"Why I did not report my rapist"

Mountainsandh

Wibbs wrote: »

+1000. I say anytime we encounter any Irish person saying mom/MAGA/cuck/PUS/store/MGTOW/trigger warning/SJW/Rape culture/any other adolescent American utter nonsense in earnest(double points if they utter this in a mid Atlantic twang), we should roundly cuff them about the ears until they cop the fcuk on.

Whoaaahh... How.the.flip. do you know all that ?
My head is spinning with all the initials.

At first I wanted to be a Social Justice Warrior, but now I really like the sound of MGTOW.
What's MAGA now ?

Mountainsandh

LexieOnRale wrote: »

She told him no three times BUT STILL kissed him, let him undress her and decided it was "easier" to let him have sex than tell him she wasn't interested. If I am having sex and tell him stop, I expect him to stop. If we're having sex and I'm telling him to stop while kissing his neck, do I want him to stop? Probably not.

OMG ! YOU ARE DEGRADING THE SISTERHOOD !

(just trying to get into that ... activist vibe ?)

professore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If they didn't want to be branded a rapist, it's probably in their own interests then that they don't act like one. The woman in question in this particular case didn't change her mind after the fact, she told the guy no three times before the fact.

I understand that you'd be worried about men being branded rapists and the rest of it, I would be too, which is why I would instill in them the personal responsibility that if the other person says no, it should only be necessary for them to say no once. After that, any interaction should end, rather than leave themselves open to a possible allegation of rape.

I'm sorry, but are you on the autistic spectrum? Do you live in a world where people ask each other to have sex with no flirtation or push / pull? Have you ever actually been with a member of the opposite ( or same ) sex?

Have you ever even watched a rom com? That would be a great film, I asked her out, she said no, the end?

I am assuming you are a man who has very little experience of women.

I think each rape case should be judged on its own merits, it's stupid to judge rape on the fact that someone said no at one point, or equally that someone said yes at one point. That's far too simplistic.

Don't get me wrong I think rape is a disgusting and appalling crime and rapists should be jailed for a long time, but articles like this are doing awful damage to genuine cases of rape.

mzungu

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Whoaaahh... How.the.flip. do you know all that ?
My head is spinning with all the initials.

At first I wanted to be a Social Justice Warrior, but now I really like the sound of MGTOW.
What's MAGA now ?

Have a read of their sub-reddit and come back to us on that one. Methinks you probably won't want to joining them after that. :P

bodice ripper

Wibbs wrote:

+1000. I say anytime we encounter any Irish person saying mom/MAGA/cuck/PUS/store/MGTOW/trigger warning/SJW/Rape culture/any other adolescent American utter nonsense in earnest(double points if they utter this in a mid Atlantic twang), we should roundly cuff them about the ears until they cop the fcuk on.

Up yours. Some of us earned that mid Atlantic twang, and my mom is American, and definitely a mom.

Mountainsandh

mzungu wrote: »

Have a read of their sub-reddit and come back to us on that one. Methinks you probably won't want to joining them after that. :P

Oh dear. You're speaking Chinese to me too, are you ? Sub Reddit ?

Look.
I have a Twitter I never use, I can't navigate the bloody pages, everything just seems to be thrown in there helter skelter, I can't figure it.
Reddit ? It's like fractals or something, and I don't like maths.
Snapchat, Instagram, same. Or I kind of know, I think, that's the ones with lots of pictures of coffee ?

I do Facebook, boards, and Pinterest. Oh, and Imgur just for puppies and laughs.

But I think I'll just trust your better judgement on this one

pilly

Wibbs wrote:

+1000. I say anytime we encounter any Irish person saying mom/MAGA/cuck/PUS/store/MGTOW/trigger warning/SJW/Rape culture/any other adolescent American utter nonsense in earnest(double points if they utter this in a mid Atlantic twang), we should roundly cuff them about the ears until they cop the fcuk on.

I don't know what half them initials are and don't want to. Such bull crap. If this girl was a true feminist she'd be telling young girls how sometimes when you're young you make stupid decisions and if they can learn from her mistakes great but it was HER mistake.

