"Why I did not report my rapist"

meeeeh

J Mysterio wrote: »

While I agree its an important discussion, she didnt bring this forward out of some altruistic desire. She wanted to push her 'feminist' agenda and elicit sympathy.

And she has every right to do it. Free speech is not just for people who you agree with or the ones who do it for altruistic reasons. Milo who some here like so much does it for purely monetary reasons. If you believe in free speech then let them speak.

LightlyGo

LightlyGo wrote: »

I think Rosemary's story raised an important issue that I hope doesn't get lost here. I think she's brought to the fore the fact that consent and understanding the nature of it is just as pivotal for women as it is for men.

The debate on consent always should have been approached from two angles.

Making one party responsible for hearing yes while absolving the other from saying no is unjust, and the situation we're discussing here is the result of one party feeling no responsibility to clarify yes, and the other party feeling no responsibility to clarify no.

hatrickpatrick

Candie wrote: »

And we should teach people to cope with doors being slammed in their faces so nobody is inconvenienced by holding it open. Because it really puts people out to extend that small kindness to others, right?

Common courtesy, costs nothing and helps people who might be feeling a little fragile. I don't think we need tell them to keep out of mainstream society until a mental health professional deems them capable of coping with triggers 24/7 for the rest of their lives, when we can just decide to be a little considerate instead.

Obviously you disagree. That's your prerogative.

If you choose to enter a space which you know is fractious and anarchic, like many online communities, and furthermore you know that the people who created that space like it that way, you come across as incredibly annoying if you demand that they change their behaviour just for you. It's like when you have a group of people who've been working together for years and then someone joins who can't hack the constant usage of the word "f*ck" in a casual context or just swearing in general - it's not just courtesy, it's rewriting the unwritten social rules of a group essentially by force (by imposing rules externally even when the majority in the community doesn't want them) - that's always going to piss people off.

Most of the online communities which exist today have their roots and many original users going back as far as the 1990s or early 2000s, when the unwritten rule of the internet was "if you can't stand the heat, your recourse is to f*ck off". The cultural clash we are currently witnessing is between these longstanding communities of old-timers and Generation Z (born on or after the year 2000) which has an entirely different set of cultural values, most likely the result of overprotective parenting.

It's essentially seen by old timers (of which I confess myself to be one) as an attempt to take the wild west and police it. Cowboys of old didn't like it when the American government decided to do that, and the situation on the internet today is no different.

What's far more concerning is that this desire for safe space echo chambers is extending far beyond personal triggers and into the realm of politics. To give you one example, back in 2012, Reddit was a website which happily catered to both the radical left (SJWs) and the radical right (Ron Paul supporters). Contrast that today wherein most of the prominent, front-page featured areas of the site outright ban right-leaning political content (often stating that no political content is allowed but policing this far more harshly against libertarians than SJWs) and the result you have is the mass exodus of right leaning posters to the rival website Voat. If you take a quick look at both sites' home pages, without being logged in and thus having your own personalised home page environment, you'll straight away notice that Reddit's front page is entirely devoid of libertarian leaning content and Voat's is entirely devoid of left leaning content.

The radical leftists I mention, under the banner of safe spaces etc, are attempting to pressure more mainstream outlets such as Facebook and Twitter into doing the same, and the absolute sh!t storm that was the accusations levelled at Facebook by the American left for essentially not drowning out Trump supporters and facillitating the victory of the "wrong" candidate is pretty terrifying - even for a die-hard Bernie Sanders supporter like myself.

Essentially what I'm saying is, there are certainly legitimate triggers, and then there are those who are "triggered" by exposure to literally any point of view that they don't agree with, and expect the world to censor minority and unpopular opinions. Boards itself had a bit of a brush with this last year and thankfully got itself off that course when users complained, but the media at large, online and off, seems to be trending in this general direction. Safe space, trigger warning, cultural policing fourth wave feminists have a gigantic role in this movement, and that's why the term "trigger warning" is no longer taken seriously - it's no longer seen as referring to genuine PTSD triggers and instead seen as referring to the fact that "oh no! Somebody on the internet doesn't agree with me and won't pretend they do just to humour me!"

