"Why I did not report my rapist"

westernlass

She has just said 300 plus women have contacted her in support if her article and all have been supportive. I have not been supportive of this article but I do not feel the need to contact her directly as it's too sensitive a subject for an objection not to be misconstrued as abuse. I wouldn't gain anything from contacting her and I don't need the hassle from her.

I disagree with her story and think more personal responsibility was needed. I would imagine, and I say this as someone who was raped that those who disagree would do similar. She is not an approachable person unless you love her preaching so why would anyone get in that argument to upset themselves?

Therefore I think her statement about so much support is misrepresentation. I for one have hated her attitude towards the response to this story. She is a journalist. If you put something in the public domain it's fair game for commentary. Isn't that what she wanted? She even asked if you've read it please comment.

westernlass

She has just said 300 plus women have contacted her in support if her article and all have been supportive. I have not been supportive of this article but I do not feel the need to contact her directly as it's too sensitive a subject for an objection not to be misconstrued as abuse. I wouldn't gain anything from contacting her and I don't need the hassle from her.

I disagree with her story and think more personal responsibility was needed. I would imagine, and I say this as someone who was raped that those who disagree would do similar. She is not an approachable person unless you love her preaching so why would anyone get in that argument to upset themselves?

Therefore I think her statement about so much support is misrepresentation. I for one have hated her attitude towards the response to this story. She is a journalist. If you put something in the public domain it's fair game for commentary. Isn't that what she wanted? She even asked if you've read it please comment.

westernlass

She has just said 300 plus women have contacted her in support if her article and all have been supportive. I have not been supportive of this article but I do not feel the need to contact her directly as it's too sensitive a subject for an objection not to be misconstrued as abuse. I wouldn't gain anything from contacting her and I don't need the hassle from her.

I disagree with her story and think more personal responsibility was needed. I would imagine, and I say this as someone who was raped that those who disagree would do similar. She is not an approachable person unless you love her preaching so why would anyone get in that argument to upset themselves?

Therefore I think her statement about so much support is misrepresentation. I for one have hated her attitude towards the response to this story. She is a journalist. If you put something in the public domain it's fair game for commentary. Isn't that what she wanted? She even asked if you've read it please comment.

westernlass

She has just said 300 plus women have contacted her in support if her article and all have been supportive. I have not been supportive of this article but I do not feel the need to contact her directly as it's too sensitive a subject for an objection not to be misconstrued as abuse. I wouldn't gain anything from contacting her and I don't need the hassle from her.

I disagree with her story and think more personal responsibility was needed. I would imagine, and I say this as someone who was raped that those who disagree would do similar. She is not an approachable person unless you love her preaching so why would anyone get in that argument to upset themselves?

Therefore I think her statement about so much support is misrepresentation. I for one have hated her attitude towards the response to this story. She is a journalist. If you put something in the public domain it's fair game for commentary. Isn't that what she wanted? She even asked if you've read it please comment.

westernlass

She has just said 300 plus women have contacted her in support if her article and all have been supportive. I have not been supportive of this article but I do not feel the need to contact her directly as it's too sensitive a subject for an objection not to be misconstrued as abuse. I wouldn't gain anything from contacting her and I don't need the hassle from her.

I disagree with her story and think more personal responsibility was needed. I would imagine, and I say this as someone who was raped that those who disagree would do similar. She is not an approachable person unless you love her preaching so why would anyone get in that argument to upset themselves?

Therefore I think her statement about so much support is misrepresentation. I for one have hated her attitude towards the response to this story. She is a journalist. If you put something in the public domain it's fair game for commentary. Isn't that what she wanted? She even asked if you've read it please comment.

retro:electro

She's cherry picking on Twitter again.

Also, the rape survivors I know, well I'd love to know what they think of this article and see would they thank her, but I wouldn't insult them by asking them to read it.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Fact is the conversation needs to be had. Wherever you stand. But she didn't have to be dragged into it. Because she was, there will be no other conversations. The boyos will keep their girls beaten down.

I completely disagree with this. Nobody here dragged her into anything. She chose to put the information out there in the public domain. Everyone here does the same when they post anything on social media, and if you think for a second it hasn't come back to bite them in the ass, it has, and many times in some of the most shameful and humiliating ways possible. These conversations were happening before she ever came to prominence on social media, they will happen long after she's forgotten. They won't stop happening just because she doesn't start them. She's just not that important.