One eyed Jack

LexieOnRale wrote: »

You go home with a girl after a night out, she's drunk you're drunk but there's consent. She wakes up the next day and realises you look like you were on fire and had been put out with a shovel. She regrets sleeping with you, so she withdraws the consent, but bearing in mind while the act was happening, there was no resistance. It's not fair on him going forward because he can't unsleep with someone if she states afterwards she didn't want it

But there isn't any such concept even in Irish law as the ability to withdraw consent. It's determined that either the person had the capacity to consent, or they didn't, and depending on a multitude of factors that you probably haven't included, a jury could easily be swung either way.

As an aside, given that I do indeed have a face like it was set on fire and was put out with a shovel, I wouldn't put my faith in the judicial system to find me not guilty as I wouldn't make a suitably sympathetic defendant. It's just not something I can feign. Therefore to protect myself from an allegation like that, I avoid getting drunk on nights out, and I avoid drunk girls on nights out. I know too many who can't remember the next morning whether they consented or not. Their drinking habits are their responsibility, not mine.

It's true that nobody can undo sleeping with someone, which is why I just wouldn't go there in the first place in that scenario you presented. I've taught my son the very same, and would hope that he too would have more sense than to put himself or anyone else in that position. He's 12 and he understands that when someone says no, they mean no. Yet here we are making excuses and apportioning blame and responsibility to other parties because some adult men don't understand the meaning of the word no. It's inexcusable as far as I'm concerned.

manonboard

In the article,
"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."

By the authors logic. She was subsequently raped several times. Of course, she actively went looking for these people, which is a complete contradiction. She didnt want to have sex with these men yet went and had sex with them by choice. There is clearly a pattern in her behavior and it's self fueled. She went looking for someone to have sex with, found him even don't she claims she didnt want to. Then repeated the pattern many times after it.

Also apparently, some people don't deserved to be looked at twice. Very objectifying.

jameorahiely

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Oh dear. You're speaking Chinese to me too, are you ? Sub Reddit ?

Look.
I have a Twitter I never use, I can't navigate the bloody pages, everything just seems to be thrown in there helter skelter, I can't figure it.
Reddit ? It's like fractals or something, and I don't like maths.
Snapchat, Instagram, same. Or I kind of know, I think, that's the one with lots of pictures of coffee ?

I do Facebook, boards, and Pinterest. Oh, and Imgur just for puppies and laughs.

But I think I'll just trust your better judgement on this one

Mgtow= men go their own way

I'm off now to find out what maga is...everyday's a schools day

mzungu

Mountainsandh wrote: »

OMG ! YOU ARE DEGRADING THE SISTERHOOD !

(just trying to get into that ... activist vibe ?)

For a first timer that's not too bad. However, you need to throw "misogynist" in there...a lot. In fact, this will be the main weapon in your arsenal and it will be your go-to buzzword for almost everything. You also need to throw in some "male/white privilege" and "toxic masculinity" accusations into the mix, just to spice things up every now and again. Don't worry about things like context or meaning when you use them because social media couldn't care less how you use them, just as long as you do use them.

Oh, I almost forgot, you need to dye your hair. Change colours every few months at your leisure.

I think that is pretty much it.

Mountainsandh

jameorahiely wrote: »

Mgtow= men go their own way

I'm off now to find out what maga is...everyday's a schools day

Don't.
Morto.
Make America Great Again.

:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o

Mountainsandh

mzungu wrote: »

For a first timer that's not too bad. However, you need to throw "misogynist" in there...a lot. In fact, this will be the main weapon in your arsenal and it will be your go-to buzzword for almost everything. You also need to throw in some "male/white privilege" and "toxic masculinity" accusations into the mix, just to spice things up every now and again. Don't worry about things like context or meaning when you use them, because that died when Web 2.0 came on the scene.

Oh, I almost forgot, you need to dye your hair. Change colours every few months at your leisure.

I think that is pretty much it.

Fúck. That's a lot of work.
But I hate men.
A lot.

I think that's á propos (it's Friday night and AH after all) :

https://youtu.be/a0BpfwazhUA

One eyed Jack

professore wrote: »

I'm sorry, but are you on the autistic spectrum? Do you live in a world where people ask each other to have sex with no flirtation or push / pull? Have you ever actually been with a member of the opposite ( or same ) sex?

