"Why I did not report my rapist"

laserlad2010

Perhaps it's the lifelong cynic in me but why is that piece about how her clothes came off worded in that way? Is it just her style of writing or is she skirting the fact that directly saying "he took my clothes off" would have been untrue?

The piece I refer to just appears badly written, almost as if she's twisted it. Writing it she must have known it was ambiguous. There's a hole there just about big enough to fit a healthy dose of "this isn't black or white"

Calhoun

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Because there isn't fault on the other side. No should be enough.

Do I see it as rape? I don't know is the honest answer. What I do know is what those guys did was wrong. Given what my friends described I am sure those guys knew they didn't want to continue but they didn't put up a fight so they continued regardless.

I do not think women are inherently inferior to men. But I don't deny there is a physical difference between most men and women. Most men are bigger and stronger than most women. Thats just a fact.

I don't know what special protection means but do I think men and women should be aware that no at the very least means I should take a step back from what I'm doing to see if its okay to continue. Absolutely.

That is where we fundamentally disagree and i assume allot of rational thinking folk would disagree as well. Clear communication is responsibility of both partners, while it is wrong to continue to be a sex pest it is equally wrong to have sex with someone just for the sake of not having an awkward argument.

Show your cards, stop implying what you think it is and call it what you believe it is. Do your friends think they have been raped, i mean it must have come up if you guys talked about it.

If men and woman are in a situation where all things being equal there is no threat of physical violence are they not to be seen as equals? there for both responsible for the conversation that happens? or are you saying in all of the above scenarios there was a threat of physical violence if no sex was provided?

Well considering that you believe men are physically stronger than woman and are implying that they could use that strength at any time to rape a woman do you think we should start bringing in segregated zones for woman and men only. Should we put it into law to give woman more protection? Say something like that would redefine the meaning of rape and take onboard more of how a woman was feeling at the time?

XxMCRxBabyxX

laserlad2010 wrote: »

Perhaps it's the lifelong cynic in me but why is that piece about how her clothes came off worded in that way? Is it just her style of writing or is she skirting the fact that directly saying "he took my clothes off" would have been untrue?

The piece I refer to just appears badly written, almost as if she's twisted it. Writing it she must have known it was ambiguous. There's a hole there just about big enough to fit a healthy dose of "this isn't black or white"

I've been lurking until now but wanted to respond to this as it stood out to me too. She has thrown some ambiguous phrases in there which makes me wonder if we're not getting the full story. The same way that it's "we kissed" and not "he kept kissing me." It could just be her writing style or it could be more. Wording can mean everything.

Grandeeod

This Rosemary girls likes to write, "I know, I know" a lot. That in itself is an acceptance that sometimes she writes things that she accepts are banal and stereotypical. Its also a sign that she has no confidence in her writing ability. She is yet another example of the ever deterioating standard of journalist that social media encouraged. Social influencer?? Holy fook.

As for her rape claim - meh. I'd like to see this particular type of case unfold in a court of law. Judging by her minions on her blog and facebook page, we may not have to wait too long. Men beware!

LightlyGo

anna080 wrote: »

I wonder if deep down she knows that it was a bad move to write a blog post about such a confusing and ambiguous situation, with life altering labels attached. Between this, and her decision to leave her factually flawed and completely ill judged piece about McGregor, well it doesn't say much for her journalistic credibility.
I'd be surprised if brands approach for her work in the future- I know (she has admitted) she already struggles to get work as it is.

Well she has 5.7k views on her video yesterday, alot more than she would ordinarily have gotten. I think she's demonstrating very shrewdly that she can make hay while the sun shines and what most brands want is wide exposure.

One other thing I've found interesting about all this is looking through the comments on her Facebook. There are very few dissenters or people challenging her regarding the story, I saw maybe 3 individuals on the post I looked at. While most of us here have a clear idea of what we believe happened I think it remains a situation where most of us, myself included, would be very reticent to put our name and photos to any opinion not in support of someone who feels they are a victim.