F*ck your "she's fair game". There's a reason anonymity is given in the courts to these cases. Her name, her life, her choices, her failures or successes are not sticks you can use to beat her with.

Yes, there is, and we're not in a court now, and if this were an ongoing court case, boards.ie would have shut down this thread long ago (that's one way to have the thread closed if she actually meant what she said about wanting it closed). When you put yourself out there as a public figure, the information you put out there in public, is fair game, unpleasant a reality and all as that may be. I don't like it myself, but it'd be double standards if for a minute I thought I could behave like a dick, and not expect to be called out on it.

Narkydonkey Whattado

bubblypop wrote: »

FWIW, I don't believe she is right in posting this, she has too many details in her story. She could've wrote this story without indentifying factors.
I never heard of her before this, & I am not about to start following her on whatever social media platforms she posts on.

But, I'm sure everyone here must agree that if the guy just stopped when she said to, none of the rest would have happened!

Actually, I believe the whole incident should have been stopped earlier. When he walked into her room, he asked if he could kiss her - had she been honest with him and said what she wanted him to know, instead of hoping "he will get the message eventually" (her own words) - none of the rest would have happened.

Narkydonkey Whattado

Narkydonkey Whattado wrote: »

Actually, I believe the whole incident should have been stopped earlier. When he walked into her room, he asked if he could kiss her - had she been honest with him and said what she wanted him to know, instead of hoping "he will get the message eventually" (her own words) - none of the rest would have happened.

Agreed.

Sweetemotion

bubblypop wrote: »

Agreed, she put it out there, she cannot control what people say now.
But cmon Lexie, if HE stopped kissing her when she said no, it would not have happened. I'm just not willing to let someone off with their actions once they have been told no.
I remember lots of times being with lads who would ask if everything is ok? Do I want to do this? It's not a big deal.
If I said no, I hope they would have stopped.

If she had stopped kissing him after saying no, it wouldn't had happened also.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

bubblypop wrote: »

Agreed, she put it out there, she cannot control what people say now.
But cmon Lexie, if HE stopped kissing her when she said no, it would not have happened. I'm just not willing to let someone off with their actions once they have been told no.
I remember lots of times being with lads who would ask if everything is ok? Do I want to do this? It's not a big deal.
If I said no, I hope they would have stopped.

I completely agree, 100%
If he stopped when she said "no" that's it

However, she said no AND continued to kiss him. She let him undress her. Jesus Bubbly, talk about mixed messages.

I feel this is just going around in circles.
If he stopped when she said no, it wouldn't have happened but would he have stopped and taken heed of that "no" if she stopped kissing him?

jameorahiely

Deleted User wrote: »

Massively f*cking angered right now. According to her Twitter she regrets writing about it. She thinks it was a mistake to put her head above the paraphet.

This could have been discussed hypothetically, but no. You have to name her. Analyse her movements, her social media. Call names. Propose a "public" poll that boardsies can vote on whether she was right or wrong. I reject this filth with celebrities, but I understand that behind the snarky comments by showbiz gossip mongers is a money making industry with jobs & people's livelihoods behind it. There's no one making a living here. There's no ads on her post for f*cks sake. (There are here on boards.ie though....)

Fact is the conversation needs to be had. Wherever you stand. But she didn't have to be dragged into it. (For anyone who goes "wadabout him" f*ck off. I couldn't find him nor do I want to. If you're nosey enough to go looking for him it say more about how sick you are than him or her, depending on your viewpoint) Because she was, there will be no other conversations. The boyos will keep their girls beaten down.

F*ck your "she's fair game". There's a reason anonymity is given in the courts to these cases. Her name, her life, her choices, her failures or successes are not sticks you can use to beat her with.

And also, f*ck your "personal responsibility". It's up to *you* to not get with someone who'll f*ck you over. When she doesn't want to, walk the f*ck away.

She identified herself.

"The boyos will keep the girls beaten down" :pac:

Mountainsandh

westernlass wrote: »

I disagree with her story and think more personal responsibility was needed. .

Same here, and I'm female.
I don't see the point in informing her directly.

patnor1011

It is absolutely pointless to discuss if it was rape or not especially with lack of input from other person involved. Without his input on what actually happen this whole story may very well be just a fiction.
Blogger claim to be social influencer, well she may actually be antisocial influencer as what she posted was not meant to build bridges or to make us any better. What was posted and in a manner it was posted was designed to divide people and to spread hate.
Classical example of lynching enticing willing crowds to trial and execution without presenting shred of evidence and giving other party involved option to prove their innocence.

professore

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".