Nope, yes, ohh hell yes... in that order.

Have you ever even watched a rom com? That would be a great film, I asked her out, she said no, the end?

Thankfully I don't base my sex life on what I've seen on tv, films, or otherwise.

I am assuming you are a man who has very little experience of women.

Do you make a habit of assuming without asking first?

I think each rape case should be judged on its own merits, it's stupid to judge rape on the fact that someone said no at one point, or equally that someone said yes at one point. That's far too simplistic.

Absolutely each case should be judged on it's own merits, and that's why we have standards in law that should a case be found to meet a certain standard, a person can unintentionally find themselves in the dock when they might feel they don't deserve to be there. I prefer to err on the side of caution myself because as an adult I'm quite familiar with the law.

Don't get me wrong I think rape is a disgusting and appalling crime and rapists should be jailed for a long time, but articles like this are doing awful damage to genuine cases of rape.

Articles like this aren't doing anything to any case of rape as each case is judged on it's own merits remember? Articles like this can only affect people's perception of what is or isn't rape, or what is or isn't acceptable or advisable behaviour in that scenario. I certainly wouldn't take anything from it personally. That's how the author processes what she experienced, that's how she chose to process it and deal with it. It's not how I choose to deal with what happened to me, but that again is my responsibility and nobody else's.

Suffice to say that when I said earlier that people who have been raped don't fit a cookie-cutter mentality, I couldn't care less that the author is an albeit piss-poor wind up merchant blogger, I do care that she offers another perspective that isn't quite fitting some people's mental mould of how someone who has been raped should or shouldn't behave. As I said earlier - it doesn't define who they are as a person, not as far as I'm concerned at least.

retro:electro

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Maybe she just needed to get in the mood and she could have had the best sex of her life. Saying no three times just wasn't enough. A couple more times and she should have been really turned on...

I knew someone would make out that that's what I was implying. My point was twofold; 1. People say no at first all the time. Myself included. Other posters here included. That does not mean we were raped. Saying no but staying kissing sends mixed messages. It's ambiguous.
2. RMC had control of her situation which is something rape victims do not have. You know how I know this? Because she decided to have sex with him. You know what rape victims don't do? Decide.

Calhoun

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Articles like this aren't doing anything to any case of rape as each case is judged on it's own merits remember? Articles like this can only affect people's perception of what is or isn't rape, or what is or isn't acceptable or advisable behaviour in that scenario. I certainly wouldn't take anything from it personally. That's how the author processes what she experienced, that's how she chose to process it and deal with it. It's not how I choose to deal with what happened to me, but that again is my responsibility and nobody else's.

Suffice to say that when I said earlier that people who have been raped don't fit a cookie-cutter mentality, I couldn't care less that the author is an albeit piss-poor wind up merchant blogger, I do care that she offers another perspective that isn't quite fitting some people's mental mould of how someone who has been raped should or shouldn't behave. As I said earlier - it doesn't define who they are as a person, not as far as I'm concerned at least.

Perpetuating the rape culture myth does nobody in society favors, one hopes that each case is fairly judged in a court of law and it goes no further than that. The bigger concern here as other have pointed out is we should not have a trial by media when it comes to rape.

Could it be that because you have experienced it that it has broken or impeded your judgement in some way? As in you always look at the worst in each situation? is this not letting it define you?

One eyed Jack

Calhoun wrote: »

Perpetuating the rape culture myth does nobody in society favors, one hopes that each case is fairly judged in a court of law and it goes no further than that. The bigger concern here as other have pointed out is we should not have a trial by media when it comes to rape.

There have always been trials by media when it comes to rape, and they are completely irrelevant outside of a Court of Law. Personally, I'm not too worried about Irish legislation ever being influenced by any "rape culture" myth. Legislators aren't nearly as stupid as some people need them to be.

Could it be that because you have experienced it that it has broken or impeded your judgement in some way? As in you always look at the worst in each situation? is this not letting it define you?

