"Why I did not report my rapist"

Crea

Koptain Liverpool wrote: »

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

I have read the thread properly and a number of posters seem to think that it's ok to proceed with sexual advances despite being told no. In fact a number of posters have admitted to doing it themselves.

retro:electro

Crea wrote: »

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.

How did he pressure her? As has already been covered, she may have been verbally saying no but her body language said otherwise. It was an ambiguous situation where mixed messages were sent. He may have thought consent was applied, she even said as much on Twitter. She had an inner dialogue with herself throughout, and she knew she could have stopped the situation at any time if she told him she did not fancy him. She chose not to do that. That does not make or anyone else here who has done similar a rapist.

Mountainsandh

mzungu wrote: »

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?

I have been wondering too mzungu, but I think a jury would request (or have) a lot more information as to non-verbal communication.

It has often been simplified and derided on this thread, but I think the manner a word is said is important.

For example (she wasn't as far as we know but take a hypothetical case) if the girl was giggling/laughing and saying "no". (like another poster mentioned).

I think a jury would consider the non-verbal cues.

Crea

Shelga wrote: »

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.

If you read my post properly you will see that I said it wasn't rape. I was trying to open the dialogue regarding guys being pushy creeps, not listening and pressurising women into sex. I agree that it would have been for more useful if Rosemary took this line as it is a real problem for women.

One eyed Jack

Mountainsandh wrote: »

- young people's communication skills are shyte, something really needs to be done about it. Shyte communication can lead to situation RMC writes about.

People are shyte communicators generally, I don't think that's at all restricted to young people. In the account given, it reads to me as though the guy was ignoring the fact that she said no, and had no intention of listening to her when she said no. For me personally, I couldn't care less if they were kissing or taking their clothes off, the fact that she said no three times and he continued on is enough to suggest that he was going to continue on regardless.

- is it rape because she wanted to avoid an awkward conversation ?

No, it's rape if she says she was raped. Her reasons for why she considers she was raped are a consideration after the fact.

- she can't just accuse a guy of rape online

She can, anyone can, and they do. But the only place where it actually matters, is in a Court of Law. As RMC is finding out now, there are consequences too both positive and negative to an admission that she was raped and publishing her account online.

- she should have involved the justice system.

She should have done a lot of things, but she didn't. It's easy to judge in hindsight what she should, could have done, based upon what we think she should, could have done, but the fact is she didn't. That's not to say she still couldn't, or can't now. There are many reasons why someone would publish an account online and wouldn't go through the judicial process with an allegation, because just like there are consequences of going through the judicial process (one of the most common reasons why they don't, is the fear of not being believed), and for what it's worth, I don't believe for a minute that RMC wasn't aware that there were people who wouldn't believe her if she published her account of the events of that night online.

A defence solicitor would go through her for a shortcut too, it's what they're paid to do too, so it's understandable that she would feel she wouldn't stand a chance in front of a jury. If I were a member of the jury, I may have my own biases, but there would be insufficient evidence to be able to determine whether the anonymous other party involved could be found guilty of rape. It's important to remember that he would be on trial, not RMC.

FishOnABike

anna080 wrote: »

My friend (who is a girl) told me she posted on her Facebook saying she disagreed it was rape and RMC has hidden her comment, another girl has questioned Rosemary on twitter asking why is her comment hidden from the FB discussion. She seems to be hiding comments from women who are not supporting her but doesn't mind leaving the ones who are left by men. She's manipulating her comments and framing it as a women vs men issue, and as though all women are supporting her and all men are against her, when that's certainly not the case. Dangerous piece of work.

TBH, more women need to call her out on her bs, she's not doing either gender any favours.

"Social influencer" - it appears more and more like social manipulator.

The discussion here on boards has been lively, informative and reflected the whole spectrum of views without, as far as I can see, much need for moderation or editorial influence.

Freedom of expression is fundamental to healthy discussion. When a blog blocks those with differing views, removes comments they don't agree with and selctively picks quotes (or not) depending on how much they are in line with the blogger's viewpoint one has to question the integrity and value of the blog itself.