Or in other words, to add to what TheChizler said, there's a difference between a PTSD episode set off by a rape scene in Love/Hate and a hissy fit thrown because somebody said something mildly mean in an online comment section.

J Mysterio

meeeeh wrote: »

And she has every right to do it. Free speech is not just for people who you agree with or the ones who do it for altruistic reasons. Milo who some here like so much does it for purely monetary reasons. If you believe in free speech then let them speak.

I don't know who Milo is but, as you well know, free speech does not include libel and slander. It also means you open yourself to criticism, something RMC does not appear to take well.

One eyed Jack

J Mysterio wrote: »

I don't know who Milo is but, as you well know, free speech does not include libel and slander. It also means you open yourself to criticism, something RMC does not appear to take well.

Two seconds on Google would've told you he's a wind up merchant who's having to eat rather a lot of humble pie lately.

J Mysterio

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Two seconds on Google would've told you he's a wind up merchant who's having to eat rather a lot of humble pie lately.

Well that's neither here nor there for me. I don't care who that is.

RMC still referencing Boards on Twitter. Like I said, you are entitled to free speech but you have to deal with the consequences of what you might say.

I almost feel some sympathy for her but then I remind myself she created this storm and a really ****ty storm it is too.

Mountainsandh

Calhoun wrote: »

Not really no if someone is still carrying the incident with them that the mere mention of a word takes them back maybe the need to continue sessions with a counselor until they can cope in society. We cannot wrap the world up in cotton wool, it is a hard place out there.

That may sound a little bit harsh but we can see across the pond how trigger warnings, safespaces ect have been used to attack freedom of expression and speech.

Both sides have good points.
Trigger warnings seem harmless enough, but like you, Calhoun, I think it is kind of validating the infantilization of younger generations of adults, and it can be used to curtail freedom of speech.

To link it back to Rosemary, see how the comments on her blog and Facebook praise a "brave and mature" post, when really it is obvious how selfishly immature she was in her approach.

She seems a normally intelligent young lady, and is followed by (presumably) normally intelligent people. In their bubble, they call each other mature and brave, and yet from the outside, we're able to see the toddler-ish attention seeking, the eagerness for approval, the adoption of dogma with little critical sense, the failure to take responsibility for one's actions, and the immature strategies to deal with a lack of assertiveness ...

In my view, providing trigger warnings is a little bit part of the big picture, it's kind of like handing over a soother to a whingey baby. There's enough of that there already.

edit : I do get that the trigger warning will indeed help people who have a genuine trauma to contend with.

hatrickpatrick

Candie wrote: »

The debate on consent always should have been approached from two angles.

Making one party responsible for hearing yes while absolving the other from saying no is unjust, and the situation we're discussing here is the result of one party feeling no responsibility to clarify yes, and the other party feeling no responsibility to clarify no.

That's where we seem to digress here though - she did say no, not once but several times, and he continued undressing her regardless. In my view, anything that happened after this fact is to an extent irrelevant - he undressed her and fondled her while she was actively saying no, that's sexual assault / molestation regardless of anything that happened afterwards.

To give you an analogy: If somebody has a fetish for being kicked in the balls, that's their choice. And indulging that fetish doesn't make you a nasty person - quite the reverse, in fact.

But supposing somebody clearly told you that in this particular moment they didn't want to be kicked in the nuts, and you did it four times anyway despite them telling you that they didn't want you to do it. If they subsequently change their minds after the fact and say it's ok, then just like you cannot withdraw consent after sex, the fact remains that although the subsequent kicks were consensual, you delivered four non consensual kicks to the nuts, which is just straight up battery / assault.

The situation here is similar - the sex itself may have been "consensual" (although I still feel that consent delivered under pressure / badgerment is on seriously shaky grounds to say the least), anything he did before that, while she was saying no, still counts as sexual assault. So even if you feel that the sex was consensual, the foreplay was not, and that is sexual assault in and of itself.

