"Why I did not report my rapist"

infogiver

Crea wrote: »

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

Yes he was being a pest. Being a pest is not being a rapist. Being a pest is a human condition. It's not a crime. Both sexes can be pests. When your an adult you have to deal with adult situations and if you can't deal with them then that is your problem. It is your fault, not the pests fault.
If I answer the doorbell while I'm making a cake and there is a woman there who wants me to sign up for a charity, and she's very insistent and stubborn, and I want to go back to my cake so I quickly sign up for the charity instead of saying "no thank you. Good day" then is it my fault or the stubborn persistent woman's fault?

One eyed Jack

anna080 wrote: »

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.

People were doing that long before RMC existed, and they'll continue to do it long after she's gone. People call people rapists for no reason other than they don't like the "rapey" head on them. I was having drinks with my mate once in the club and she spotted a guy walking to the bar "jesus I'd fcuking rape him!", it jarred, because she knew I worked with people who have experienced all sorts of abuse (including sexual abuse and rape) at the time.

It happens, I wasn't going to get angsty about it, not because I didn't want to have an awkward conversation (we've had plenty of those!), but because it just wasn't something worth pulling her up on IMO. I've often talked to people who claim they have been raped, and I'm not one for saying to anyone who claims they have been raped, to say "no you weren't". I might have a different perspective on it in my own head, but I'd rather they came to an understanding themselves that helped them, rather than me tell them straight out - "No you weren't, you consented!", etc.

You have no idea how many times people will look at me straight in the face and say "You have no idea what it's like", and they're right. I have no idea what it's like, for them. I'll rarely talk about my own experience because to be quite frank, it's fcuked up, and that's an awkward conversation I don't want to be having, with anyone.

As for the whole "but she was kissing him while she was saying no" stuff, so what? Genuinely! I've heard that more times from people who have been raped, in fact that's why like I said earlier so many details of RMC's account are what makes it actually all the more plausible, or was she coached, or is she just incredibly articulate, or are the inconsistencies just another detail that adds to the plausibility of her claims.

It's simply impossible to know anything with any certainty, and I'm not going to say she wasn't raped if she herself says she was, then she says she wasn't, because I understand that even 20, 30 years later, people who have been through horrific experiences will still question themselves and tell themselves they weren't raped. I'm not going to tell them whether they were or they weren't, because it doesn't matter what I believe.

Outlaw Pete

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...

There's plenty of perfectly in context comments to demonstrate his position on women, such as him referring to a female reporter using her "tight little ass" to get a raise. And did he refer to his desire to see 2 female fighters, one "ridin (his) dick and one lickin (his) toes"?

johnnyskeleton

professore wrote: »

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.

I dont think that she is suggesting that she only regretted it afterwards.

Rape requires three things:
1. Sex
2. No consent
3. That he knew or was reckless to the fact that there was no consent.

She seems to be pointing out an instance where, although there was no consent, she doesnt think he knew or was reckless as to whether there was no consent.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this particular case, there must be a large number of women in this position - they didnt consent but they also know that the man mightnt have known there was no consent.

In this scenario it is correct to say that she honestly experienced non consensual sex, but is also aware objectively that the third element of the offence either wasnt present or cant be proven.

As a narrative Ive no problem with that. Its clearly an issue many people have to face. And ive no problem with her highlighting this and she shouldnt face abuse or criticism for pointing it out.

But there is one problem - her putative remedy. One person on twitter basically said "i hope people can report these offences to the gardai". And thats sensible advice. Her response is basically to say "no, youre putting the onus on the victim":

https://mobile.twitter.com/RosemaryMacCabe/status/835612105533444097

This whole rape culture stuff disproportionately affects one group of people - rape victims. It tells them "dont go to the gardai because the system is against you" and wants them to join their movement. So the solution to a percieved hostility to rape victims is to make them even more alienated from society? That makes no sense to me.

It remind me of the Louise O Neill programme where she had a senior prosecuting barrister explain the system. But rather than try to find ways to make the system better for rape victims (for which the barrister im sure would gladly oblige) she turned it into a diatribe about how the system was rigged against rape victims. Essentially trying to turn rape victims away from the official channels.

retro:electro

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There's plenty of perfectly in context comments to demonstrate his position on women, such as him referring to a female reporter using her "tight little ass" to get a raise. And did he refer to his desire to see 2 female fighters, one "ridin (his) dick and one lickin (his) toes"?

Well she should have concentrated on those so, instead of "I do whatever I want" as if he is some impending sexual aggressor waiting to rape women whenever he feels like it

Mountainsandh

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I dont think that she is suggesting that she only regretted it afterwards.

Rape requires three things:
1. Sex
2. No consent
3. That he knew or was reckless to the fact that there was no consent.