Lau2976

I feel sorry for Ms Maccabe in this situation. I can see why she would think it's rape and I can see why others would not. also when you put yourself in those echo chamber as so many do it can be very difficult to accept that anybody not in there with you isnt just an internet troll when in reality they are making valid points.

Her situation is a grey area and so she should have expected some level of healthy debate to occur.

infogiver

Crea wrote: »

I have read the thread properly and a number of posters seem to think that it's ok to proceed with sexual advances despite being told no. In fact a number of posters have admitted to doing it themselves.

I've read the thread too and what is clear is that some posters don't believe that a 21 year old woman in an adult situation should have to take personal responsibility for a adult situation that she was so clearly completely unqualified to deal with.
Saying "no" while continuing to kiss and remove your clothes before deciding to have sex rather then have an awkward verbal exchange is indicative of immaturity and low self esteem on behalf of the woman and deciding 15 years later that it was not only the mans fault, but more, he raped you is very disturbing.
Even 15 years later she can't accept that she had it totally within her gift at the time to reject his advances(she says herself she wasn't frightened) she didn't and that's her fault and not his.

meeeeh

infogiver wrote: »

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?

Nothing. The post was pages ago as reply to someone who was complaining that there are third wave feminists popping up everywhere and voicing their opinion or something similar. And of course there were some snowflake comments flying around. That post was in context of debate pages ago and I didn't say anything about Rosemary's replys.

retro:electro

Lau2976 wrote: »

I feel sorry for Ms Maccabe in this situation. I can see why she would think it's rape and I can see why others would not. also when you put yourself in those echo chamber as so many do it can be very difficult to accept that anybody not in there with you isnt just an internet troll when in reality they are making valid points.

Her situation is a grey area and so she should have expected some level of healthy debate to occur.

I agree this kind of debate is important. It opens up conversation and addresses questions that otherwise may not have occurred. It's rich that she wants to shut down all discussion when it's not going in her favour though, maybe she should shut down her blog post where she called someone a rapist without due process.

infogiver

FishOnABike wrote: »

"Social influencer" - it appears more and more like social manipulator.

The discussion here on boards has been lively, informative and reflected the whole spectrum of views without, as far as I can see, much need for moderation or editorial influence.

Freedom of expression is fundamental to healthy discussion. When a blog blocks those with differing views, removes comments they don't agree with and selctively picks quotes (or not) depending on how much they are in line with the blogger's viewpoint one has to question the integrity and value of the blog itself.

Correct. It now has no integrity or value and can't be taken in any way seriously at all.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

neonsofa wrote: »

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.

And let's just say we agree on the first arguement (just for a second) in that she decided to have sex after saying no by implied consent.

Let's assume that during the act she's upset and feels she made the wrong choice, and actually she would rather that awkward conversation, if at that point she says "Actually, I don't want to do this, stop" then she's not given consent, gave consent and then during sex has taken it back - if he did not stop after she said so, even after initially consenting, then it's absolutely 100% rape.

But she doesn't mention that she withdrew consent after continuing with her implied consent.

shanno666

Crea wrote: »

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.

All she has said was he was stubborn,nothing about being pressured actually she chose to have sex with him to avoid a conversation,Just because someone says the word no you cant disregard their actions after saying it.She said no and continued to stay there kissing the lad so he chanced his arm again,do you expect anything else from a drunken college lad alone in a bedroom with a girl ?

My own behavior is fine and i have never pressured anyone into sex but when the OH is in the horrors with me and im trying to make up sometimes she will no im still pissed off with you etc until i win her round ? am i pressuring her ? absolutely not,Like most normal human beings i can gauge when enough is enough

neonsofa

LexieOnRale wrote: »

And let's just say we agree on the first arguement (just for a second) in that she decided to have sex after saying no by implied consent.