I'm self-aware enough to be able to answer no to that question (and no definitely means no in this circumstance, just so there can be no confusion), but no, I certainly don't always look at the worst in situations like these and if anything I do not to allow my objectivity to be clouded by my own personal experiences or any identity or "social justice" politics nonsense.

hatrickpatrick

I'm as much an opponent of widening the definition of rape as anyone, and to be honest what's described in the article quoted by the OP definitely qualifies as rape in my view. If you repeatedly (in the same encounter no less!!!) make a move on someone and get very clearly and unequivocally rejected, then continuing to make moves repeatedly is sexual harassment, and actually having sex is rape. Consent delivered under pressure like that isn't consent FFS

If there had been no initial rejection is agree it'd be totally different, but she said no to him at three or four stages of foreplay before the actual sex - seems pretty clear cut to me. The guy is both a rapist and a massive f*cking douche for thinking he could "obtain consent" through pestering - in my view tbh, the whole concept of consent in that context is messed up. Sex should be something both people are into and not just something someone gives you permission to do to them.

My issues with the feminist crusade on rape are (a) widening the definition to include regret after the fact, and (b) the suggestion that people who hook up in clubs etc are automatically committing rape due to the involvement of alcohol, not even getting into the absurdity of apportioning blame automatically to the man in such cases even when both parties are locked. But this whole "she didn't say no" or "she said yes after I badgered her about it for hours" thing is moronic - if someone isn't visibly reciprocating, going any further with them is wrong.

Calhoun

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There have always been trials by media when it comes to rape, and they are completely irrelevant outside of a Court of Law. Personally, I'm not too worried about Irish legislation ever being influenced by any "rape culture" myth. Legislators aren't nearly as stupid as some people need them to be.

I'm self-aware enough to be able to answer no to that question (and no definitely means no in this circumstance, just so there can be no confusion), but no, I certainly don't always look at the worst in situations like these and if anything I do not to allow my objectivity to be clouded by my own personal experiences or any identity or "social justice" politics nonsense.

Has there always been trial by media of rape? Any time i have observed rape cases with allot of media around it is when its going through the courts. I have never really observed a case where we have a kangeroo court of opinion with no interconnection with the authorities.

I don't think so to be honest as you ignore the full details of the event described by the author, you cling to the details of her saying no three times as confirmation of rape yet ignore the kissing ect which might hint as others have pointed out the complex back and forth couple have.

You know your own mind i suppose but i would question if you have an inherent bias due to your experience.

Arcade_Tryer

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm as much an opponent of widening the definition of rape as anyone, and to be honest what's described in the article quoted by the OP definitely qualifies as rape in my view. If you repeatedly (in the same encounter no less!!!) make a move on someone and get very clearly and unequivocally rejected, then continuing to make moves repeatedly is sexual harassment, and actually having sex is rape. Consent delivered under pressure like that isn't consent FFS

If there had been no initial rejection is agree it'd be totally different, but she said no to him at three or four stages of foreplay before the actual sex - seems pretty clear cut to me. The guy is both a rapist and a massive f*cking douche for thinking he could "obtain consent" through pestering - in my view tbh, the whole concept of consent in that context is messed up. Sex should be something both people are into and not just something someone gives you permission to do to them.

My issues with the feminist crusade on rape are (a) widening the definition to include regret after the fact, and (b) the suggestion that people who hook up in clubs etc are automatically committing rape due to the involvement of alcohol, not even getting into the absurdity of apportioning blame automatically to the man in such cases even when both parties are locked. But this whole "she didn't say no" or "she said yes after I badgered her about it for hours" thing is moronic - if someone isn't visibly reciprocating, going any further with them is wrong.

Sometimes seemingly complicated situations can be solved by simple logic. I'm reminded of the old idiom, actions speak louder than words.

Though she says "No" a few times, the fact that she clearly admits to physically consenting in the article, and even reciprocating the guy's advances, created a situation whereby it could very easily be construed by the guy to be consensual, regardless of her repeating the word "No" a few times. It's still unpleasant. And the guy's behaviour is probably pretty shameful. But it's not rape imo. And I think the author knows this too.

hatrickpatrick

I don't agree - there are a lot of complicated issues around consent, but the use of the word "no" - with the one exception of BDSM games in which that word is commonly used insincerely and a different word is used instead (a "safe word") - is in my view one of the few examples of a totally clear cut situation. And obviously by extension, ignoring a safe word in a BDSM game should also be considered sexual assault or rape.