She seems to be pointing out an instance where, although there was no consent, she doesnt think he knew or was reckless as to whether there was no consent.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this particular case, there must be a large number of women in this position - they didnt consent but they also know that the man mightnt have known there was no consent.

In this scenario it is correct to say that she honestly experienced non consensual sex, but is also aware objectively that the third element of the offence either wasnt present or cant be proven.

Well, she's also not clear on the "no consent" part herself.
She says she decided to let him have sex with her. She decided sex.

Thus the debate about consent.

Tigger

anna080 wrote: »

Well she should have concentrated on those so, instead of "I do whatever I want" as if he is some impending sexual aggressor waiting to rape women whenever he feels like it

well she can now its been stated with no source and with (his) added for context with no context
musvt be true

mzungu

Mountainsandh wrote: »

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

Agreed.

However, my original point was in response to this post:

shelga wrote:

She knows herself this wouldn't have a hope in hell of standing up in court,

So, my point is that there could very well be enough there for a conviction due to the lack of verbal consent.

mzungu

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?

Upon hearing "I let him have sex with me to avoid an awkward conversation" I know which way I'd be voting if I were on that jury. To let someone do something is to allow them to. The reason of "to avoid an awkward conversation" does not show any fear of safety whatsoever and would be a massive reason in the making of my decision.

And if I was the judge, I'd order them both to keep away from each other. Ya know, to avoid awkwardness and all that.

Canis Lupus

Omackeral wrote: »

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.

That stupid fecking selfie annoys me no end and then in her twitter she gives out about being called an attention wh*re. Christ....

Crea

infogiver wrote: »

Yes he was being a pest. Being a pest is not being a rapist. Being a pest is a human condition. It's not a crime. Both sexes can be pests. When your an adult you have to deal with adult situations and if you can't deal with them then that is your problem. It is your fault, not the pests fault.
If I answer the doorbell while I'm making a cake and there is a woman there who wants me to sign up for a charity, and she's very insistent and stubborn, and I want to go back to my cake so I quickly sign up for the charity instead of saying "no thank you. Good day" then is it my fault or the stubborn persistent woman's fault?

Being put in the situation where you have to continually say no is certainly the pests fault. Why is it OK for him not to listen and keep pressurising her? Being an adult also means not acting like a ****ing horny idiot who loses the ability to hear what another person is saying just because they want to get their rocks off. Having to get physically and verbally aggressive in order to get someone to stop is not acceptable. No means no.

meeeeh

mzungu wrote: »

Agreed.

However, my original point was in response to this post:

So, my point is that there could very well be enough there for a conviction due to the lack of verbal consent.

I'm not going to speculate what jury would do. But very few alleged rapes end in conviction. And secondly the state has the whole apparatus on it's disposal and it's up to them to prove someone is guilty not for accused to prove they are innocent. While I think that is very fair it also makes it notoriously difficult. In this case I think it's very unlikely this would get much further than report to the guards. Speculation about jury is kind of pointless.

Buford T. Justice XIX

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.

- 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, 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 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.

Well, that's the most disturbing thing I've read in a long, long time.

Let's turn this around for a minute.

Said accused rapist posts a blog giving a different account of the happenings on the night in question saying he was pressurised into having sex with her as he felt she would not have been able to handle the rejection.

He proceeds to call her a rapist.

According to your definition, it would be perfectly OK for her to be referred to as a rapist. Indeed, for all we know, having heard only one side of the story, something similar may have happened on that night or a proceeding night or a subsequent night. Would he be within his rights to refer to her as a rapist? Is it within his(or her) remit to define what constitutes rape?

That's why we have courts and laws which define meaning of words such as rapist. I don't believe he should call her a rapist and vice versa and consequently I don't believe that she has the right to define the term to suit her own purposes.

And those purposes have been exposed numerous times on this thread.

I feel sorry for her in that she feels hard done by but she has no right to blacken someone elses name so she can earn a living out of it. She made a mistake in taking the easier option on the particular night and now compounds that mistake by accusing an unknowing party of committing a heinous assault on her on the night in question.

She is not going to come out of this smelling of roses and I have little pity for her, tbh, as what happens subsequently was instigated by her.

py2006

https://twitter.com/RosemaryMacCabe/status/835581209489047552

https://twitter.com/RosemaryMacCabe/status/835581334726852608

https://twitter.com/RosemaryMacCabe/status/835582025960677376

Don't worry, you will get your articles in mainstream media just like Una and Louise if you keep going this direction. They have ads! ;-)

https://twitter.com/RosemaryMacCabe/status/834828060562186240

https://twitter.com/RosemaryMacCabe/status/835243838222532608

Apparently we are all mens rights activists now? If MRA is the male equivalent of modern feminism then NO WAY am I apart of that.

The increase in ludicrous feminist articles of late (una + louise and now this) is causing concern among right thinking people (men and women). It is a good thing we are discussing them here and not accepting them.

