"Why I did not report my rapist"

shanno666

Its a very detailed account of events except for the "he had sex with me" part,I mean was there more kissing during sex ? did she give any indication that she wasnt enjoying this ? did she say no during sex ? i mean its all well and good saying i let him have sex with me but without details It seems absurd to even consider this any sort of assualt

Summer wind

I don't believe this woman was raped. She had sex with a man because she couldn't be bothered to tell him she didn't fancy him. This in no way means rape.

Calhoun

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

I am afraid we have to have some level of personal responsibility, maybe that is something we should be teaching people, how they should navigate poisonous relationships.

Legislating a world where individuals wont step up and take some level of personal responsibility would be a nightmare.

Buford T. Justice XIX

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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?

Just a correction. Her top came off. No mention of whether he or she or the top itself decided to come off. You are reading an action into the statement that she never said happened.

Mountainsandh

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I see what you mean, I hadn't thought of it.

Arcade_Tryer

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

Of course it is unambiguous. If anything, this story proves that beyond doubt.

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.

The entire story challenges this consensus. According to her behaviour, No means nothing at all, as she still went along with the whole thing.

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

Ok, upon reading that she said she did not want to have sex, I may have to revise my judgement. I think I agree that it was sexual assault, and probably rape. However, I still stand by my reasoning above in general.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

You consent to surgery that might be painful because otherwise you face health consequences. That consent is given with the threat of consequences, and it's still consent.

And when I was younger I (5ft) had a short lived relationship with a guy (6ft) who told me he'd put me in a wheelchair for the rest of my life when I was 10 minutes late for something. I decided I wouldn't put up with that threat.

That was my decision, and you made yours. Having a tough choice is not the same as having no choice.

Obviously when people have been raised to believe abusive relationships are normal, or have suffered insidious abuse over a long period of time that compromises their ability to act, that's very different. In those circumstances your ability to give consent is compromised, and that should be recognised.

Narkydonkey Whattado

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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?

But you see, she knew she could have stopped things from happening by clarifying the "no" - she knew she had that option.

Should he have stopped and asked if she was ok when she said "no"? Of course he should have. But in the absence of that, when a girl or a woman doesn't feel threatened - and she admitted she didn't - it's up to her to stand up for herself and say "hey, did you hear me? I said "no".

Wibbs

SpillingTheTea wrote: »

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?

One fairly consistent trait I have noticed in the growing number of echo chambers (of all stripes; right, left, in, out, shake it all about) is a staggering lack of the awareness of irony. This becomes a cast iron given with "feminists" in the Church of The Perpetual Victim.

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 agree 100% M. But with that right comes - or at least should come - the expectation that people may, nay will disagree with you and one can't expect as a given a kumbaya group hug and #sobrave hashtags. That's an echo chamber. This goes for all such people. I hold the same level of suspicion for "alt right" gobshítes parroting imported guff, as I do for "liberals" parroting imported guff.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

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.

I don't have a particular issue with such warnings, though personally I find them a bit embarrassing. However if they can help avoid actual stress for those truly hurting then cool. Though increasingly it seems everyone and his or her dog is trumpeting their hurts as a game of oneupmanship and group affiliation.

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 ...

Adolescence has become somewhat extended and this trend was in play in the west for much of the 20th century, but there has been an upswing in the last 30 years. It can affect both genders and all demographics, but women, particularly middle class white women seem to get more leeway, even sympathy for this extension. With this comes a tendency towards the extension of solipism we often see in adolescents, a self involvement(ironically with a lack of self examination) egged on by various arms of social media. If the 20th century was the century of the self, the 21st is fast becoming the century of the self involved and the psychological selfie(often wrapped up in the convenient coat of "confession"). And we wonder why some mental illnesses are on the increase? Love yourself is fine, but get over yourself is better IMH. Indeed of that was applied to the scenario discussed here, that guy would have listened to the no(s) and stopped.

anna080 wrote: »

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.

As I said, the Irony Bypass filter is very powerful in these situations.

Nevertheless, I'd not be surprised if she or other of her coterie don't call for a shutdown behind the scenes claiming "bullying" or some other "trigger" word. The echo chamber types, again of all stripes, are fond of shouting Fire! in a crowded room when things don't follow their catechism.

meeeeh wrote: »

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.

+1000. That would be well out of order, though I must have missed that stupid request?

Narkydonkey Whattado

Narkydonkey Whattado wrote: »

Should he have stopped and asked if she was ok when she said "no"? Of course he should have.