Let's assume that during the act she's upset and feels she made the wrong choice, and actually she would rather that awkward conversation, if at that point she says "Actually, I don't want to do this, stop" then she's not given consent, gave consent and then during sex has taken it back - if he did not stop after she said so, even after initially consenting, then it's absolutely 100% rape.

But she doesn't mention that she withdrew consent after continuing with her implied consent.

I absolutely agree. I am not saying otherwise.

My post was in response to someone speaking in absolutes about consent generally, not the case in the op. My only point was that you cannot say "once consent is given, game over unless you cause a scene".

meeeeh

infogiver wrote: »

Correct. It now has no integrity or value and can't be taken in any way seriously at all.

And yet there are women who lap oodles of sponsored content and keep on following them despite being aware what it actually is. Ironically they are making them money.

Mountainsandh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People are shyte communicators generally, I don't think that's at all restricted to young people. In the account given, it reads to me as though the guy was ignoring the fact that she said no, and had no intention of listening to her when she said no. For me personally, I couldn't care less if they were kissing or taking their clothes off, the fact that she said no three times and he continued on is enough to suggest that he was going to continue on regardless.

Yeah, that's where we disagree. I don't think the account of what happened shows any of that. She says he's a nice guy repeatedly, that he probably wasn't aware of how she felt, that he wouldn't see himself as a rapist.

- is it rape because she wanted to avoid an awkward conversation ?

No, it's rape if she says she was raped. Her reasons for why she considers she was raped are a consideration after the fact.

Wooaahh... I have a massive issue with that. (that has already been discussed on thread so it would be going around in circles to re-discuss imo)

She can, anyone can, and they do. ... there are consequences

Yeah, I get that. I was more "pub talking" like "you can't be doing that lads" d'Unbelievable style.

She should have done a lot of things, but she didn't. It's easy to judge in hindsight what she should, could have done, based upon what we think she should, could have done, but the fact is she didn't.

You can't just bring it back to this "in hindsight, blah blah" that everyone does in post-mortems of such situations. Not in this case. I was not talking necessarily about what she should have done 15 years ago.

I'm talking about what she should have done now, 15 years later, as she decided to write a post and publish it, accusing someone of rape.

And if you argue that she's ok to publish something as incriminating as that, surely you can understand that I'm ok to give my opinion that "she should have".

SHE SHOULD HAVE SHE SHOULD HAVE SHE SHOULD HAVE.
There !

Crea

infogiver wrote: »

I've read the thread too and what is clear is that some posters don't believe that a 21 year old woman in an adult situation should have to take personal responsibility for a adult situation that she was so clearly completely unqualified to deal with.
Saying "no" while continuing to kiss and remove your clothes before deciding to have sex rather then have an awkward verbal exchange is indicative of immaturity and low self esteem on behalf of the woman and deciding 15 years later that it was not only the mans fault, but more, he raped you is very disturbing.
Even 15 years later she can't accept that she had it totally within her gift at the time to reject his advances(she says herself she wasn't frightened) she didn't and that's her fault and not his.

You can't see any fault in his behaviour? Seriously?

One eyed Jack

anna080 wrote: »

I agree this kind of debate is important. It opens up conversation and addresses questions that otherwise may not have occurred. It's rich that she wants to shut down all discussion when it's not going in her favour though, maybe she should shut down her blog post where she called someone a rapist without due process.

Due process would only be relevant if she made a complaint to Gardaí naming a specific person in her complaint. There's no person is specifically mentioned in her blog. All it actually is, is an account where she claims she was raped. Literally anyone can do that, can say they were raped, and it doesn't automatically have any repercussions for anyone else. If someone were able to identify themselves from the details given, it would be up to them to take a case against RMC if they thought they had one.

cursai

I'm looking at this thread with great despair for common sense.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

That's a ridiculous statement - you can withdraw consent at anytime

retro:electro

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Due process would only be relevant if she made a complaint to Gardaí naming a specific person in her complaint. There's no person is specifically mentioned in her blog. All it actually is, is an account where she claims she was raped. Literally anyone can do that, can say they were raped, and it doesn't automatically have any repercussions for anyone else. If someone were able to identify themselves from the details given, it would be up to them to take a case against RMC if they thought they had one.