If you want to be a snowflake in a safe space free to write anything you want and post it on the net without criticism then you may need to follow the yellow brick road to find that place...

professore

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!

This thread is not about that. Of course he's an asshole, but he isn't a rapist. This thread is about rape. This thread is about giving a guy a life sentence or destroying his reputation.

I 100% agree it's not OK. Ironically by her own account, if she had said just ****ing listen to him, he would have.

Outlaw Pete

Crea wrote: »

No means no.

Agreed, but if consent can be refused at any point during sexual intercourse / sexual interactions.. then it can also be given at any point too also.

Both sexes can be guilty of attempting to persuade someone to have sex when that person doesn't want to... but caving to such people doesn't make them rapists.

Mountainsandh

Crea wrote: »

Being put in the situation where you have to continually say no is certainly the pests fault. Why is it OK for him not to listen and keep pressurising her? Being an adult also means not acting like a ****ing horny idiot who loses the ability to hear what another person is saying just because they want to get their rocks off. Having to get physically and verbally aggressive in order to get someone to stop is not acceptable. No means no.

I think most people on here agree with you.
Sure, look at the forum charter : "don't be a díck".
In life, we're all hoping that people won't be a díck with us, and we (hopefully) try not to be ourselves.

But there's dícks everywhere (I'm saying it too much, it's becoming comical ), and we just have to deal with it. Life's like that, people are like that. They're not necessarily bad people, they just act stupidly sometimes. We all do sometimes.

There's no need to be verbally or physically aggressive, just to be more assertive.

I'm just going to pretend I'm my husband here, because he'd put it in a much clearer, if less tactful or PC way : "some people are thick, you just have to talk to them like they're thick".

You don't just let them at it, and then say you were raped.

Richard Hillman

The scary thing about this is that the man in question would easily be identifiable to people who know this woman. She has made an unsubstantiated claim that he raped her. He cannot sue her because she didn't identify him and if he could, he probably wouldn't want to draw attention to the situation because it may further tarnish his name. This guy has now been tarred as a rapist within their circle of friends.


Forget about this single incident for a second. Do people not see a massive problem with saying something like she did? A person can now insinuate that they were raped without providing any evidence behind it. That is scary, scary stuff. It could be your son, it could be your brother, it could be your friend, it could be you. All because you had sex with a psycho who is looking for clicks on her blog.

A good few pages back I posted about that I was cheating on my girlfriend with another girl. When I went to the girl I was cheating with to stop it, she was having none of it and I just had sex with her anyway. If I posted that on my Facebook page or on a blog, everybody I know and she knows would know exactly who it is. We'd still be friends so everyone would probably just laugh about it.

From my experience, I can see how easily identifiable this is for people who would know them. This woman needs to either retract what she said or take it to Gardai to allow this man to either clear his name or be punished for his alleged crime.

professore

The analogy of the sales person coming to your door or the chugger on the street are good examples. I can't write an article 15 years later how "I didn't report the theft" if I sign a direct debit because it was easier than showing them the door. These people use asshole tactics all the time - because they work with some people. They will lie profusely about their products pricing etc to get the sale. Didn't make it illegal though.

And the way she said he was a "nice guy". He wasn't, he was a selfish prick.

By far the worse thing about this thread isn't this blogger and her experience - which I've no doubt was unpleasant and was difficult for her to reconcile. I sincerely hope she comes to terms with what happened, hopefully in a more insightful and honest way than she has so far.

The worst thing here is the sheer number of posters who have recounted experiences of clear sexual assault and rape, or close calls. There are far too many of them, and that's very difficult to read.

Calhoun

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Plenty of posters simply resorted to insulting the blogger. It's a despicable tactic to use against someone who believes they were raped, even if they are wrong.

Hahah come off of it, its equally despicable in a world where we are to take rape as one of the most heinous of crimes use it as a tactic to grow your little blogging empire at possibly the sake of the guy that "you didnt want to ruin his life" but left enough information in the article so it could be narrowed down to him.

Do we as society want rape to be taken seriously or do we want reduce the significance of it? If we take it seriously then we have a societal responsibility to report it to the authorities and have it go through the rigors of our court system. If we don't then we should keep the trial by media going and redefine it to our own personal meaning of rape because we dont want to take personal responsibility.

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Forget about this single incident for a second. Do people not see a massive problem with saying some like she did? A person can now insinuate that they were raped without providing any evidence behind it...

In many cases where a woman says she was raped, the evidence usually consists of the act of sex plus the issue of consent. Not all cases involve black eyes and bruised thighs or bleeding. A woman does not need to prove she was raped in some Court before asserting she was raped.

infogiver

Crea wrote: »

Being put in the situation where you have to continually say no is certainly the pests fault. Why is it OK for him not to listen and keep pressurising her? Being an adult also means not acting like a ****ing horny idiot who loses the ability to hear what another person is saying just because they want to get their rocks off. Having to get physically and verbally aggressive in order to get someone to stop is not acceptable. No means no.