End of story.
No consent to continue right there, in fact she told him 3 times & also told him she didn't want to have sex.
Of course he should have stopped!!

mzungu

meeeeh wrote:

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.

Wibbs wrote: »

+1000. That would be well out of order, though I must have missed that stupid request?

There was no request for a poll that I saw. It seems no other posters in the thread saw it either.

Was it fake news?

sunshine and showers

mzungu wrote: »

There was no request for a poll that I saw. It seems no other posters in the thread saw it either.

Fake news?

I saw it. Perhaps the poster deleted it.

shanno666

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

Actually, while I do not believe this is rape I don't think it's a million miles from it either.

The guy kept going without being absolutely certain she was fully on board. She muddied the waters with her ambiguous behaviour, but he should have stepped back and made sure it was okay. He may have known she wasn't into it. but because she half-heartedly participated he probably decided he'd just keep going until she made her mind up.

I'd have no problem believing it wasn't important to him if she was or wasn't into it.

At the very least it's extremely questionable behaviour and a creepy, sleazy way to conduct yourself. You'd question if he was the type to carry on, even if she was unequivocal in her refusal, both verbally and physically.

Narkydonkey Whattado

bubblypop wrote: »

End of story.
No consent to continue right there, in fact she told him 3 times & also told him she didn't want to have sex.
Of course he should have stopped!!

But it's not the end of story. It would be if she had no options left available to her. She had another option - a simple conversation. She knew she had that option, and she decided it was the worse of the two options available to her (first - conversation, second - sex).

He failed her first, then she failed herself - there were two of them in it.

r93kaey5p2izun

The suggestion of a poll was definitely made.

mzungu

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I saw it. Perhaps the poster deleted it.

Ah right, I obviously missed it at the time. Thankfully whomever it was did delete it because that was bang out of order.

retro:electro

I hope she keeps referencing this thread on twitter. Maybe it'll drive people to this thread, her following mainly, and they'll be able to judge for themselves the insightful, intelligent and considered conversation that is taking place here, and not the very few cherry picked, controversial and out of context posts that she has posted on Twitter to be seek attention over.

Narkydonkey Whattado

Narkydonkey Whattado wrote: »

But it's not the end of story. It would be if she had no options left available to her. She had another option - a simple conversation. She knew she had that option, and she decided it was the worse of the two options available to her (first - conversation, second - sex).

He failed her first, then she failed herself - there were two of them in it.

No but sorry.
Why do people seem to think it's ok to ignore someone when they tell you no?
If someone said no to me, and said they didn't want to have sex, then I'd stop what I was doing, I would either speak to them or leave.
It wouldn't be ok for me to keep doing what I was doing.

& The whole ' she let him take off her clothes etc etc' just would not have happened if he stopped when she said no.

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

There was no request for a poll that I saw. It seems no other posters in the thread saw it either.

Was it fake news?

No, I saw it too.

Luckily someone copped themselves on.

shanno666

Candie wrote: »

Actually, while I do not believe this is rape I don't think it's a million miles from it either.

The guy kept going without being absolutely certain she was fully on board. She muddied the waters with her ambiguous behaviour, but he should have stepped back and made sure it was okay. He may have known she wasn't into it. but because she half-heartedly participated he probably decided he'd just keep going until she made her mind up.

I'd have no problem believing it wasn't important to him if she was or wasn't into it.

At the very least it's extremely questionable behaviour and a creepy, sleazy way to conduct yourself. You'd question if he was the type to carry on, even if she was unequivocal in her refusal, both verbally and physically.

No doubt the guy was sleazy and its no way to conduct yourself, but accusing someone of rape is as extreme as it gets and with the details she has provided and left out how anyone could think its ok for her to openly call someone who could possible be identified a rapist is shocking imo

One eyed Jack

shanno666 wrote: »

No doubt the guy was sleazy and its no way to conduct yourself, but accusing someone of rape is as extreme as it gets and with the details she has provided and left out how anyone could think its ok for her to openly call someone who could possible be identified a rapist is shocking imo

Just on this one thing - she didn't include any details that could possibly identify anyone. I'm guessing this was done on purpose so that it literally could be anyone who could be "identified". The thing is, nobody was in any way identified, slandered, named or defamed in the article.

ibarelycare

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Just on this one thing - she didn't include any details that could possibly identify anyone. I'm guessing this was done on purpose so that it literally could be anyone who could be "identified". The thing is, nobody was in any way identified, slandered, named or defamed in the article.