It makes me wonder what the "real life" experience would be here. Would most of us hold our views privately but not share them lest our friends think we are unsympathetic to rape victims or feminist issues? I asked a friend for their view on this case today and he was very reluctant to share his feeIlings , so I said what I believed, that it was not a rape, and his response was "oh thank God, I was actually afraid to tell you what I thought in case you were not like minded and thought I was sympathising with a rapist here".
So in a real life situation like this would most people be afraid to express their views amongst friends in case people thought badly of us?

BTW, I think it's good that people are not being abusive to Rosemary, that's very important, we are all intelligent enough to disagree or challenge something without resorting to that and the issue is bigger than her so I don't actually think her input is important any more. Also I wouldn't suggest people go over and address anything to her directly or that we are hypocrites for not doing it. I just wondered if in this climate most people who feel she was not raped would be nervous of voicing it.

WoolyJumper

Calhoun wrote: »

That is where we fundamentally disagree and i assume allot of rational thinking folk would disagree as well. Clear communication is responsibility of both partners, while it is wrong to continue to be a sex pest it is equally wrong to have sex with someone just for the sake of not having an awkward argument.

I am sure a lot rational people disagree. Doesn't mean they are right. I really don't understand what is unclear about saying no several times and uttering the sentence "I don't want to have sex" That seems like clear communication to me. If my partner said that to me, at the very least i'd be unsure about whether they wanted to continue and I'd stop.

Calhoun wrote: »

your cards, stop implying what you think it is and call it what you believe it is. Do your friends think they have been raped, i mean it must have come up if you guys talked about it.

I mean what I said, I don't know how I feel about. I really don't know if they felt like they were raped and I didn't feel it appropriate to ask them that. I do know they didn't feel good. One was quite visible shaken by it. To be honest there stories are much more clear cut but I have greater detail and I know them personally. But I'm not going to go into details. Not my stories to tell. The point is, this kind of thing happens frequently.

Calhoun wrote: »

men and woman are in a situation where all things being equal there is no threat of physical violence are they not to be seen as equals? there for both responsible for the conversation that happens? or are you saying in all of the above scenarios there was a threat of physical violence if no sex was provided?

I don't really understand the first part of the question. Of course they are both responsible for the conversation that happens. If one partner says no then the other should respond accordingly.

Calhoun wrote: »

considering that you believe men are physically stronger than woman and are implying that they could use that strength at any time to rape a woman do you think we should start bringing in segregated zones for woman and men only.

No

Calhoun wrote: »

Should we put it into law to give woman more protection? Say something like that would redefine the meaning of rape and take onboard more of how a woman was feeling at the time?

No. Men get raped too.

_Whimsical_

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I've been lurking until now but wanted to respond to this as it stood out to me too. She has thrown some ambiguous phrases in there which makes me wonder if we're not getting the full story. The same way that it's "we kissed" and not "he kept kissing me." It could just be her writing style or it could be more. Wording can mean everything.

I agree with you and noticed that too. Also the "my top came off" and something similar about her pants, all while saying he wasn't physically pushy. I would think if he removed them she'd say "he pulled my top off anyway" or something more definite.

The_Valeyard

I'm only catching up on this thread,


The mind boggles

Honestly dont know what to say.


I'm completely unsure of how I feel about this.

Calhoun

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I am sure a lot rational people disagree. Doesn't mean they are right. I really don't understand what is unclear about saying no several times and uttering the sentence "I don't want to have sex" That seems like clear communication to me. If my partner said that to me, at the very least i'd be unsure about whether they wanted to continue and I'd stop.



I mean what I said, I don't know how I feel about. I really don't know if they felt like they were raped and I didn't feel it appropriate to ask them that. I do know they didn't feel good. One was quite visible shaken by it. To be honest there stories are much more clear cut but I have greater detail and I know them personally. But I'm not going to go into details. Not my stories to tell. The point is, this kind of thing happens frequently.



