for me, and this is entirely hypothetical, but, if a person is raped by another person once (by your own definition of the absence of consent), then is repeatedly raped on for example a daily basis, and rather than put up any form of protest, they allow it to happen... does that mean they weren't subsequently raped after the first time it happened?

I don't genuinely expect an answer to that question and I don't mean to put you on the spot, but it's just an example of one set of circumstances where things are not so black and white, easily defined, nor as clear as some people would need them to be.

But she didn't feel she had no other choice - she said she wanted to avoid an awkward conversation. I want to avoid presentations in college, but I get on with it. Hence my example of fearing for one's safety. She wasn't coerced because she had the choice to have that conversation and chose not to. Women in fear of violence if they say no don't have that choice, because they believe they will be beaten or murdered. Avoiding an awkward conversation isn't in any way comparable to truly believing you have no choice.


As to your question - my answer won't satisfy you, as my example of absence of consent isn't what you think it is - if a person feels they have absolutely no choice but to give in to sex because something bad will happen to them, then yes, they've been raped. Subsequent cases of 'giving in' would also be the same, because they would still have that same fear.


Wanting to avoid a conversation is not grounds for coercion. It's an immature (I'm not saying RMC is immature; it's something many young women do), regrettable CHOICE.

LightlyGo

Well she's pretty much said the definitive word on it herself now in a Facebook post. She wasn't afraid, she didn't want to refuse him out of politeness.

How she can call it rape I don't know. It's a great shame she wouldn't take responsibility for her part in it, it could've been the start of an empowering conversation about being conscious of the decisions you make and the consequence of not being mature enough to assert yourself in intimate situations. Laying it at someone else's door, ruining their reputation, was never going to be an answer for her, a positive example for young women who follow her blog or for victims of abuse. Instead they've had the concept of rape diluted by applying it to a situation where consent is given.

From Rosemary's Facebook :

It's really interesting to me how people are saying things like "you clearly weren't afraid / terrified of this MONSTER" – I never said I was. I didn't call him a monster. I do think that forcing sex on someone who's said no, over and over again, is rape. However, I don't think that the man involved is a bad person. I think he didn't realise how far he was pushing things. I don't think he would ever consider himself a rapist. I don't think he's a monster, and I wasn't afraid of him.]I found myself in a situation that I couldn't see a way out of because of guilt and shame and a misguided sense of politeness. Should I have shoved him off and told him to **** off and kicked him out of my room? Yes, undoubtedly. But I was too embarrassed and ashamed to make a fuss, and I felt like, if I did that, I'd be making a big deal out of nothing. It seemed easier to just lie there and, in a way, dissociate. Was it rape? To me, yes. To a court of law, I'd say 1% chance. To him? No.

One eyed Jack

Penny Tration wrote: »

Avoiding an awkward conversation isn't in any way comparable to truly believing you have no choice.

For some people, it is, for some people, it isn't. Her saying no three times in this case wasn't enough for this guy for example. He still continued when he knew he had been asked to stop. He had a choice to stop, and he didn't.

As to your question - my answer won't satisfy you, as my example of absence of consent isn't what you think it is - if a person feels they have absolutely no choice but to give in to sex because something bad will happen to them, then yes, they've been raped. Subsequent cases of 'giving in' would also be the same, because they would still have that same fear.

This is why I don't normally deal in hypotheticals, because I completely understood your definition of consent, but I didn't mention anything about fearing for anything, I should have been clearer - if they simply subsequently felt nothing. That's why the requirement for coercion for it to be defined as rape, may not always apply. It's still rape.

Wanting to avoid a conversation is not grounds for coercion. It's an immature (I'm not saying RMC is immature; it's something many young women do), regrettable CHOICE.

Genuinely couldn't care less for RMC and her politics, nor her blog, nor any of the rest of the nonsense in the online blogsphere/vlogsphere, but I've known enough people to know that immaturity or otherwise is neither here nor there, it starts where she left the party to go to bed, and he followed her up and into the room. He wasn't invited, but he knew what he wanted, and in spite of the fact that she said no three times, the very fact that she had to say no three times, tells it's own story.

This is basically the Louise O neill thread mark II.

It's as simple as this.

On for both of you, you get at it, not rape.

Off for either of you, you get at it, rape.

Now, is it punishable rape? There's the crux.

I accepted a hell of a long time ago that part of the skillset every actual man needs is the ability to break it off at every stage if she's not on. From at the club, to mounting the bed, expect the No. You get the No, you get the f*ck out. Her loss, not yours.

retro:electro

LightlyGo wrote: »

Well she's pretty much said the definitive word on it herself now in a Facebook post. She wasn't afraid, she didn't want to refuse him out of politeness.

How she can call it rape I don't know. It's a great shame she wouldn't take responsibility for her part in it, it could've been the start of an empowering conversation about being conscious of the decisions you make and the consequence of not being mature enough to assert yourself in intimate situations. Laying it at someone else's door, ruining their reputation, was never going to be an answer for her, a positive example for young women who follow her blog or for victims of abuse. Instead they've had the concept of rape diluted by applying it to a situation where consent is given.

From Rosemary's Facebook :

Christ. She even admits he would not be found guilty in a court of law, yet she's still happy to call him a rapist and continually tell people he raped her. What a stupid irresponsible idiot. It's actually depressing.

jameorahiely

The things people do for 5 mins of fame. Being a victim is fashionable

The Black Oil

Pretty sure I've learned more about people's experiences of rape from reading boards than I ever will from Louise, Una, Jessica Valenti and the rest.

Ben Gadot

Calhoun wrote: »

Just waiting for this to be picked up by the liberal media and turned into another crusade, sexual consent classes for all!!!.

She won't do any live debates I can guarantee that.