If a "friend" is trying to get you to take heroin, and you say no a couple of times, but continue to ask about the heroin, what it feels like to take it, etc, and finally you take some, and get addicted, are you not responsible at all for taking it and was forced into it? Because that's what you are arguing here. The friend giving you the heroin can't read your mind, if you just take it to make him happy you are an idiot.

One eyed Jack

patnor1011 wrote: »

It is absolutely pointless to discuss if it was rape or not especially with lack of input from other person involved. Without his input on what actually happen this whole story may very well be just a fiction.
Blogger claim to be social influencer, well she may actually be antisocial influencer as what she posted was not meant to build bridges or to make us any better. What was posted and in a manner it was posted was designed to divide people and to spread hate.
Classical example of lynching enticing willing crowds to trial and execution without presenting shred of evidence and giving other party involved option to prove their innocence.

I completely agree with everything you just said, but he doesn't have to prove his innocence, a prosecution would have to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Calhoun

Deleted User wrote: »

Massively f*cking angered right now. According to her Twitter she regrets writing about it. She thinks it was a mistake to put her head above the paraphet.

This could have been discussed hypothetically, but no. You have to name her. Analyse her movements, her social media. Call names. Propose a "public" poll that boardsies can vote on whether she was right or wrong. I reject this filth with celebrities, but I understand that behind the snarky comments by showbiz gossip mongers is a money making industry with jobs & people's livelihoods behind it. There's no one making a living here. There's no ads on her post for f*cks sake. (There are here on boards.ie though....)

Fact is the conversation needs to be had. Wherever you stand. But she didn't have to be dragged into it. (For anyone who goes "wadabout him" f*ck off. I couldn't find him nor do I want to. If you're nosey enough to go looking for him it say more about how sick you are than him or her, depending on your viewpoint) Because she was, there will be no other conversations. The boyos will keep their girls beaten down.

F*ck your "she's fair game". There's a reason anonymity is given in the courts to these cases. Her name, her life, her choices, her failures or successes are not sticks you can use to beat her with.

And also, f*ck your "personal responsibility". It's up to *you* to not get with someone who'll f*ck you over. When she doesn't want to, walk the f*ck away.

Love this post so much, it illustrates how well she is trying to play the game as she is now doubling down on the victim card and how she is a martyr for daring to question the patriarchy.

Ignoring the fact that she herself is a relatively well known blogger and put it up under her own name. We have also seen form in the past of bloggers who use sensational articles like these as a platform to move onto bigger and better things.

It also illustrates what i think is a male feminist in all its glory. How close are you to the blogger? or are you just white knighting this one? After the other thread you created yesterday i do wonder about your motives/connection to her. How sad though that you dont have the respect for her to let her stand by her own piece of work. Do you want to let out a screech or two to feel better?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Deleted User wrote: »

Massively f*cking angered right now. According to her Twitter she regrets writing about it. She thinks it was a mistake to put her head above the paraphet.

This could have been discussed hypothetically, but no. You have to name her. Analyse her movements, her social media. Call names. Propose a "public" poll that boardsies can vote on whether she was right or wrong. I reject this filth with celebrities, but I understand that behind the snarky comments by showbiz gossip mongers is a money making industry with jobs & people's livelihoods behind it. There's no one making a living here. There's no ads on her post for f*cks sake. (There are here on boards.ie though....)

Fact is the conversation needs to be had. Wherever you stand. But she didn't have to be dragged into it. (For anyone who goes "wadabout him" f*ck off. I couldn't find him nor do I want to. If you're nosey enough to go looking for him it say more about how sick you are than him or her, depending on your viewpoint) Because she was, there will be no other conversations. The boyos will keep their girls beaten down.

F*ck your "she's fair game". There's a reason anonymity is given in the courts to these cases. Her name, her life, her choices, her failures or successes are not sticks you can use to beat her with.

And also, f*ck your "personal responsibility". It's up to *you* to not get with someone who'll f*ck you over. When she doesn't want to, walk the f*ck away.

Would you cop on. RMC was happy enough to write a personal piece on "rape" and outline her experience. She was happy enough to put her name to it, and she was happy enough to leave any number of guys from back then open to speculation. She made these choices.

And just like she has the right to post on her platform, all over the Internet, people also have the same right. She waived her own right to anonymity. Nobody took that from her.