I'm kinda surprised by the divergence of opinion here, especially by women. There you go I guess, but I would have thought that the word "no" was possibly the only example of a clear cut and unambiguous issue regarding sexual consent - she said no repeatedly and he both persisted in touching her and kept pestering her to change her mind. That's rape in my mind, and pestering is the definition of harassment so it's sexual harassment as well.

r93kaey5p2izun

Arcade Tryer wrote:

Sometimes seemingly complicated situations can be solved by simple logic. I'm reminded of the old idiom, actions speak louder than words.

Though she says "No" a few times, the fact that she clearly admits to physically consenting in the article, and even reciprocating the guy's advances, created a situation whereby it could very easily be construed by the guy to be consensual, regardless of her repeating the word "No" a few times.

I agree with your use of the idiom in this context but I think perhaps it only serves to muddy the waters even further in this story. She says she let him have sex, she just lay there. If actions speak louder than words - is that really consent to sex after saying "I don't want to have sex"? The just lying there came after the kissing, so logically it replaces it as her most recent expression of consent/non-consent.

Now, I can get on board with the idea that lack of active physical resistance could lead to honest belief of consent for the type of guy happy to have sex with an unresponsive, unreciprocating partner. And therefore I can accept the conclusion that this is not rape. But I find it difficult to believe so many people are so 100% happy with using her body language as definite black and white consent when her body language is just lying there unresponsive. Is sex with an unresponsive unreciprocating (but not physically resistant) partner who has said no I don't want to have sex such a common occurrence as to make this clear cut? Does that action really speak loudly of consent? At the very least it's ambiguous so where do all these confident pronouncements of consent come from? She didn't say she consented she said she stopped resisting and let him have sex while she lay there. Those arguing about her having a choice are on firmer ground here I think - but that doesn't clear up the ambiguity around consent which is what the law is concerned with.

RabbleRouser2k

What I find all the more distressing about this is how she presumes we 'must believe her' when her story is really grey area. They kissed, she said no, they continued kissing, then her top was off, she said no but continued kissing- I mean, that's all wrong. A firm 'oi, no-stop' has to be in place.
Even a yell of 'No' when others were in the house would have alerted people-and we know people were in the house. This story has holes in it. Big ones.
Actually, the narrative sounds like an episode of Beverly Hills 90210. Especially the 'we kept kissing' and 'lying there and letting it happen'.

And her 'not wanting to get the guy in trouble'-that seriously aggravates my goat, especially her claim 'who would believe her?'. Like, when a woman who was raped in her sleep secured a conviction, with no recollection of the rape (yeah, his sentence, on the other hand, I do have some serious anger with), then feminists claim the laws are against them-well, it's enforcing a dangerous narrative. Yes, rape is difficult to prove-as any other crimes there is a clear 'something taken' element to it-like a robbery, for example. Rape, it's much harder to prove, since what is 'taken' cannot be held up as an object, and proven to be stolen. IT's horrible to say, but yeah, it's hard to prove.

Feminists enforce this whole 'rape culture' myth, and then you have someone wanting to hang a guy for allegations that ring hollow. And why not 'secure a conviction'? Why not prevent a rapist (hypothetical) from going around and raping other people? But this is the craziness of the feminists atm-claim a rape culture, do nothing but 'report it to twitter' instead of the law.

Yourself isit

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There have always been trials by media when it comes to rape, and they are completely irrelevant outside of a Court of Law. Personally, I'm not too worried about Irish legislation ever being influenced by any "rape culture" myth. Legislators aren't nearly as stupid as some people need them to be.





I'm self-aware enough to be able to answer no to that question (and no definitely means no in this circumstance, just so there can be no confusion), but no, I certainly don't always look at the worst in situations like these and if anything I do not to allow my objectivity to be clouded by my own personal experiences or any identity or "social justice" politics nonsense.

Dont be so sure about legislators. The recent laws to criminalise purchase but not selling of sex had no popular basis - was driven by feminist activists in fact. There are plenty of laws, family laws and laws on consent that were based on ideologues not popular beliefs.

professore

professore wrote: »

I'm sorry, but are you on the autistic spectrum? Do you live in a world where people ask each other to have sex with no flirtation or push / pull? Have you ever actually been with a member of the opposite ( or same ) sex?