I don't really understand the first part of the question. Of course they are both responsible for the conversation that happens. If one partner says no then the other should respond accordingly.



No



No. Men get raped too.

Whats unclear is that in the situation we are describing the author did other things that would have contradicted what she was saying at times. Mixed messages leaves it unclear but if it was clear cut then yes she saying i dont want to should be enough.

I would urge you to think about it some more, you are all but implying it in what you are writing which is quite dangerous in and of itself as it perpetuates the whole rape culture myth.

What i meant in my initial question was if men and women are of equal status and a man doesnt take no initially for an answer the women should do all within her power to stop the act from happening. To do otherwise is either giving consent or you were physically overpowered and raped.

How do we keep women safe then if we don't segregate them? if they aren't strong enough to have an awkward conversation and shut some idiot down then do they not need to be separated for their own safety? how should we approach it?

Men do get raped but the rape culture that many would say exist in Ireland is mainly driven by men and as you already pointed out above they are physically stronger than women so unlikely to get raped by them.

professore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If a "friend" is trying to get me to take heroin and I say no a couple of times and then the friend, ignoring my "no" proceeds to roll up my sleeve and stick a needle into my arm, I have not "taken" anything, I have been given the heroin, against my will. People are acting as if she took his hands and put them on her body - he put them there after she told him not to. That is sexual assault.

She rolled up her own sleeve by continuing to kiss him. To me, continuing to kiss someone while things are escalating is consent. Pulling away from a kiss is the easiest thing in the world .

professore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not at all, I've had sex in both submissive and dominant roles. Being submissive and not being into it are very different things, what I'm saying is that if I have to badger somebody for sex then regardless of their role in a d/s context, they're obviously not actually into it. I wouldn't want to ride anyone who wasn't looking forward to it as much as I was. And I'm not applying that to everyone, I'm merely pointing out that when somebody said "surely you've got sex after pressing for it when initially refused" the answer is no - if she doesn't want it, then sex with her just because I've made her weary of arguing about it is going to be sh!te sex. Come on, it's like when you drag a friend to a concert of a genre they have zero interest in - they may agree to shut you up, but you'll both have a sh!t time. Just as I'd prefer to go to a concert alone than go with somebody who didn't actually want to be there.............. Well, you know where this analogy is going

You've never been talked into going out when it was the last thing you wanted to do ... And had a fantastic night? Never? Has happened to me several times. I think I'm a certain type who likes a certain amount of spontaneity. I guess if you like planning every detail of your life then this never happens to you.

frogstar

Danjamin1 wrote: »

That's the tweet I liked that got me blocked

I just liked the same tweet and got blocked too!

Rosemary, you've lost all credibility with me. I am a female and have enjoyed your content and have engaged with you on various platforms but will now unfollow from all social media (for the unnecessary blocking - not your sensationalist blog post)

You are a complete hypocrite. You moan and moan about other bloggers blocking everyone, write posts about being able to take criticism but do the exact opposite

Cupcake_Crisis

I got blocked too, this is the reasoning. Which doesn't make sense.

WoolyJumper

Calhoun wrote: »

Whats unclear is that in the situation we are describing the author did other things that would have contradicted what she was saying at times. Mixed messages leaves it unclear but if it was clear cut then yes she saying i dont want to should be enough.

From reading the article the only thing I can see is that the author at the most kissed him or at least let him kiss her. As it began to move beyond that she clearly said no. He continued. She continued to say no and even said I don't want to have sex. Again that seem clear to me what she wanted.

However even if that created mixed messages for him, that at very least created some doubt about what she wanted. At which point the only thing to do was step back and ask or stop all together. He did not do that. He continued regardless. There in lies the problem.

Calhoun wrote: »

I would urge you to think about it some more, you are all but implying it in what you are writing which is quite dangerous in and of itself as it perpetuates the whole rape culture myth.