Another analogy, if you steal €50 from somebody and they tell you not to, then you proceed to steal another €50, and then another, and then finally they say "ok f*ck it, take what you want" and you then take €100, you have a total of €250 - but the first €150 was stolen. The fact that they eventually said you could take more because you clearly weren't going to quit doesn't change the fact that the initial €150 was taken without permission, and is thus the proceeds of theft. Now this isn't a great analogy obviously because you can return stolen cash unless you've spent it. You can't "undo" or "take back" having violated somebody sexually with a very clear objection hanging over the table.

In court, you can be charged with multiple counts and multiple crimes - for instance, if you assault two individuals and cause them bodily harm, you will be charged with two counts of assault causing harm. In this particular case, if you believe that consent delivered under pressure is ok (personally I don't, but let's say you do) then you would withdraw the count of rape from the charge sheet. The crimes of molestation, sexual harassment and sexual assault still stand, because these things very clearly did happen without consent, and not even just without consent but with a clearly stated denial of consent.

One final analogy to try and state this as clearly as possible: Sharing a naked photo of somebody without permission is now (rightfully) a crime. If you share five photos that you were specifically asked not to, and then the person says "fine, go ahead" as you're about to send the sixth, then even if you believe the sixth one to have been shared with permission, you're still guilty of sharing the first five without permission, and no subsequent change of mind can change that.

Personally this idea that it should be legally acceptable to pressure somebody into consenting simply by persisting when you have been repeatedly rebuffed is just bizarre. As per dictionary.com, the definition of harassment is "aggressive pressure or intimidation". Add the word sexual to that, and it literally described how this guy behaved. So if it's not rape, then it's definitely sexual harassment, which is in itself a crime.

westernlass

westernlass wrote:

Because you can be instantly back there and the mention of rape is all it takes for some people. The recovery process takes a long time and often never works. It's a helpful tool that I don't get the argument against.

If the simple mention of rape triggers some people, then surely "Trigger warning - contains rape" would have the same effect?

retro:electro

Did someone post here that there should be a poll? Because she's on twitter now claiming we all want a poll here to decide whether Rosemary was raped or not. Again, ignoring intelligent conversation, and picking the controversial posts.

Also, she's saying that a "53 page thread dissecting her character should be shut down". Pretty rich coming from someone who called someone a rapist on a trending blog post when she admitted he wouldn't be found guilty in a court of law. She's also baffled by the sympathy for him. She's not very bright is she.

westernlass

J Mysterio wrote: »

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Two seconds on Google would've told you he's a wind up merchant who's having to eat rather a lot of humble pie lately.

Well that's neither here nor there for me. I don't care who that is.

RMC still referencing Boards on Twitter. Like I said, you are entitled to free speech but you have to deal with the consequences of what you might say.

I almost feel some sympathy for her but then I remind myself she created this storm and a really ****ty storm it is too.

Her atttitde to an open discussion which frankly is mature and 50% in her favour is frustrating. The point has been made that we do not have to believe anyone. We can question and yes that makes life not fair. It isn't and we all have to take personal responsibility for our own safety. If a guy gets beaten up because he mouths off to people he knows are dangerous is that his fault? Some would question why he did that for sure. I think the open debate is why stops Ireland regressing

meeeeh

J Mysterio wrote: »

Well that's neither here nor there for me. I don't care who that is.

RMC still referencing Boards on Twitter. Like I said, you are entitled to free speech but you have to deal with the consequences of what you might say.

I almost feel some sympathy for her but then I remind myself she created this storm and a really ****ty storm it is too.

So what? Does it hurt you that she is mentioning boards? What is the problem with her responding, in fact it's one person vs a large group.

Edit: just to add I would think it's incredibly tasteless to suggest weather someone is raped or not should be put to an internet poll.

hatrickpatrick

Can I ask one other question to those who are suggesting that this is not a case of rape or molestation: I briefly entered into a "relationship" with a woman I very, very much did not want to be with, when I was 19. The reason I did so was because she was totally unhinged, manufactured a fake but convincing story to blackmail me and destroy my reputation, and on top of this told me that I'd be responsible for her self-harm or even suicide if I didn't go out with her.

