"Why I did not report my rapist"

...__...

Havent posted in this yet Ive been following.

I really feel bad for the guy I'm sure any of her ex boyfriends right now feel they are under suspicion.
He is probably identifiable by the circle of friends who were there that night.
Now they could be thinking he is a rapist because of some girl who says no twice at the start then changes her mind while stripping off with a guy and sleeps with him.

One eyed Jack

anna080 wrote: »

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

As it happens, there is a definition of a "reasonable man" in Irish law (I couldn't pin down a definitive source on Google), but, I did find this, which is well worth a read -


Ireland: Judgment Clarifies Definition of Consent in Rape Cases


(Nov. 21, 2016) As a result of a recent judgment from the Irish Supreme Court, the Irish government will introduce legislation to establish a definition of consent for rape. In the case decided November 11, 2016, the Court held that a woman has a constitutional right to the integrity of her body and that the belief that a woman might be consenting to intercourse is not a defense against an accusation of rape; there must be “an honestly held belief” that the woman was actually consenting, and the jury must consider whether this honest belief of actual consent was reasonably held.  (Director of Public Prosecutions v C O’R [2016] IESC 2012 CA 297.)

The offense of rape is currently contained in section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981 (as amended), which provides that rape occurs if a man knowingly has sexual intercourse with a woman when she has not consented or if the man was reckless as to whether the victim did or did not consent. The term consent is not defined in the legislation.  (Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981, No. 10 of 1981, IRISH STATUTE BOOK.)

Ciderswigger

anna080 wrote: »

Somewhere along the way, for me, her honesty turned to arrogance.

This is EXACTLY the same reason I went off her. She got too big for her boots with the whole "Arra sure lads, I'm not an influencer. Lol. Omg, I can't believe I'd even be called that. I just shoot straight from the hip and if you don't like it then you're obviously anti women and can't handle #feminism in the modern world". Just because you 'tell it how it is' doesn't mean you can be a bitch.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Ciderswigger wrote: »

This is EXACTLY the same reason I went off her. She got too big for her boots with the whole "Arra sure lads, I'm not an influencer. Lol. Omg, I can't believe I'd even be called that. I just shoot straight from the hip and if you don't like it then you're obviously anti women and can't handle #feminism in the modern world". Just because you 'tell it how it is' doesn't mean you can be a bitch.

And here I was thinking I was the only one who disliked Rosemary for these exact reasons! (Before this thread came about)

What is these bloggers appeal, a lot of females love Pippa, why??? and seems every fifth female im friends with now have set up one of these blogging type sites

One eyed Jack

Dimitri Red Newsman wrote: »

What is these bloggers appeal, a lot of females love Pippa, why??? and seems every fifth female im friends with now have set up one of these blogging type sites

And by that same token, I don't know anyone amongst my friends that are women who have any interest in so much of the drama and manufactured drama that goes on in these blogging/vlogging "communities".

Hell, more of them have never even heard of Boards for that matter!

I do wonder though if these lrish online "communities" will go the same way as their American counterparts, where particularly among the "YouTube community", accusations of rape are thrown around the very same way as we'd call someone an asshole over here!

They just can't be / aren't taken seriously.

Ciderswigger

Am I looking at the wrong post on her Fb page or has she taken down the (cringeworthy) crying selfie and replaced it with a picture of an unmade bed?

LightlyGo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As it happens, there is a definition of a "reasonable man" in Irish law (I couldn't pin down a definitive source on Google), but, I did find this, which is well worth a read -


Ireland: Judgment Clarifies Definition of Consent in Rape Cases


(Nov. 21, 2016) As a result of a recent judgment from the Irish Supreme Court, the Irish government will introduce legislation to establish a definition of consent for rape. In the case decided November 11, 2016, the Court held that a woman has a constitutional right to the integrity of her body and that the belief that a woman might be consenting to intercourse is not a defense against an accusation of rape; there must be “an honestly held belief” that the woman was actually consenting, and the jury must consider whether this honest belief of actual consent was reasonably held.  (Director of Public Prosecutions v C O’R [2016] IESC 2012 CA 297.)

The offense of rape is currently contained in section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981 (as amended), which provides that rape occurs if a man knowingly has sexual intercourse with a woman when she has not consented or if the man was reckless as to whether the victim did or did not consent. The term consent is not defined in the legislation.  (Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981, No. 10 of 1981, IRISH STATUTE BOOK.)