I have thought about this. I don't know what you think I am implying but I am certain it is not okay to continue having sex with someone if there is any doubt about them wanting it. Unless you've some kind of conversation about it before hand then them saying no just once should be enough to create enough doubt to step back and reassess.

Calhoun wrote: »

What i meant in my initial question was if men and women are of equal status and a man doesnt take no initially for an answer the women should do all within her power to stop the act from happening. To do otherwise is either giving consent or you were physically overpowered and raped.

This is actually shocking to me. If a person says no to sexual advances but they don't fight you off, they are not giving consent. It should not have to get to the point where you have to fight them off. It is already to far at that point.

Now I understand there might be grey areas but if at any point there is any doubt about what the person wants you need to step back. Especially if you are the one physically stronger. It goes for both men and women.

Calhoun wrote: »

How do we keep women safe then if we don't segregate them? if they aren't strong enough to have an awkward conversation and shut some idiot down then do they not need to be separated for their own safety? how should we approach it?

Just no, that whole thing is ridiculous to me. Even if I was to entertain the idea about segregating men and women how would be in any way practical or plausible. And what about same sex rape? People should just understand its not okay to rape someone. They should also understand if there is any doubt about what the other person wants then you should not continue.

Calhoun wrote: »

Men do get raped but the rape culture that many would say exist in Ireland is mainly driven by men and as you already pointed out above they are physically stronger than women so unlikely to get raped by them.

It doesn't matter who gets raped more. Men rape women, women rape men, men rape men and women rape women. The law should protect everyone.

There comes at point on a thread where you find yourself repeating the same thing over and over again. That's usually a sign I need to bow out :cool:

ibarelycare

frogstar wrote: »

I just liked the same tweet and got blocked too!

Rosemary, you've lost all credibility with me. I am a female and have enjoyed your content and have engaged with you on various platforms but will now unfollow from all social media (for the unnecessary blocking - not your sensationalist blog post)

You are a complete hypocrite. You moan and moan about other bloggers blocking everyone, write posts about being able to take criticism but do the exact opposite

That's really disappointing (for me, as i used to be a fan and respected her). As the above poster said, she's losing more and more credibility with her actions. The same questions keep coming up again and again on this thread. Rosemary has an active profile on this site and has come on to defend herself before, yet the only place she'll defend herself now is within her echo chamber. If she genuinely thinks she was raped then all she has to do is clarify on the points that keep cropping up (her continuing to kiss him, the vagueness over how her clothes "came off", why she thinks that he's a lovely guy who wouldn't see himself as a rapist. The fact that she refuses to answer any of these questions is telling.

I know this isn't a court of law and she doesn't have to be subject to cross-examination, but I think putting out an accusation in the public domain of being raped, by someone who could be easily identified by many, deserves to be be questioned.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

It's like that but then them claiming they'd been kidnapped tho!

Tbh I fully agree with the main thrust (ooh matron) of why you're saying and I think most people do, except for the thorny issue of you believing it to be a clear-cut case of sexual assault as opposed to fella being too pushy during a petting sesh

I think the point is that as far as I'm concerned, being pushy at all after you've been clearly rebuffed verbally is straight away into sexual harassment territory. And I view verbal communication as superseding anything else because it's the only form of communication which is entirely conscious and voluntary. Any lad will know that your body has a mind of its own when a sexy woman is involved - it's one of the reasons I've always thought that jeans for men should be designed with expandable crotches so that you don't find yourself in unexpected agony when your mind wanders to sexual thoughts

One eyed Jack

ibarelycare wrote: »

That's really disappointing (for me, as i used to be a fan and respected her).

This is something I'm curious about and you're not the only woman here that said she was a fan, but, as I mentioned before I've read some of her previous stuff to try and get some context...

I'm left perplexed as to why anyone would find her writing all that interesting before now anyways?