No. She put herself in the situation, or she found herself in the situation. She was not put in a situation.
Seriously, if you don't want to find yourself in "situations" because you find "situations" "difficult" or awkward then really, you need to stay at home and avoid all contact with the public at large.
She had sex with this guy recently and she knew that she didn't want to have sex with him again. So far so good.
As the evening in question unfolded she found herself in his company again in a social situation.
He was making romantic overtures to her and she was apparently completely incapable of telling him directly that she wasn't interested in him in any way.
I repeat that she herself says she wasn't frightened.
To him, she appeared to enjoy the kissing, the fondling, she assisted him in the removal of her clothes , she was saying no but he may have considered that part of the foreplay. " no stop why are you doing this to me I'm so hot kiss me harder"
Your painting women as helpless powerless victims of domineering bullying men. "She was put in a situation". Please stop and look at what your saying.
We're going backwards here not forwards. It's ridiculous.

Outlaw Pete

py2006 wrote: »

Don't worry, you will get your articles in mainstream media just like Una and Louise if you keep going this direction. They have ads! ;-)

Exactly and she has the gall to call people "dumb fucks" for suggesting it's all for profit? She's a writer for hire (by her own description) and so how can the story she has created the most noise about thus far not be seen as a calculated attempt by her to raise her profile with the primary goal of getting more work off the back of it. Of course it is, and were she expressing logical opinions about issues that need discussing, I'd be saying 'good on her' but she is doing anything but. She is just engaging in lazy attention seeking 'women are perpetual victims of the ever oppressive misogynist patriarchy' click bait shite so that she too can one day be spoken about in the same breath as Louise O'Neill, Una Doolally, Lena Dunham etc.

westernlass

Crea wrote: »

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!

No one said it was ok. It's that's it's not technically rape is the point. It was an uncomfortable unfortunate experience that RMC found herself in and choose to go through with

sara1

This post has been deleted.

infogiver

Rereg wrote: »

Trollish.

Lots of sex is regretted afterward. Lots.
"**** it that guy was useless in bed. Big slobbery mouth and long raggedy finger nails. All that moaning too. I thought he'd never finish".
" Jesus why did I sleep with Kieran's ex?!? He nearly killed himself when she broke up with him! What am I going to do?"
Mostly though adults take the responsibility for their poor desicion making and don't blame the other person.

professore

Rosemary Mac Cabe‏ @RosemaryMacCabe
I totally get that this isn't the type of rape we love to talk about. I'm not the kind of victim we love to sympathise with.

Jesus Christ! Love talking about rape??? Love sympathising with it??? It's not FUN ffs.

One eyed Jack

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Well, that's the most disturbing thing I've read in a long, long time.

...

Let's turn this around for a minute.

...

She is not going to come out of this smelling of roses and I have little pity for her, tbh, as what happens subsequently was instigated by her.

Not going to quote the whole thing, it shouldn't be the most disturbing thing you've ever read. If someone says to me they were raped, then I take it they know what they're talking about. They know what they mean. We work out the details after that first claim. That's an awkward conversation, but they're driving the conversation, I'm just listening. Sometimes they might come across like an utterly thoughtless thundercnut, sometimes they may be telling me what they think is the appropriate things that they imagine someone else in their position would say. Sometimes they get details and context and what was and wasn't said or done completely arseways, and then some people handle it with humour, the darker and more irreverent, the better. If that's the most disturbing thing you've read in a while, you've set the bar fairly low for yourself.

You can turn it around and spin it whatever way you like, but the reality is that people can do and say what they like on social media within the bounds of the law, and from what you describe above, as long as all remained within the bounds of the law, play ball. We're so hung up on consent as applicable in law here, but what RMC has done has violated no laws either.

Genuinely, I couldn't see anything happening, I wouldn't even dignify her actions with a "response post", not unless I was looking to make a name for myself in the media too. I could certainly have sympathy for her as someone who claims to have been raped. I have no sympathy whatsoever for her that she could use that to further her political ideology or her rape culture nonsense. If she were to take an objective view at all the modern research that is being done into the issue of rape and understanding the causes and consequences for all in a society, she might realise that her rape culture nonsense just doesn't help.

Whether she does or doesn't come out of it smelling of roses, I don't know that it matters. I've never heard of her before this thread and her continued copying and pasting from this thread to her twitter tells me she needs to keep it going as long as possible to gain maximum exposure.



Fcuk that, I'm off for a drink, me head is melted with this crap. It's impossible to know who or what to believe any more. People are always going to believe what they want anyway.