All she has done is "influence" people into thinking that they too can go about calling people rapists if they too decide however long after engaging in sex that they regret it and wish they had chosen option A instead of option B.

Outlaw Pete

Just reading what she said about McGregor and how (according to her) there's no comparison in how people are speaking of her with how she spoke about him.

"I quoted him, in an interview saying some incredibly misogynistic things about women. Relevance?"

Well, she didn't just quote Conor at all. What she did was take something he said (jokingly) about the Kardashians and then claimed it meant something it clearly did not mean. At the end of the day the Kardashians make a living from posting images of themselves online (particularly images of a certain part of their bodies - the one Conor referenced) and so how the hell could McGregor saying he wouldn't mind seeing said part of their bodies around Malibu make him a "misogynist" ffs? Which is what she claimed his comments did.

That in itself is bad enough but she then unbelievably took his octagon quote ("The double champ does whatever the hell he wants") and spoke about it as if this was something he had said in the context of his interactions with women, when quite clearly the quote has nothing to do with anything of the sort, it was regarding mma. She insinuated that him saying this meant he felt he could grope women whenever he wanted to.

As sentiments go, it’s a familiar one – it seems like just yesterday that the now US President Donald Trump talked about how he can (because he’s male, rich and powerful) “grab [women] by the pussy.” Similarly, quips McGregor: “The double champ does what the **** he wants.”

Conor McGregor and rape culture

This should be a lightning bolt to rape culture deniers everywhere – but don’t get sidetracked by the word “rape.” Conor McGregor isn’t telling us that he condones rape; what he is doing is telling us, very explicitly, that he views women as objects; that he’s invincible; that power (and, arguably, maleness) entitle him to do, touch, take, whatever it is he wants.

That is rape culture – a culture in which women are reduced to objects and men are, above all else, entitled to do with said object whatever they see fit. “I just have a confidence that comes from my big ball sack,” confirms McGregor.

We should be worried – two of the world’s most powerful men frequently speak about themselves like all-powerful gods, and about women as things to be grabbed, groped and ogled. It’s a culture and it’s spreading – how can we teach our children to respect women and men equally, when the world’s most famous fighter, an icon and role model to many, is telling them the exact opposite?

We can only hope that fatherhood will give Conor McGregor a fresh perspective – it might even be worth hoping for a girl, whose existence may just prompt him to rethink his stance on women, what they’re good for and what powerful men are entitled to take from them.

Yet when people read her public blog and begin discussing what it is that they think her comments say about her, she immediately suggests they should not be allowed to have such a platform and implies they should be muzzled. Seems the goose wants to be treated differently to the gander.

She complained that her character was being dissected here but what she fails to appreciate is that our words and our actions reflect on our characters. If I say I throw litter around the place or that I wouldn't hand in a wallet should I happen to find one, that shows my character. And Rosemary, when you let someone have sex with you to avoid having to tell them you don't fancy them, then later claim that person is a rapist... that reflects on yours.

The fact she put up a selfie of her crying shows what a tool she is. Imagine the thought process there. "Oh I'm crying, better grab my iPhone 7".

Gobshite.

retro:electro

If she really used Mc Gregor's comment out of context like that to manipulate her agenda then that is completely disgraceful and she needs to be challenged on that.
Crying about her character being dissected here but doesn't mind completely manipulating his words to gain traction. And I say that as someone who is not a McGregor fan.

Outlaw Pete

anna080 wrote: »

If she really used Mc Gregor's comment out of context like that to manipulate her agenda then that is completely disgraceful and she needs to be challenged on that.

Yup, she absolutely did.

Here's the quote in context:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvctKq7Ba3c

retro:electro

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yup, she totally did.

Here's that quote in context:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvctKq7Ba3c

Christ. I refer back to what I said earlier on. This woman is dangerous.

mzungu

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I have been wondering too mzungu, but I think a jury would request (or have) a lot more information as to non-verbal communication.