As the above poster said, she's losing more and more credibility with her actions. The same questions keep coming up again and again on this thread. Rosemary has an active profile on this site and has come on to defend herself before, yet the only place she'll defend herself now is within her echo chamber. If she genuinely thinks she was raped then all she has to do is clarify on the points that keep cropping up (her continuing to kiss him, the vagueness over how her clothes "came off", why she thinks that he's a lovely guy who wouldn't see himself as a rapist. The fact that she refuses to answer any of these questions is telling.

I know this isn't a court of law and she doesn't have to be subject to cross-examination, but I think putting out an accusation in the public domain of being raped, by someone who could be easily identified by many, deserves to be be questioned.

She didn't accuse anyone of rape though, she's not even sure herself (if the article is taken as a whole) whether she was or she wasn't... she deliberately leaves it open to any reader to draw their own conclusions.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is something I'm curious about and you're not the only woman here that said she was a fan, but, as I mentioned before I've read some of her previous stuff to try and get some context...

I'm left perplexed as to why anyone would find her writing all that interesting before now anyways?





She didn't accuse anyone of rape though, she's not even sure herself (if the article is taken as a whole) whether she was or she wasn't... she deliberately leaves it open to any reader to draw their own conclusions.

I woulda thought calling him a "rapist" is accusing him of rape!

ibarelycare

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She didn't accuse anyone of rape though, she's not even sure herself (if the article is taken as a whole) whether she was or she wasn't... she deliberately leaves it open to any reader to draw their own conclusions.

Eh...she repeatedly refers to her "rape" and calls the other party her "rapist". That's one part of her article where there's no ambiguity.

Calhoun

WoolyJumper wrote: »

From reading the article the only thing I can see is that the author at the most kissed him or at least let him kiss her. As it began to move beyond that she clearly said no. He continued. She continued to say no and even said I don't want to have sex. Again that seem clear to me what she wanted.

However even if that created mixed messages for him, that at very least created some doubt about what she wanted. At which point the only thing to do was step back and ask or stop all together. He did not do that. He continued regardless. There in lies the problem.



I have thought about this. I don't know what you think I am implying but I am certain it is not okay to continue having sex with someone if there is any doubt about them wanting it. Unless you've some kind of conversation about it before hand then them saying no just once should be enough to create enough doubt to step back and reassess.




This is actually shocking to me. If a person says no to sexual advances but they don't fight you off, they are not giving consent. It should not have to get to the point where you have to fight them off. It is already to far at that point.

Now I understand there might be grey areas but if at any point there is any doubt about what the person wants you need to step back. Especially if you are the one physically stronger. It goes for both men and women.



Just no, that whole thing is ridiculous to me. Even if I was to entertain the idea about segregating men and women how would be in any way practical or plausible. And what about same sex rape? People should just understand its not okay to rape someone. They should also understand if there is any doubt about what the other person wants then you should not continue.



It doesn't matter who gets raped more. Men rape women, women rape men, men rape men and women rape women. The law should protect everyone.

There comes at point on a thread where you find yourself repeating the same thing over and over again. That's usually a sign I need to bow out :cool:

I am being very deliberate in my questioning and ill apologies for it i have been trying to tease our your argument to see if it holds water.

Your just short of implying there is a rape culture and you and your friends are the examples of it existing.

We are agreed that if a person says no they should be taken seriously and you should not have to fight them off but unfortunately thats not exactly how RL works it also doesnt account for the complex interplay between couples. if we are to also take rape as a crime seriously then we have to step up and fight back where we can we also need to make sure we go to the authorities.

Yah the segregation thing is completely ridiculous and i dont believe in it for a second but if we remove personal responsibility from people and we perpetuate a rape culture it may well be where we end up.

Agreed i take rape deadly seriously but when you dilute rape down to something that can easily happen because someone doesnt want to have an awkward situation i think it undermines it completely. We should take what someone says seriously but we should also make sure we are assertive in our communications.

Agreed the law should protect everyone, the reason i have been picking apart your argument is that you have painted a picture of women being the weaker in this argument and are there to be taken advantage by the physical brute males. What happens next is a big question and if we follow the rhetoric from feminists it will mean more rights for women at the expense of men.