Now, would you regard the subsequent 'relationship' as consensual, because technically I did consciously choose to go along with it? Even though I was essentially being threatened with being painted as a serial cheater (which I never was) or even worse responsible for somebody's mental breakdown if I didn't go out with her?

You have to choose to give your consent to something. If you give it because you feel you've been left with no choice - in this woman's case because they guy was still persisting with her even after she told him to stop then it's not consent, it's a lie. When you say "I want to do this", that's not actually true, and in my view the word consent in a sexual context shouldn't just mean "ok, you can do this", it should mean "ok, I want to do it".

hatrickpatrick

anna080 wrote: »

Also, she's saying that a "53 page thread dissecting her character should be shut down".

As I said in my post about triggers, SJWs want an internet which doesn't allow any points of view which don't agree with theirs, and doesn't even allow any discussion thereof. No surprise there at all.

SpillingTheTea

J Mysterio wrote: »

Well that's neither here nor there for me. I don't care who that is.

RMC still referencing Boards on Twitter. Like I said, you are entitled to free speech but you have to deal with the consequences of what you might say.

I almost feel some sympathy for her but then I remind myself she created this storm and a really ****ty storm it is too.

I also think it's ever so slightly ironic that she tweeted the boards twitter wondering how they could close a thread about people 'gossiping' about bloggers (which I myself find stupid) BUT is wondering why this 53 page 'monster' is still allowed up?

J Mysterio

meeeeh wrote: »

So what? Does it hurt you that she is mentioning boards? What is the problem with her responding, in fact it's one person vs a large group.

No, it doesnt hurt me. I'm posting that here because... uh, we're on boards.

There is no problem with her responding. I'm all about debate and open discussion.

This is not one person VS. a large group. She has many followers.

shanno666

It actually scares me that so many people think this is even close to rape,Its even worse that some of you coud end up on a jury in a rape case

One eyed Jack

J Mysterio wrote: »

Well that's neither here nor there for me. I don't care who that is.

RMC still referencing Boards on Twitter. Like I said, you are entitled to free speech but you have to deal with the consequences of what you might say.

I almost feel some sympathy for her but then I remind myself she created this storm and a really ****ty storm it is too.

Truth be told, I felt the same way myself for much of this thread, but constant references to a "crying selfie", reminded me of an article I came across from last year that also left me fairly conflicted -

https://www.rt.com/news/328195-activist-liveblogs-rape-south-africa/

Buford T. Justice XIX

anna080 wrote: »

Did someone post here that there should be a poll? Because she's on twitter now claiming we all want a poll here to decide whether Rosemary was raped or not. Again, ignoring intelligent conversation, and picking the controversial posts.

Also, she's saying that a "53 page thread dissecting her character should be shut down". Pretty rich coming from someone who called someone a rapist on a trending blog post when she admitted he wouldn't be found guilty in a court of law. She's also baffled by the sympathy for him. She's not very bright is she.

53 page discussion?

Noob :pac:

hatrickpatrick

shanno666 wrote: »

It actually scares me that so many people think this is even close to rape,Its even worse that some of you coud end up on a jury in a rape case

What would you call it? And if somebody proceeded to undress and fondle you while you repeatedly told them not to, you wouldn't feel that you had been assaulted?

Calhoun

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Can I ask one other question to those who are suggesting that this is not a case of rape or molestation: I briefly entered into a "relationship" with a woman I very, very much did not want to be with, when I was 19. The reason I did so was because she was totally unhinged, manufactured a fake but convincing story to blackmail me and destroy my reputation, and on top of this told me that I'd be responsible for her self-harm or even suicide if I didn't go out with her.

Now, would you regard the subsequent 'relationship' as consensual, because technically I did consciously choose to go along with it? Even though I was essentially being threatened with being painted as a serial cheater (which I never was) or even worse responsible for somebody's mental breakdown if I didn't go out with her?

You have to choose to give your consent to something. If you give it because you feel you've been left with no choice - in this woman's case because they guy was still persisting with her even after she told him to stop then it's not consent, it's a lie. When you say "I want to do this", that's not actually true, and in my view the word consent in a sexual context shouldn't just mean "ok, you can do this", it should mean "ok, I want to do it".