Maybe she should be more aware of what she puts out on the Internet. She cannot shout down and try intimidate people into not having an opinion.

She's chosen this lifestyle for herself. She chooses to be controversial. She chooses to broadcast intimate details all over the Internet, and now she wants people to stop talking about it because the reaction isn't as she expected? That's an echo chamber.

professore

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Massively f*cking angered right now. According to her Twitter she regrets writing about it. She thinks it was a mistake to put her head above the paraphet.

This could have been discussed hypothetically, but no. You have to name her. Analyse her movements, her social media. Call names. Propose a "public" poll that boardsies can vote on whether she was right or wrong. I reject this filth with celebrities, but I understand that behind the snarky comments by showbiz gossip mongers is a money making industry with jobs & people's livelihoods behind it. There's no one making a living here. There's no ads on her post for f*cks sake. (There are here on boards.ie though....)

Fact is the conversation needs to be had. Wherever you stand. But she didn't have to be dragged into it. (For anyone who goes "wadabout him" f*ck off. I couldn't find him nor do I want to. If you're nosey enough to go looking for him it say more about how sick you are than him or her, depending on your viewpoint) Because she was, there will be no other conversations. The boyos will keep their girls beaten down.

F*ck your "she's fair game". There's a reason anonymity is given in the courts to these cases. Her name, her life, her choices, her failures or successes are not sticks you can use to beat her with.

And also, f*ck your "personal responsibility". It's up to *you* to not get with someone who'll f*ck you over. When she doesn't want to, walk the f*ck away.

She's a journalist. Everything she writes is promoting her as such, so it's very much a commercial act when she publishes something like this online. From her own description she was not forced to have sex against her will. She was persuaded against her better judgement in the same way Mrs Doyle persuaded Ted to have a cup of tea. Huge difference.

If she said she said no, and tried to push him away and he restrained her, however slight, then this is a different matter. IMO this article was completely contrived to generate maximum division between men and women, but ironically there are lots of women who disagree it was rape, even ones who were genuinely raped, and in fact has served to bring the most rational thinking humans on here together.

Maybe she wants to be like the Trump administration and only allow comments that agree 100% with her?

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Massively f*cking angered right now. According to her Twitter she regrets writing about it. She thinks it was a mistake to put her head above the paraphet.

OK.

This could have been discussed hypothetically, but no.

*irony bypass filter engaged* You do realise that that could be applied to her, right?

You have to name her. Analyse her movements, her social media. Call names. Propose a "public" poll that boardsies can vote on whether she was right or wrong.

Loving the collective "you" being applied here. One eejit proposed a poll and then thought more on his/her choice and deleted it. She named herself BTW. That's her thing. Not just hers either. And where is the name calling?

I reject this filth with celebrities, but I understand that behind the snarky comments by showbiz gossip mongers is a money making industry with jobs & people's livelihoods behind it. There's no one making a living here. There's no ads on her post for f*cks sake. (There are here on boards.ie though....)

Which means not a lot. A person fires up an opinion on a public platform. This will mean said public will have their own opinions, some of which will be dissent. Especially on such an emotive topic. How this comes as a surprise to anyone is odd.

Fact is the conversation needs to be had. Wherever you stand. But she didn't have to be dragged into it.

Eh.. she "dragged" herself into it. You seem to be oddly blinkered on this salient point.

(For anyone who goes "wadabout him" f*ck off. I couldn't find him nor do I want to. If you're nosey enough to go looking for him it say more about how sick you are than him or her, depending on your viewpoint)

Sure, no harm like. No worries if someone is accused in absentia of a major crime. Be grand.

Because she was, there will be no other conversations.

Funny that. People are having the conversation and agreeing and disagreeing with each other. #whodathunkit

The boyos will keep their girls beaten down.

What atomic powered nonsense is that? Serious question.

F*ck your "she's fair game". There's a reason anonymity is given in the courts to these cases. Her name, her life, her choices, her failures or successes are not sticks you can use to beat her with.

Who said she's "fair game"? Musta missed that post. Yep her name, her choices and she chose to forego anonymity. That would be kinda missing the point of such a blog.

And also, f*ck your "personal responsibility". It's up to *you* to not get with someone who'll f*ck you over. When she doesn't want to, walk the f*ck away.

#ironyoverload.

tomwaterford

professore wrote: »

She's a journalist. Everything she writes is promoting her as such, so it's very much a commercial act when she publishes something like this online. From her own description she was not forced to have sex against her will. She was persuaded against her better judgement .