No issues thanks for the debate was a pleasure chatting to you.

retro:electro

ibarelycare wrote: »

That's really disappointing (for me, as i used to be a fan and respected her). As the above poster said, she's losing more and more credibility with her actions. The same questions keep coming up again and again on this thread. Rosemary has an active profile on this site and has come on to defend herself before, yet the only place she'll defend herself now is within her echo chamber. If she genuinely thinks she was raped then all she has to do is clarify on the points that keep cropping up (her continuing to kiss him, the vagueness over how her clothes "came off", why she thinks that he's a lovely guy who wouldn't see himself as a rapist. The fact that she refuses to answer any of these questions is telling.

I know this isn't a court of law and she doesn't have to be subject to cross-examination, but I think putting out an accusation in the public domain of being raped, by someone who could be easily identified by many, deserves to be be questioned.

I used to be a fan too, believe it or not. I really liked her, and she's probably the only blogger out there who always says when something is an ad to be fair to her. Its gas because there would only have to be a whisper of her name in the blogger thread, or she must have had a notification on her phone or something whenever she was mentioned because she'd literally hop on that thread to defend herself or clarify something- which she's well entitled to do- but I can't help but think that's because the blogger thread was largely always in support for her. So she knew she'd have a backing.

Like you say, she is in no way obliged to come here and answer difficult questions- totally understandable; but she's clearly reading the thread, and misrepresenting it across all social media platforms with the most controversial posts. So, maybe she should either get involved in the discussion properly or stop referencing quotes that don't represent the actual considered debate here.

learn_more

Grandeeod wrote: »

This Rosemary girls likes to write, "I know, I know" a lot. That in itself is an acceptance that sometimes she writes things that she accepts are banal and stereotypical. Its also a sign that she has no confidence in her writing ability. She is yet another example of the ever deterioating standard of journalist that social media encouraged. Social influencer?? Holy fook.

It's no wonder she has no confidence in her writing ability cause she ain't got no writing ability. I've eff all writing ability and even I noticed the overuse of semi-colons and commas. Either she doesn't know how to use them properly or, by designed, to, give the impression, she's saying something really; complex.

hatrickpatrick

Calhoun wrote: »

So hypothetically if you were in a situation were you were being put upon and kept saying no but they kept going would you just lie there and let it happen?

No, but even if I did, it would still be rape, because I'd told them very firmly that I was not consenting to what they were doing.

Again, if you keep telling somebody not to take your wallet but when they do, you don't give chase, have you been robbed or not?

That is the main argument i am putting across, on the whole being with someone who is not into it, i personally have no interest in chasing someone the whole time but i know people do like that but i dont.

And I'd call it sexual harassment if somebody continues to chase someone else after they have explicitly told them not to.

The difference in the analogy you describe with your friend above is they are going because they are a friend and although it will shut you up it will make you happy so they consent to it. Big difference in accommodating someone by going to a concert and getting what you would call raped.

My analogy wasn't in the context of rape, it was a response to a different question where somebody basically said "I'm sure you've had sex before where you had to keep pestering" or something like that. My point was that for me personally, if pestering is required as opposed to the woman being really into it from the get go, I know from the outset that it's going to be boring sex so I wouldn't bother. That's just me, but the poster specifically stated that I personally had probably had sexual encounters where I had to push for it, and I'm just saying that this is not the case.

retro:electro

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is something I'm curious about and you're not the only woman here that said she was a fan, but, as I mentioned before I've read some of her previous stuff to try and get some context...

I'm left perplexed as to why anyone would find her writing all that interesting before now anyways?





She didn't accuse anyone of rape though, she's not even sure herself (if the article is taken as a whole) whether she was or she wasn't... she deliberately leaves it open to any reader to draw their own conclusions.

