"Why I did not report my rapist"

professore

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm with you there. WTF has her hairstyle or looks got to do with a damn thing? Meh, if she was a model or she was uneasy on the eye, her looks would be pointed out. That is very much a gender thing. Not saying it doesn't sometimes come into a debate about a man, but it's much more likely to be brought to bear on women. Including BTW, by other women.

I think if it was a man, his looks would also be brought up. Look at that case of the best looking criminal circulating recently who now has a modelling career.

Shelga

I think the reason the thread has run on so long is that many people find it disturbing that such accounts can be published online these days, followed by lots of women congratulating the author on being 'so brave'. 5 or 10 years ago, Rosemary would have recounted this story to a friend, who would have rightfully agreed that the guy was a sleaze, sympathised with her, and they would have moved on.

Nowadays, you can write whatever you want and then shut out people who disagree with you or simply want clarification. The only reason there are so many pages here is not because we're all horrible people who want to attack Rosemary- I stood up for her at the start- but because rape is horrific and people are alarmed that the word is thrown around so freely.

She knows herself this wouldn't have a hope in hell of standing up in court, not because it was so long ago or lack of physical evidence, but because even if jurors believe her account, it still doesn't make what happened rape.

I like to think that all the people applauding her in the comments section on her blog would scrutinise more seriously if they were ever on a jury in a rape case. This does not mean asking her horrible questions, criticising her appearance, or slut shaming her in any way. Just establishing that yes, consent was ultimately given.

Crea

If a guy keeps pressuring a girl to have sex despite her saying no a number of times may not be a rapist but he is certainly an asshole. They don't give a **** what the girl really wants, they're just looking to have sex regardless.
It is beyond annoying when you are trying to object and he just isn't listening. Generally there are 2 options 1) Get really cross and make a scene so he finally gets the message into his stupid head. 2)Go along with it and regret it. It appears that plenty of guys are quite happy with putting girls in this situation because her feelings aren't important.
If a girl says no a few times then you really need to question if you really should be having sex with a person who is having doubts. BTW the answer is no, in case you're wondering. Instead of saying "Ah, go on". You should be saying "Do you want to do this?". And then respect her answer.

professore

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That's perfectly reasonable and I have no issue with that kind of argument even if I do disagree with it.

It is an incredibly difficult area, especially since there are often only 2 people involved with no other witnesses. I see the idea behind the consent law, but there are a lot of problems with it too. Like that rapists will force their victims to say yes and then walk out of court free.

One eyed Jack

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm with you there. WTF has her hairstyle or looks got to do with a damn thing? Meh, if she was a model or she was uneasy on the eye, her looks would be pointed out. That is very much a gender thing. Not saying it doesn't sometimes come into a debate about a man, but it's much more likely to be brought to bear on women. Including BTW, by other women.

Ahh it does Wibbs, in fact, I can't remember a time when it didn't, particularly if the accused was a man. We've seen it so many times both on here and in the media, it's almost as though to spin a particular narrative they'll publish the dodgiest looking photo of the guy, knowing that there are people who will perceive it as "look at the dodgy head on him, guilty as fcuk like!". It happened with O' Dwyer, with the guy that murdered the nurse in Scotland, with many, many other cases I can think of, and if a guy sitting in the dock doesn't look remorseful enough, that can absolutely have an influence on the way people perceive his character and whether he could be guilty or not.

neonsofa

professore wrote: »

I think if it was a man, his looks would also be brought up. Look at that case of the best looking criminal circulating recently who now has a modelling career.

People were pointing out how (imo!) breathtakingly handsome he was, they weren't (afaik, correct me if I'm wrong) trying to psychoanalyze him based on his choice of haircut. Or insinuating that some mental health issues are at play because he chose to style himself a certain way, and so we shouldn't believe their account of events as a result.

The Backwards Man

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes some are. However people getting a dig in about what she says is different to getting a dig in about her. This is all too common a confusion I have found(and/or a way to shut down debate). Just because I might think your opinion is daft, it does not follow I assume you are. Like the Boards rule goes; attack the post, not the poster.

No confusion. Nothing wrong with attacking someone's opinion, but when it's evident that someone is only interested in attacking someone's character due to a past spat or whatever, then those posters have no interest in debate in the first place.