Yes it was consensual in your case, questions like this arise in other areas of boards all the time and the advice is simply this. If someone threatens to self harm because you wont be with them you make sure you advise those closest to them and possibly the police and you walk away. To stay with them is to enable very destructive behavior.

Just like in the case of Rosemary, she should have dealt with the awkward situation rather than going along with it.

Mountainsandh

meeeeh wrote: »

And she has every right to do it. Free speech is not just for people who you agree with or the ones who do it for altruistic reasons. Milo who some here like so much does it for purely monetary reasons. If you believe in free speech then let them speak.

J Mysterio wrote: »

RMC still referencing Boards on Twitter. Like I said, you are entitled to free speech but you have to deal with the consequences of what you might say.

I almost feel some sympathy for her but then I remind myself she created this storm and a really ****ty storm it is too.

She could very well have started a discussion on exactly the same topics without the mention of rape really.
She had sex she felt uncomfortable about.
It's still bugging her.
Communication on the night didn't go too well : guy not very perceptive +her not very assertive = what/how consent ?

She's perfectly entitled to free speech, but imo she has crossed the line with what is possibly slander.

I'm not familiar with the legalities of it, but I'm pretty sure from the details in the post only the guy must have been identified by at least her/their closest friends, even if his name has not been published.

retro:electro

Also, it's been nearly 24hrs, and only 242 people took her "are you a bot or a real person survey", does that mean that 26k followers are bots? :pac:

What that does highlight though is that she doesn't have much social engagement on Twitter, thankfully.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Now, would you regard the subsequent 'relationship' as consensual, because technically I did consciously choose to go along with it? Even though I was essentially being threatened with being painted as a serial cheater (which I never was) or even worse responsible for somebody's mental breakdown if I didn't go out with her?

Yes, you consented to the relationship because it was easier than dealing with the threatened consequences. You could have stood up for yourself and called her bluff and laughed it off or whatever - and I'm not suggesting any of that would be easy to do. But you did have a choice, even if it was a crap one.

This woman went along with the sex - in her words - because it was easier than having an awkward conversation. She could have left, pushed him off, told him she didn't fancy him or any number of other things - and I'm not saying those are easy things to do either, but she chose to continue with kissing, helping him undress her, and go on to have sex. Because she decided that was easier.

Rape victims have their choices made for them, they have no alternatives, they don't decide anything. Even if they're frozen with fear, there is no choice involved, no matter how crappy and difficult it might be.

Arcade_Tryer

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You have to choose to give your consent to something. If you give it because you feel you've been left with no choice - in this woman's case because they guy was still persisting with her even after she told him to stop then it's not consent, it's a lie. When you say "I want to do this", that's not actually true, and in my view the word consent in a sexual context shouldn't just mean "ok, you can do this", it should mean "ok, I want to do it".

How is it a lie if her actions say otherwise? She admits in the article that she went along with it of her own volition.

I mean, if the situation had been one whereby she had said "Yes" three times while he was making advances, but she had also physically attempted to stop his advances, would it have still been consensual because she said "Yes" three times? of course not. It would have been rape.

So this idea that because she said "No" three times is somehow the defining factor in whether it was rape of not is ridiculous. Now if she had also said she was perhaps too frightened or too in shock to physically fend him off in any way, you would have an argument for rape. But again, she freely admits that this was not the case. She simply didn't have the heart to tell him she wasn't into it. That's her problem at the end of the day. Not his. Even if his prior behaviour leading up to the act is quite unpleasant, and possibly even shameful. The article seems an admission of her own insecurities and the regrettable choices they caused her to make more than anything else.

hatrickpatrick

Calhoun wrote: »

Yes it was consensual in your case, questions like this arise in other areas of boards all the time and the advice is simply this. If someone threatens to self harm because you wont be with them you make sure you advise those closest to them and possibly the police and you walk away. To stay with them is to enable very destructive behavior.

Just like in the case of Rosemary, she should have dealt with the awkward situation rather than going along with it.