The piece is called "Why I didn't report my rapist".....

hatrickpatrick

weekday wrote: »

all credit to boards for letting the conversation develop

Boards has really copped on in recent months regarding not shutting down conversations because of potential controversy. Hats off to them for listening to the userbase when everything got a bit out of hand early last year with political moderation.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

I woulda thought calling him a "rapist" is accusing him of rape!

ibarelycare wrote: »

Eh...she repeatedly refers to her "rape" and calls the other party her "rapist". That's one part of her article where there's no ambiguity.

My point was that she doesn't directly accuse anyone of rape. She may well refer to "my rapist" as many times as she wants, she may claim she was raped, but she doesn't directly accuse anyone, presumably because she would have been advised (or could know already) that actually making someone clearly identifiable, or naming them directly, could have seen her having to defend herself against a complaint that she actually defamed an individual.

retro:electro

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point was that she doesn't directly accuse anyone of rape. She may well refer to "my rapist" as many times as she wants, she may claim she was raped, but she doesn't directly accuse anyone, presumably because she would have been advised (or could know already) that actually making someone clearly identifiable, or naming them directly, could have seen her having to defend herself against a complaint that she actually defamed an individual.

She stopped short of naming him, yes, because that would be defamation. That is hardly something to give her credit for.

soiseztomabel

Its become very clear (Since the "articles" initial post) that she chose to further muddy the waters to suit herself. My girlfriend and I have spent more time talking about this thing as whole than we probably needed to and i personally feel if there is any positive to come from Rosemary's narcissistic attempt at getting her name out there its this....

We (everyone who contributed on this thread) gave and continue to give a well informed and balanced opinion on a topic that is often overlooked or shied away from. My girlfriend posted several comments to her page and like many others they too got deleted, i see with the exception of one lady who opposed the only other negative comments we're from guys who put themselves out there to be picked apart by a bunch of plastic feminists which i'm sure RMC loved.

I'm sure there is way more to this than we'll ever know or she'll allow us to know but of course that's how she needs it to be as without muddying the waters her article means nowt like all the other redundant tripe she regurgitates.

What I've become extremely interested in is how it did actually end with her and the guy ?

One eyed Jack

anna080 wrote: »

She stopped short of naming him, yes, because that would be defamation. That is hardly something to give her credit for.

I'm not giving her credit for anything though, I've said already I have every sympathy for her as to her claims that she was raped, but I have no sympathy whatsoever for her for the way in which she has chosen to use it to further a political ideology.

Theoretically though, in order for someone to be found guilty of defamation, the injured party would have to be able to demonstrate that a reasonable person would believe what was published. Going by just this thread alone, I don't think they could. As IBC noted already, RMC's credibility is in shreds.

retro:electro

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not giving her credit for anything though, I've said already I have every sympathy for her as to her claims that she was raped, but I have no sympathy whatsoever for her for the way in which she has chosen to use it to further a political ideology.

Theoretically though, in order for someone to be found guilty of defamation, the injured party would have to be able to demonstrate that a reasonable person would believe what was published. Going by just this thread alone, I don't think they could. As IBC noted already, RMC's credibility is in shreds.

Going by her Facebook/Twitter/blog comments, she's not short of believers!

Oh, and on why anyone would be a fan of hers (I know your q was directed at IBC but I'll give my 2c)
Her blogging career came about when the industry had zero transparency present. People would be promoting products and posting for things that were ads every single day and never acknowledged that these were ads, and this used to piss off a lot of readers/followers.

Along came RMC and she seemed pretty ballsy, didn't seem to care too much for the industry and kind of gave the viewer an inside look at how things worked, she was very open about ads and how she made her money through blogging.
In hindsight I feel she marketed herself as the "anti-blogger", slagging off the industry, but still made money from clicks and being an influencer- very shrewd.

Somewhere along the way, for me, her honesty turned to arrogance. She made some awful comments about psoriasis and being inbred, the feminism overload, blatant hypocrisy about things, sucking up to bloggers but also selling them down the river wherever she got the chance.. I just got fed up of her constant need for drama and attention and stopped following her.