Which is a pity, because there is a good debate to be had on the subject of consent, IMO.

professore

Crea wrote: »

If a guy keeps pressuring a girl to have sex despite her saying no a number of times may not be a rapist but he is certainly an asshole. They don't give a **** what the girl really wants, they're just looking to have sex regardless.
It is beyond annoying when you are trying to object and he just isn't listening. Generally there are 2 options 1) Get really cross and make a scene so he finally gets the message into his stupid head. 2)Go along with it and regret it. It appears that plenty of guys are quite happy with putting girls in this situation because her feelings aren't important.
If a girl says no a few times then you really need to question if you really should be having sex with a person who is having doubts. BTW the answer is no, in case you're wondering. Instead of saying "Ah, go on". You should be saying "Do you want to do this?". And then respect her answer.

There are assholes out there, guys and girls. If you ultimately give consent, game over. If you don't want to, go with option 1. In any other area of life you get figuratively screwed if you go with option 2. Otherwise those people with 110% 35 year mortgages could just walk away. Take control of your own life. It may sound harsh but that's the world we all live in.

Let me reiterate if you go with 1 and he still goes on, it's rape.

RabbleRouser2k

Shelga wrote: »

I think the reason the thread has run on so long is that many people find it disturbing that such accounts can be published online these days, followed by lots of women congratulating the author on being 'so brave'. 5 or 10 years ago, Rosemary would have recounted this story to a friend, who would have rightfully agreed that the guy was a sleaze, sympathised with her, and they would have moved on.

Nowadays, you can write whatever you want and then shut out people who disagree with you or simply want clarification. The only reason there are so many pages here is not because we're all horrible people who want to attack Rosemary- I stood up for her at the start- but because rape is horrific and people are alarmed that the word is thrown around so freely.

She knows herself this wouldn't have a hope in hell of standing up in court, not because it was so long ago or lack of physical evidence, but because even if jurors believe her account, it still doesn't make what happened rape.

I like to think that all the people applauding her in the comments section on her blog would scrutinise more seriously if they were ever on a jury in a rape case. This does not mean asking her horrible questions, criticising her appearance, or slut shaming her in any way. Just establishing that yes, consent was ultimately given.

Even her purpose of writing it is dodgy-she states 'I still wouldn't report it', or 'didn't want to ruin his name'...well, then why write it?
It seemed all the more bizarre.

Buford T. Justice XIX

ibarelycare wrote: »

Rosemary wasn't in fear. She had sex with him to avoid an awkward conversation. She wasn't raped.

That sums up the whole debacle for me.

She was willing to have sex with a man she wasn't into to avoid having an awkward conversation with the man, by her own admission.

I cannot understand how that morphed into 'he raped me' 15 years after the fact based on one side of the story without any input at all from the alleged perpetrator who may have a diametrically different recollection of the event.

Yet his reputation is in tatters but people are defending her reputation?

Wibbs

professore wrote: »

I think if it was a man, his looks would also be brought up.

To the same degree as it happens with women? Not even close. It is a demonstrable fact that women's appearance is far more scrutinised, valued or devalued in society than men's. Whole industries are based on it.

shanno666

professore wrote: »

The problem here is that we weren't there ... If she says "no" playfully while slapping him away and saying things like "people might hear us" that's very different to saying "no" and pushing him away and asking him to leave - or different again from him pinning her against the wall and saying aggressively "I know you want it" and her saying "yes" out of fear, or freezing.

Also if this was some anonymous person online I would be much quicker to take this at face value but she is a public figure and "social influencer" who knows she will get massive positive publicity for this, it puts her story under much closer scrutiny.

Perhaps she was raped - and if so that is awful and I have every sympathy and compassion for her - but she didn't do a very good job of describing it, and has planted the thought that any time a woman has sex with a guy and regrets it afterwards has been raped.

This is spot on,We have very little detail of what actually happened in the bedroom that night,How anybody could think its ok to call someone a rapist giving these details is ****ing mental

One eyed Jack

Shelga wrote: »

She knows herself this wouldn't have a hope in hell of standing up in court, not because it was so long ago or lack of physical evidence, but because even if jurors believe her account, it still doesn't make what happened rape.