Sure jesus the same thing is most likely happening in nightclubs etc across ireland right now?

professore

tomwaterford wrote: »

Sure jesus the same thing is most likely happening in nightclubs etc across ireland right now?

Yes, with both sexes!

jameorahiely

Another Irish blogger jumping on the bandwagon

A group of my friends were discussing this topic last week and it started with the statement “How many times have you actually been raped if you think about it.”

I've never said much on the issue of consent because I always would have believed that if you had a one night stand or "regretted" having sex it was your own doing and your own fault. But the more I read about it the more I am beginning to realise how wrong I was. Nobody deserves to get forced upon

One night stands are rape?

Wibbs

professore wrote: »

Yes, with both sexes!

TBH here, I'm getting a little bloody irritated with the line drawing and victim competition that comes into this kinda thing. Woman: I was raped. Man: A woman grabbed my arse in a nightclub once. Yeah, like that's comparable Ted. We need less of this divisive bullshít, not more. The plain facts are that just as a man is far more likely to be violently assaulted than the average woman, the average woman is far more likely to get this kind of unwanted sexual attention than the average man.

LightlyGo

I feel sorry for her to be honest. She doesn't seem able to anticipate the logical consequences for her actions.

Of course people were going to discuss the blog post and of course she was not going to like all of it. That is the line of work she has chosen and embraced with gusto. This is why the rest of us aren't spilling our guts online and don't sit home blogging about the cute slippers we saw and providing affiliate links to them. This comes with the territory.

The thing is that while she has offered herself up on a platter as the sacrificial lamb for this one her story has served a purpose, it has got people talking, it has more importantly got people thinking about important issues. A greater good has been served but agreeably not for Rosemary's benefit tonight. It's ultimately what writing should do. I think in time she will use it to her advantage and enjoy the "controversial" status, but I imagine she might well feel like crap tonight, and I'm sorry for anyone feeling that way.

Shelga

The biggest irony is that we are now all proponents of 'rape culture', simply by disagreeing that she was raped, based on her own account of events.

The reality is, the vast vast majority of those who disagree, myself included, think rape is a horrific and despicable crime that should be severely punished with hard prison time, and blogs like Rosemary's dilute that. The message that rape is vile and disgusting, gets lost amongst all the white noise, amongst all the understandable emotion.

The problem is that Rosemary refuses to acknowledge that people GENUINELY do not agree that she was raped, and are in no way attacking her.

I feel like banging my head against a wall.

TerrorFirmer

Deleted User wrote: »

Massively f*cking angered right now. According to her Twitter she regrets writing about it. She thinks it was a mistake to put her head above the paraphet.

This could have been discussed hypothetically, but no. You have to name her. Analyse her movements, her social media. Call names. Propose a "public" poll that boardsies can vote on whether she was right or wrong. I reject this filth with celebrities, but I understand that behind the snarky comments by showbiz gossip mongers is a money making industry with jobs & people's livelihoods behind it. There's no one making a living here. There's no ads on her post for f*cks sake. (There are here on boards.ie though....)

Fact is the conversation needs to be had. Wherever you stand. But she didn't have to be dragged into it. (For anyone who goes "wadabout him" f*ck off. I couldn't find him nor do I want to. If you're nosey enough to go looking for him it say more about how sick you are than him or her, depending on your viewpoint) Because she was, there will be no other conversations. The boyos will keep their girls beaten down.

F*ck your "she's fair game". There's a reason anonymity is given in the courts to these cases. Her name, her life, her choices, her failures or successes are not sticks you can use to beat her with.

And also, f*ck your "personal responsibility". It's up to *you* to not get with someone who'll f*ck you over. When she doesn't want to, walk the f*ck away.

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

Fact is the conversation needs to be had. Wherever you stand.

Did you read any of the contributions to the thread? There was oodles of contributions from both sides.

buried

This new buzzword title of online 'social influencer' really concerns me. That's a real dark authoritarian label and title to willfully place on yourself and also be proud of. Anybody who has placed this kind of ridiculous title on themselves should do themselves a massive favour by learning the history of other entities and people who thought they could be great 'social influencer's too, because 9 times out of 10 that influence ends up in war, death, genocide and it starts by creating some bull$hit story in order to divide everyone else

retro:electro

Regretting sex isn't rape! The fcuk is wrong wrong with people!