Many of his and her college friends/former friends will be able to identify him from the information in her post.

One eyed Jack

ibarelycare wrote: »

Many of his and her college friends/former friends will be able to identify him from the information in her post.

That would be their responsibility for speculating then surely?

retro:electro

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That would be their responsibility for speculating then surely?

No it's hers for making him identifiable.

Narkydonkey Whattado

bubblypop wrote: »

No but sorry.
Why do people seem to think it's ok to ignore someone when they tell you no?
If someone said no to me, and said they didn't want to have sex, then I'd stop what I was doing, I would either speak to them or leave.
It wouldn't be ok for me to keep doing what I was doing.

& The whole ' she let him take off her clothes etc etc' just would not have happened if he stopped when she said no.

I don't think people here think it's ok to ignore someone when they tell you "no". I think people are saying that in order for the "no" to be meaningful, it has to be consistent with the person's actions, and I agree with that.

What would you do, bubblypop, if someone you like and are not afraid of didn't stop when you said "no"? Do you not think it's your responsibility to be more insistent?

retro:electro

Love that MMA Ireland called out her hypocrisy on Twitter over complaining that her "character is being dissected", they said she dissected Conor Mc Gregor's character on a blog post yesterday. Her defense is "but he publicly said mysoginistic things about women". She fails to see the correlation, the hypocrisy and the contradiction. The more she opens her mouth the more she should keep it shut.

Wibbs

anna080 wrote: »

I hope she keeps referencing this thread on twitter. Maybe it'll drive people to this thread, her following mainly, and they'll be able to judge for themselves the insightful, intelligent and considered conversation that is taking place here, and not the very few cherry picked, controversial and out of context posts that she has posted on Twitter to be seek attention over.

Never gonna happen. The response will be along the lines of this:



This is the case with the majority of echo chamber inhabitants. Anything that deviates from the "acceptable line" is seen as an attack. The responses vary depending on the group. So in the face of debate the alt right types will start wittering "cuck" like chickens on amphetamines, the "liberal" types, especially Feminists 3.1, will respond with emotions laid on thick and accusations of aggression and the like.

Some of the twitter responses are classics. I noted a tweet from the MMA crowd questioning her on her personality dissection on that McGregor fellow, after she accused Boards posters of similar. *Whoosh* right over her head and then of course she closed him/her down with "I don't want to debate". Standard operating procedure. Appealing to authority to shut down debate for them is another.

anna080 wrote: »

Love that MMA Ireland called out her hypocrisy on Twitter over complaining that her "character is being dissected", they said she dissected Conor Mc Gregor's character on a blog post yesterday. Her defense is "but he publicly said mysoginistic things about women". She fails to see the correlation, the hypocrisy and the contradiction. The more she opens her mouth the more she should keep it shut.

Like I say, irony is lost on the type, as is self awareness.

For me if any group can't take debate or measured dissension, then that's a sure sign that they're peddling their own flavour of a collectively minded brand of bullshít.

One eyed Jack

anna080 wrote: »

No it's hers for making him identifiable.

He isn't directly identifiable though? Anyone would only be speculating as to his identity (and dare I say it but that's if he even exists).

If I were able to identify myself (for example), I wouldn't be fretting about it unless the Gardaí were to call to my door on foot of a complaint, and I've been there, a false allegation was made that went nowhere due to lack of evidence, and when I say lack of evidence, there was none whatsoever as it never happened. It didn't ruin my life either, but I understand that this was indeed only my own experience and isn't universal.

retro:electro

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He isn't directly identifiable though? Anyone would only be speculating as to his identity (and dare I say it but that's if he even exists).

If I were able to identify myself (for example), I wouldn't be fretting about it unless the Gardaí were to call to my door on foot of a complaint, and I've been there, a false allegation was made that went nowhere due to lack of evidence, and when I say lack of evidence, there was none whatsoever as it never happened. It didn't ruin my life either, but I understand that this was indeed only my own experience and isn't universal.

Does it matter? If he is only identifiable to one person that is one person too many.

ibarelycare

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He isn't directly identifiable though? Anyone would only be speculating as to his identity (and dare I say it but that's if he even exists).

He's identifiable without any doubt to those who were present at the party. She also would have likely discussed him with friends at the time (they'd hooked up before, she wasn't into him, I'm sure it was a topic of conversation around that period).