We'll that makes no sense, the headline of the article is "Why I didn't report my rapist", so if jurors believed her account (and that's in the absence of any evidence to the contrary), then absolutely they could easily find the accused guilty of rape. This is exactly the problem with the layman definition of consent - there isn't one we can all agree on! That's why it's so important in law that we have one, and that was the point of campaigning for a legal definition of consent to be included in the Sexual Offences Bill, so that a jury would have some guidelines at least as to what is and isn't consent, the legal definition, not every layman's definition.

Mountainsandh

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Let's summarise some of the questions being raised in this thread.

If you kept kissing him after you said no to sex is this not consent to sex?
Why did you stop saying no?

These are not questions being raised in this thread.
I've taken the worst out. You are summarizing an entire thread into 5 or 6 half arsed manipulated statements/questions, when people have given a lot of thought to their comments and debated the above at length.

The 2 above are not very well phrased either, and I don't think many people on the thread would frame them like this, but they are closer to the whole point of the thread.

They are not questions that I would ask Rosemary. They are points of discussion in relation to her post.

The way I would approach it is more :
- mixed signals and non-verbal communication can greatly impair communication in such a situation. Young people seem to have a poor grasp of communication in general, this can lead to distressing situations for them. Should society amend rules to accommodate their poor communication skills, or should we find a way to help them improve these skills ?

- RMC found herself in a situation where she knew that being assertive would have stopped an event that she wasn't comfortable with, that made her feel rotten.
In order to stop that event from taking place, she would have had to feel uncomfortable and rotten : she would have had to possibly cause pain to the young man, be impolite (she mentions "politeness", her unwillingness to cause offence), hurt him or offend him. The conversation would have been awkward (again, her exact own words).
She decided to experience the discomfort of having sex when she really didn't feel like it, instead of facing an awkward conversation.

Is there any way that young people can be encouraged to have the awkward conversation rather than have them go along with a distressing experience ?

RMC seems to think that the above dilemna is a valid reason to qualify her experience as rape.
She chose a distressing experience rather than an awkward conversation.

Do we validate this concept of rape ?

It seems that most posters on here, myself included in any case, do not.

I personally cannot validate RMC's experience as rape.
I can and do understand this was a distressing-uncomfortable event for her, but it was not rape. Simply a situation where choosing to leave her reluctance unspoken, and unexplained to that guy, put her in a distressing place.

Now of course you can respond by saying : "well, it's not up to internet people to validate an experience as rape or not".

Absolutely.

It should really be up to the justice system to decide these things. What happened here is that she brought this out into the public sphere, she put up for debate something that, if it was indeed causing her enough distress to accuse a man of rape, should have been dealt with by justice.

I think that's pretty much what this thread has been about, and these are not really questions directed at RMC.

tldr :
- young people's communication skills are shyte, something really needs to be done about it. Shyte communication can lead to situation RMC writes about.
- is it rape because she wanted to avoid an awkward conversation ?
- she can't just accuse a guy of rape online, she should have involved the justice system.

professore

Wibbs wrote: »

To the same degree as it happens with women? Not even close. It is a demonstrable fact that women's appearance is far more scrutinised, valued or devalued in society than men's. Whole industries are based on it.

Mostly by other women. There is a whole lifestyle section in newspapers aimed at women that have all this kind of stuff in it. Personally I have very little interest other than perhaps briefly thinking a girl is attractive. But you have a point that some are attacking her based on her appearance.

I'm out for now, but this has been a brilliant and enlightening thread for me, with good points from both sides. I think no one wants rapists to get away with anything, but allowing the debate has been a learning experience for me.

Crea

professore wrote: »

There are assholes out there, guys and girls. If you ultimately give consent, game over. If you don't want to, go with option 1. In any other area of life you get figuratively screwed if you go with option 2. Otherwise those people with 110% 35 year mortgages could just walk away. Take control of your own life. It may sound harsh but that's the world we all live in.

Let me reiterate if you go with 1 and he still goes on, it's rape.

So the message to guys is that it's ok to keep putting on the pressure even if she says no? She needs to make a scene in order to be heard?
Tbh in this day and age this attitude is beyond annoying.
Just ****ing listen!

TheChizler

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I must be reading a different thread, the majority of posters in this thread seem to be queuing up to get a dig at this woman, many of whom I used to have a lot more respect for.

I skimmed the thread originally Friday and got that impression too, but after hanging on its only the same few over and over; they're largely being ignored and aren't forming part of the discussion.

infogiver

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.