Legally it was consensual. Morally it most certainly was not. As for going to the police, that's a story for another day but ironically this incident coincided with advertisements on TV about how it was always teenage boys abusing and teenage girls being abused in relationships, which is one of the rage-inducing things that led me to adopt quite a few MRA stances on issues of gender equality. I agree that I enabled her destructive behaviour but I was 19 and absolutely terrified of the consequences she had threatened if I hadn't done so. I was "the new kid in town" and she knew all of our friends going back years, so the idea that she could very much have me entirely ostracised from my college group etc was a genuine threat.

It's not consensual if you pressure or force somebody into consenting. Consent is given freely and without the threat of consequences for not consenting - this should be blindingly obvious. If you tell somebody "consent OR ELSE..." then it's not consent.

Mountainsandh

Mountainsandh wrote: »

She's perfectly entitled to free speech, but imo she has crossed the line with what is possibly slander.

I'm not familiar with the legalities of it, but I'm pretty sure from the details in the post only the guy must have been identified by at least her/their closest friends, even if his name has not been published.

Ummmmmmm, as the Plaintiff, he'd effectively have to demonstrate that she did not say no.

I seriously doubt he'll be taking a case. It could rebound rather spectacularly, as Bruce Grobelaar can confirm, if the defamation case fails and the Court accepted that she was telling the truth about what happened.

Narkydonkey Whattado

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What would you call it? And if somebody proceeded to undress and fondle you while you repeatedly told them not to, you wouldn't feel that you had been assaulted?

If I had the option to stop the undressing and the subsequent sexual intercourse (and by the blogger's own admission - she was aware of having that option) by saying "look mate, I'm sorry but it's not gonna happen, I just don't feel that way about you" but instead decided to say nothing out of "misguided sense of politeness" (blogger's own words), then no, I wouldn't call it rape. I would call it a shítty decision.

hatrickpatrick

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

How is it a lie if her actions say otherwise? She admits in the article that she went along with it of her own volition.

I mean, if the situation had been one whereby she had said "Yes" three times while he was making advances, but she had also physically attempted to stop his advances, would it have still been consensual because she said "Yes" three times? of course not. It would have been rape.

I don't agree at all. Some people like it rough and some people like doing the whole hard to get thing during foreplay. Verbal communication is the ultimate end of discussion as far as I'm concerned, it supersedes any other form of communication because it is entirely unambiguous.

So this idea that because she said "No" three times is somehow the defining factor in whether it was rape of not is ridiculous.

No, it isn't. The slogan "no means no" has been the fundamental cornerstone of anti-rape and consent campaigns for a long, long time, and rightly so.

Now if she had also said she was perhaps too frightened or too in shock to physically fend him off in any way, you would have an argument for rape. But again, she freely admits that this was not the case. She simply didn't have the heart to tell him she wasn't into it. That's her problem at the end of the day. Not his. Even if his prior behaviour leading up to the act is quite unpleasant, and possibly even shameful.

It's not just shameful, it is sexual assault, regardless of whether the sex itself was rape. That much is totally clear.

hatrickpatrick

Narkydonkey Whattado wrote: »

If I had the option to stop the undressing and the subsequent sexual intercourse (and by the blogger's own admission - she was aware of having that option) by saying "look mate, I'm sorry but it's not gonna happen, I just don't feel that way about you" but instead decided to say nothing out of "misguided sense of politeness" (blogger's own words), then no, I wouldn't call it rape. I would call it a shítty decision.

But she didn't say nothing, she said no repeatedly. Read the quote again:

"He tried to undress me. I said no. He tried again – my top came off. I told him I didn’t want to have sex. We kissed some more. He tried to take off my bottoms. I said no.

That's literally three counts of very clear and obvious non-consensual sexual activity right there. She told him not to undress her and he did anyway. He took off her top after this and she told him no yet agan. Then finally he tried to take off her bottoms, and again she said no, and he persisted.

Three times she clearly and unambiguously communicated her lack of consent, and three times he ignored her. What the hell is that, if it isn't sexual assault?