It has often been simplified and derided on this thread, but I think the manner a word is said is important.

For example (she wasn't as far as we know but take a hypothetical case) if the girl was giggling/laughing and saying "no". (like another poster mentioned).

I think a jury would consider the non-verbal cues.

Without doubt they would, but lets say during cross examination he is asked why did he continue after hearing "no" three times, is there really any answer there that does not come across as highly suspect to a jury? The non-verbal side of things could end up being both sides saying they were, or were not consenting with body language. Obviously, this is assuming the defendant would freely admit that he continued on after being asked to stop etc.

When it came to jury deliberations and weighing both sides up. One the one hand you two separate accounts of body language, on the other you know for a fact it was requested on three occasions to call a halt.

They know there was no verbal consent, so even taking into account how she said "no", there would still be no getting away from him hearing it and not stopping.

Mountainsandh

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Just reading what she said about McGregor and how (according to her) there's no comparison in how people are speaking of her with how she spoke about him.

Well, she didn't just quote Conor at all. What she did was take something he said (jokingly) about the Kardashians and then claimed it meant something it clearly did not mean. Which is what she claimed his comments did.

That in itself is bad enough but she then unbelievably took his octagon quote ("The double champ does whatever the hell he wants") and spoke about it as if this was something he had said in the context of his interactions with women, when quite clearly the quote has nothing to do with anything of the sort, it was regarding mma. She insinuated that him saying this meant he felt he could grope women whenever he wanted to.

Oh, I had seen references to that, but hadn't bothered to read her piece on him.
I see what you mean, she does do a bit of a tabloid selective quoting doesn't she ? And strategic comparison with Trump...

It does discredit her further, to see her engaging in a bit of editing like that, for someone like myself who wouldn't be familiar with her writing.

It would make me question whether her account of her story on the alleged rape is similarly edited.

neonsofa

LexieOnRale wrote: »

That's a ridiculous statement - you can withdraw consent at anytime

My point exactly.

And I think this blogger has-in one way- taken the discussion on consent a few steps back actually, because people are so quick to denounce her case that they aren't even reading clear posts discussing consent generally, they are instantly wanting to say "this girl wasn't raped" when people aren't even defending this girl, just discussing the many grey areas that do exist, but some posters here (not you) seem to be losing sight of the other genuine grey areas, as they feel that accepting these do exist is the same as accepting her case. If that makes sense?

In a way it is almost muddying the waters more for the genuine grey areas, people (again not you) are going in the opposite direction and taking a hardline approach of "she must shout no and kick him off to show she is bot consenting" which is equally wrong.

It is a nuanced and complex issue and people (myself included) who have tried to understand or view things from another perspective to either have a greater insight or to highlight incorrect information or a stance we don't agree with, have been met with defensive posts assuming we are taking her "side" or trying to change what she said when that is actually not the case at all. It would be a very boring discussion if we all just said "yep we all agree on this one, so let's call it a day". And I think it has been a great discussion but it's a bit tiresome when you make a post that is obviously not in relation to the op, and you have stated that in your post, and people say "she decided to have sex, she wasn't raped, that's not what happended" etc. In any other thread people would accept that the discussion has moved on but some people here seem to be so focused on denouncing this woman's story that they don't even want to read what actually is being discussed.

Mountainsandh

mzungu wrote: »

Without doubt they would, but lets say during cross examination he is asked why did he continue after hearing "no" three times, is there really any answer there that does not come across as highly suspect to a jury? The non-verbal side of things could end up being both sides saying they were, or were not consenting with body language. Obviously, this is assuming the defendant would freely admit that he continued on after being asked to stop etc.

When it came to jury deliberations and weighing both sides up. One the one hand you two separate accounts of body language, on the other you know for a fact it was requested on three occasions to call a halt.

They know there was no verbal consent, so even taking into account how she said "no", there would still be no getting away from him hearing it and not stopping.

Well yes, they would know about it, but it doesn't mean they would convict him.