Have you ever even watched a rom com? That would be a great film, I asked her out, she said no, the end?

I am assuming you are a man who has very little experience of women.

I think each rape case should be judged on its own merits, it's stupid to judge rape on the fact that someone said no at one point, or equally that someone said yes at one point. That's far too simplistic.

Don't get me wrong I think rape is a disgusting and appalling crime and rapists should be jailed for a long time, but articles like this are doing awful damage to genuine cases of rape.

Kinda the reason these threads become pointless. Posters get real mad.

Anyway, Professore here has had a lot of sex with a lot of women and is not on the autistic spectrum. I'm going with whatever you said, Professore. No means yes in this case because you are experienced and the rom coms.

pickarooney

meeeeh wrote: »

Don't bs me with 'these vocal feminist' . I deplore term rape culture and I have no love for extremes of feminism but this idea that 'people don't really mean no' is idiotic. Sure every woman who kisses someone wants to have sex with them straight away and no is just false modesty? Give me a break, what is so hard to understand about no? Especially when having sex for the first time and having no experience of how someone communicates. Why is it ok to just continue instead of pausing and asking 'are you sure?'.

Not all actions are intentional and done with malice but if you didn't know you were over the limit and still drove, does that mean you weren't drink driving?

You bring up a very salient point here. I simply can't imagine a situation where I would want to kiss someone but not have sex with them. I just can't imagine viewing someone as kissable but not ****able.

I can, however, think of a few reasons why you would go 'half way' with someone - lack of contraception for example - but none that stem from a lack of desire.

I'd like to try and understand it though, and see is it common or more prevalent in some groups than others and particularly what makes one person feel that way about another.

I get that there's some sort of 'not ready yet' thinking at play, but what is it that makes the decision ultimately? Will someone acting a certain way change them from kissable to ****able? Does the notion of seduction still exist?

So bubblypop starts kissing a boy.
Boy says no, I don't want to have sex.
Bubblypop, stops straight away.......

Why would others not stop? Surely the question is why did he not stop when she said no 3 times? He continued to kiss her, so she went along with it.
He should have just stopped kissing her.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote:

Why would others not stop? Surely the question is why did he not stop when she said no 3 times? He continued to kiss her, so she went along with it. He should have just stopped kissing her.

She should have stopped kissing him too.

Little CuChulainn

pickarooney wrote: »

You bring up a very salient point here. I simply can't imagine a situation where I would want to kiss someone but not have sex with them. I just can't imagine viewing someone as kissable but not ****able.

I can, however, think of a few reasons why you would go 'half way' with someone - lack of contraception for example - but none that stem from a lack of desire.

I'd like to try and understand it though, and see is it common or more prevalent in some groups than others and particularly what makes one person feel that way about another.

I get that there's some sort of 'not ready yet' thinking at play, but what is it that makes the decision ultimately? Will someone acting a certain way change them from kissable to ****able? Does the notion of seduction still exist?

But if someone simply doesn't want to go that far that's really their decision. There's a big difference between kissing someone and ****ing them for most people.

Deleted User wrote: »

She should have stopped kissing him too.

Why? She was happy to kiss him.

RabbleRouser2k

bubblypop wrote: »

So bubblypop starts kissing a boy.
Boy says no, I don't want to have sex.
Bubblypop, stops straight away.......

Why would others not stop? Surely the question is why did he not stop when she said no 3 times? He continued to kiss her, so she went along with it.
He should have just stopped kissing her.

Well, there was two people there-she should have stopped kissing him too-her whole 'my top was off' thing is just 'whut?' Definitely reaffirmed the No.
Like she has said she had no confidence-but No is No. The problem arises when there is a previous relationship-even she said 'the lines were blurred, we had both been drinking-do you want me to leave'...like, that could, again, be interpreted as anything-a feeling of regret, of 'why did I have sex with him again'...it's too blurred.

Also, when she started it off with the 'The Journal article that people called BS on' thing I was like 'okay, it's losing me from the outset'.
But the more I Read, the more I was just...why write this article? Even in the end, she said 'I wouldn't still report my rapist...' and I was like 'so what are you on about? Are you saying that it wasn't rape?'.