But if you decide to speak in public then you have to be prepared that many people might disagree with you.
Katie Hopkins gets eviscerated (and rightly so) every day but she doesn't cry and say she's being bullied.
What's the problem?

mzungu

Wibbs wrote: »

To the same degree as it happens with women? Not even close. It is a demonstrable fact that women's appearance is far more scrutinised, valued or devalued in society than men's. Whole industries are based on it.

Aye, look no further than Amanda Knox. There has also been a few noteworthy instances of women up for murder in this country that had a separate 'trial by fashion' in the media.

We need to bring back the convict black and white striped clothing for defendants. #Equality4All :pac:

neonsofa

professore wrote: »

There are assholes out there, guys and girls. If you ultimately give consent, game over. If you don't want to, go with option 1. In any other area of life you get figuratively screwed if you go with option 2. Otherwise those people with 110% 35 year mortgages could just walk away. Take control of your own life. It may sound harsh but that's the world we all live in.

Let me reiterate if you go with 1 and he still goes on, it's rape.

So if a girl consents to sex and then during it the man becomes extremely rough and hurts her, she says "you're actually hurting me, can you stop please?" If he continues to have painful sex with her despite her asking him to stop a few times then its her fault for not trying to fight harder and make a scene against a man who has already caused her physical pain. Cause she ultimately gave consent, so game over?

There are grey areas, this thread has surely shown you that, it is not black and white all the time and speaking in absolutes like that is doing a disservice to those trying to teach young (and not so young) people about consent.

shanno666

Crea wrote: »

So the message to guys is that it's ok to keep putting on the pressure even if she says no? She needs to make a scene in order to be heard?
Tbh in this day and age this attitude is beyond annoying.
Just ****ing listen!

A scene ? she didn't even ask him to stop or leave the room actually she kept kissing the lad so he chanced his arm again,Does that make him a rapist ? If so then we're a nation full of rapists myself included.

mzungu

Shelga wrote: »

I think the reason the thread has run on so long is that many people find it disturbing that such accounts can be published online these days, followed by lots of women congratulating the author on being 'so brave'. 5 or 10 years ago, Rosemary would have recounted this story to a friend, who would have rightfully agreed that the guy was a sleaze, sympathised with her, and they would have moved on.

Nowadays, you can write whatever you want and then shut out people who disagree with you or simply want clarification. The only reason there are so many pages here is not because we're all horrible people who want to attack Rosemary- I stood up for her at the start- but because rape is horrific and people are alarmed that the word is thrown around so freely.

She knows herself this wouldn't have a hope in hell of standing up in court, not because it was so long ago or lack of physical evidence, but because even if jurors believe her account, it still doesn't make what happened rape.

I like to think that all the people applauding her in the comments section on her blog would scrutinise more seriously if they were ever on a jury in a rape case. This does not mean asking her horrible questions, criticising her appearance, or slut shaming her in any way. Just establishing that yes, consent was ultimately given.

I am simplifying things here, but I do think a jury would convict somebody who did not stop after being requested to.

I know there would be a lot more evidence (on both sides) in an actual trial, but surely a jury would see that as lack of consent?

shanno666

neonsofa wrote: »

So if a girl consents to sex and then during it the man becomes extremely rough and hurts her, she says "you're actually hurting me, can you stop please?" If he continues to have painful sex with her despite her asking him to stop a few times then its her fault for not trying to fight harder and make a scene against a man who has already caused her physical pain. Cause she ultimately gave consent, so game over?

There are grey areas, this thread has surely shown you that, it is not black and white all the time and speaking in absolutes like that is doing a disservice to those trying to teach young (and not so young) people about consent.

Did you read the same blog post i did ? if so how on earth can you compare what you just wrote to what she said happened ? madness

Koptain Liverpool

Crea wrote: »

So the message to guys is that it's ok to keep putting on the pressure even if she says no? She needs to make a scene in order to be heard?
Tbh in this day and age this attitude is beyond annoying.
Just ****ing listen!

No that's not the message. Read the thread properly dope.