The funny thing is that if it is as she says it is I wouldn't argue with her. Saying no multiple times is straightforward enough. Whether she'd be able to stand over that in real time is another thing.

Cerisepink

This is a really interesting thread! And obviously the type of article that divides opinion.While I don't think it's fair for any of us to tell someone that they were wrong for how they felt or interpreted a situation, I also agree that the word "rape" should not be used in this context, maybe the article is just worded wrong? She admits she let him kiss her because she didn't want to be "mean". She said she was thinking he would get the message eventually but that's the thing with sex between two people, what is going on in your mind could be completely different to what is going on in the other persons mind, that's why it's sometimes necessary to communicate clearly. Now she did say she said no several times which for many, deservedly should mean no but it's sometimes not as clear cut as that. She said he wasn't pushy (although near the end of the article she used this word to describe him) but somehow her clothes came off and she said that it would be "easier" to just let him do it. I feel that this deserves some personal responsibility on her part but then again how many no's does it take for it to mean no and does no, no ,no , okay= rape? Consent is a tricky one because it is not clearly defined in Irish Law so it is difficult to prove sexual assault in a court of law. I do think it's ridiculous for her to blame him for all the other guys she slept with after him who "definitely didn’t warrant being looked at twice". In saying that, I do feel that the guy in question was a total creep to have sex with a girl who wasn't that into him and he clearly took advantage but it was down to her low self esteem and her issues not his.

pilly

Cerisepink wrote:

This is a really interesting thread! And obviously the type of article that divides opinion.While I don't think it's fair for any of us to tell someone that they were wrong for how they felt or interpreted a situation, I also agree that the word "rape" should not be used in this context, maybe the article is just worded wrong? She admits she let him kiss her because she didn't want to be "mean". She said she was thinking he would get the message eventually but that's the thing with sex between two people, what is going on in your mind could be completely different to what is going on in the other persons mind, that's why it's sometimes necessary to communicate clearly. Now she did say she said no several times which for many, deservedly should mean no but it's sometimes not as clear cut as that. She said he wasn't pushy (although near the end of the article she used this word to describe him) but somehow her clothes came off and she said that it would be "easier" to just let him do it. I feel that this deserves some personal responsibility on her part but then again how many no's does it take for it to mean no and does no, no ,no , okay= rape? Consent is a tricky one because it is not clearly defined in Irish Law so it is difficult to prove sexual assault in a court of law. I do think it's ridiculous for her to blame him for all the other guys she slept with after him who "definitely didn’t warrant being looked at twice". In saying that, I do feel that the guy in question was a total creep to have sex with a girl who wasn't that into him and he clearly took advantage but it was down to her low self esteem and her issues not his.

Hang on? Did she say that some men didn't deserve to be looked at?

I'm losing sympathy by the minute.

groovyg

anna080 wrote: »

Christ. She even admits he would not be found guilty in a court of law, yet she's still happy to call him a rapist and continually tell people he raped her. What a stupid irresponsible idiot. It's actually depressing.

She's obviously following the thread

jameorahiely

groovyg wrote: »

She's obviously following the thread

What's an MRA?

Cerisepink

pilly wrote: »

Hang on? Did she say that some men didn't deserve to be looked at?

I'm losing sympathy by the minute.

Uh huh, in the aftermath section :rolleyes: Again, her own self esteem issues.

"Afterwards, I didn’t do anything a rape victim is meant to do. I didn’t stand in the shower, rubbing my skin raw. I didn’t skip lectures for weeks and stop eating. I just… got on with things. I carried on.

But I went through an incredibly promiscuous phase. It was as if I thought that if I could let him do that, then why not just let everyone else do it? I’m not saying I slept with 20 men per weekend (I didn’t), but I definitely slept with men I didn’t particularly want to sleep with, and who definitely didn’t warrant being looked at twice. I hated myself."

pilly

Cerisepink wrote:

But I went through an incredibly promiscuous phase. It was as if I thought that if I could let him do that, then why not just let everyone else do it? I’m not saying I slept with 20 men per weekend (I didn’t), but I definitely slept with men I didn’t particularly want to sleep with, and who definitely didn’t warrant being looked at twice. I hated myself."

So she's allowed to say that some men don't warrant being looked at? Horrible.

retro:electro

groovyg wrote: »

She's obviously following the thread

And she picked my post! Am I internet famous now? :pac:

Little CuChulainn

jameorahiely wrote: »

What's an MRA?

Mens Rights Activist/Advocate

pilly

jameorahiely wrote:

What's an MRA?

I'm wondering that too?

retro:electro

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Mens Rights Activist/Advocate

So now she's labelling anyone who disagrees with her as a Men's Rights Activist. Ya, she's not very bright.

pilly

Little CuChulainn wrote:

Mens Rights Activist/Advocate

So Anna is a Mens Rights Activist? Have you something to tell us Anna?

retro:electro

pilly wrote: »

So Anna is a Mens Rights Activist? Have you something to tell us Anna?

News to me Pilly! :pac:

jameorahiely

anna080 wrote: »

So now she's labelling anyone who disagrees with her as a Men's Rights Activist. Ya, she's not very bright.

On the facebook one of her "fans" was telling people "they're probably a rapist too" to anyone who disagreed. :eek:

mzungu

Jaysus, the MRA and their "philosophy" have been routinely debunked numerous times on Boards. Apart from a few banned posters, you rarely come across an actual MRA around these parts.

Throwing that out there as a label for people who disagree with you is juvenile stuff.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

jameorahiely wrote: »

On the facebook one of her "fans" was telling people "they're probably a rapist too" to anyone who disagreed. :eek:

lol

If I don't support calling a man having consensual sex with a woman a rapist then I'm happy enough being a MRA.
I'd rather that than happily ruin a mans character on social media by withdrawing consent 15 years later, and call myself a feminist