What's annoying is that anyone gives the time of day to this attention seeking rubbish

neonsofa

shanno666 wrote: »

Did you read the same blog post i did ? if so how on earth can you compare what you just wrote to what she said happened ? madness

The discussion has developed, people are discussing consent generally and quoting the relevant points of discussion to illustrate the context in which they are discussing it. Neither myself, nor the previous poster you replied to, are discussing the original blog post. We were discussing another posters comment on consent generally. So you can take a seat and chill out there, all is fine with the world, your "madness" and confusion is unwarranted.

Crea

shanno666 wrote: »

A scene ? she didn't even ask him to stop or leave the room actually she kept kissing the lad so he chanced his arm again,Does that make him a rapist ? If so then we're a nation full of rapists myself included.

No means stop. She also says that she said no a number of times. Tbh why couldn't he just listen? My original post says that this doesn't necessarily make him a rapist but he certainly is a stupid asshole for not listening and stopping when she says no. Sounds like you and many in this nation are guilty of that and really you should be taking a good look at your own behaviour if your happy to keep pressurising a woman into sex despite her saying no.

Mountainsandh

neonsofa wrote: »

So if a girl consents to sex and then during it the man becomes extremely rough and hurts her, she says "you're actually hurting me, can you stop please?" If he continues to have painful sex with her despite her asking him to stop a few times then its her fault for not trying to fight harder and make a scene against a man who has already caused her physical pain. Cause she ultimately gave consent, so game over?

There are grey areas, this thread has surely shown you that, it is not black and white all the time and speaking in absolutes like that is doing a disservice to those trying to teach young (and not so young) people about consent.

Hurting someone and continuing is violence though.
That's a whole new kettle of fish when a guy turns violent instead of pushy.

Shelga

Crea wrote: »

If a guy keeps pressuring a girl to have sex despite her saying no a number of times may not be a rapist but he is certainly an asshole. They don't give a **** what the girl really wants, they're just looking to have sex regardless.
It is beyond annoying when you are trying to object and he just isn't listening. Generally there are 2 options 1) Get really cross and make a scene so he finally gets the message into his stupid head. 2)Go along with it and regret it. It appears that plenty of guys are quite happy with putting girls in this situation because her feelings aren't important.
If a girl says no a few times then you really need to question if you really should be having sex with a person who is having doubts. BTW the answer is no, in case you're wondering. Instead of saying "Ah, go on". You should be saying "Do you want to do this?". And then respect her answer.

I don't know how to multi-quote, but there is so much wrong with what you just said. Absolutely, this guy is a pushy creep who can't read signals. Why couldn't we just have had a conversation about that? It's awful and pervasive and a real problem. Why use the word rape?

Who ever said it is ok to put girls in this situation because her feelings aren't important? Don't think a single person has said that on this thread. All of the valid debate about pushiness and the insidious way some guys will psychologically wear a girl down into having sex has been put into second place because Rosemary chose to use the word rape.

Think I am going to duck out now too. The thread has been very enlightening and interesting but don't think my brain can take much more.

Skyfarm

Wibbs wrote: »

but not in sexual abuse stats gathered all over the place for decades anyway. Just as men are more likely to be victims of violence, women are more likely to be victims of sexual assault. This is not to denigrate the real suffering of anyone, but IMH it helps nobody to twist reality to a particular worldview.

HI Wibbs, have great respect for your points over the years, but its not correct,i go back to my ninety nine going to rape centre and them offering no support , just because women generated facts done by organisations that need financial support to further their cause aren't going to present facts that support the view "abuse is equal" or the numbers are so small it doesn't matter

how many times have we heard reports of rape on the battlefield against men ?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_males

go to any news story that has a 14 yr male being abused by a teacher (im being general) and the vast majority is "lucky lad" etc i have read comments from women that he is lucky getting training etc

while not the greatest of wiki fans , i respect the input and checkable facts

Sexual assault victims need extensive emotional and psychological healing after the raping, but male survivors are not likely to speak out their cases. Elizabeth Donovan, a psychotherapist, said; "Males have the added burden of facing a society that doesn't believe rape can happen to them ...

neonsofa

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Hurting someone and continuing is violence though.
That's a whole new kettle of fish when a guy turns violent instead of pushy.

Exactly, which is why that poster shouldn't speak in absolutes they way they did. You can't say "consent was given, game over, suck it up". There are grey areas and like the one I outlined. I'm not comparing that example to the one in the op, just giving an example of why people shouldn't speak in absolutes like that poster did.