There was some greater clarification on the 2016 judgement in the judges comments to the jury. It makes this piece of law a little clearer. It's a reminder again that ones actions are very important too in indicating consent or lack of and how really you have to be very clear in your own mind about what you want and how you communicate it.
I can see how law might still fail genuine victims of rape too though. It's a very difficult area really.

There were the judges comments to the jury

“The accused’s view as to the existence(of consent), or non-existence, of this fact is subjective. An honest, though unreasonable, mistake that the woman was consenting is a defence to rape,” she said, quoting from the Supreme Court judgment.
“Any such alleged belief in consent must be genuinely held. Self-deceit is not a defence. Certainly, while the test of belief is subjective, even still, individual states of mind are based on how the underlying facts are resolved.”
Ms Justice Stewart told the jury in the Central Criminal Court trial that they must consider whether a belief that the woman was consenting could have been “genuinely held, given the circumstances she found herself in”.

In that case the woman in question had been kidnapped by an ex partner but had not tried to escape from him. He was the father of her children and had a history of violence towards her. She accused him of raping her and he used the defence that as she wasn't trying to escape he genuinely believed she was consenting to the sex. The judge was indicating to the jury to consider the context in which the sex occured and if it was reasonable for the man to believe the sex was consentual.

Oh and further "clarification" then in Dec to very much muddy the waters further by the Surpreme Court.

Supreme Court judge Mr Justice Peter Charleton said a woman has a Constitutional right to her bodily integrity.

He said under the law, an accused man must honestly believe that the woman was actually consenting not merely that she might be.

The court found this mistake was in favour of the accused. There was no error identified against him and his appeal was dismissed.

In the judgment, Mr Justice Charleton said that directions given by trial judges necessarily depend on the particular elements of the case.

He said that if sexual intercourse and lack of consent is proven, then the jury should consider the accused's state of mind at the time.

He said the mental element of the crime of rape was that the man knew the woman was not consenting to sexual intercourse or he was reckless as to whether she did or did not consent.

He said recklessness meant the accused man was aware there was a risk the woman was not consenting but nonetheless proceeded.

The judge said if the accused claims to have mistakenly believed that a woman was consenting, then the jury should examine all of the facts which may support or undermine that belief.

He said they should consider all the circumstances and focus on whether there are or are not any reasonable grounds for it.

He said if an accused genuinely believed, even unreasonably that the woman was consenting, he must be acquitted even if she did not consent.

meeeeh

Dimitri Red Newsman wrote: »

What is these bloggers appeal, a lot of females love Pippa, why??? and seems every fifth female im friends with now have set up one of these blogging type sites

Where else would you find out what cat food to buy in Lidl?

Scraggs

Ciderswigger wrote: »

Am I looking at the wrong post on her Fb page or has she taken down the (cringeworthy) crying selfie and replaced it with a picture of an unmade bed?

Deleted from instagram anyway.

Really enjoying this discussion, excellent thought provoking arguments from both sides I'm glad it wasn't shut down!

professore

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:

Why couldn't she step back? She didn't want it, bit instead of stepping back, she continued to kiss him. There was nothing whatsoever stopping her. Instead she continued kissing him and her clothes somehow came off like Scotty from Star Trek beamed them off. The more I read this, the more it comes across as complete fabricated bull**** designed to generate maximum publicity and division. Makes a mockery of true rape victims.

It's how you say no as well. If you say no while taking off your clothes and kissing the guy passionately then it's a reasonable belief you are into it but don't want to appear too "easy". Even the tone you say no is important here.

Wibbs

anna080 wrote: »

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.

As I reckoned in my first sentence in my first post on this thread:

Me. Earlier. wrote: »

Professional attention seeker with internet access talks current groupthink nonsense hoping for publicity. #sobrave. In other news; water is wet..

TBH I've seen nothing from her subsequently to change my position on that, save for adding the usual "I want my MTV Echo Chamber" common in such things.

holyhead

Rape is an emotive word. It implies that one person was subjected to sexual intercourse against their will. Therefore the title of Ms McCabe's is inherently incorrect. As she describes it, it wasn't rape but reluctant (on her part) sex. In putting the title on her blog as she has done so does a monstrous disservice to women who have been raped. Almost trivialises what is heinous crime. Equally idiotic is all those women rowing in behind her.
I can only conclude she is an attention seeking individual. I'm sure the man won't be best pleased either as it might be possible his identity can be twigged by someone. He is entitled to his good name and based on what she wrote he hasn't done anything to tarnish it.

pilly

I'm swinging backwards and forwards on this, have to be honest but there's one thing that has convinced me that's it's not a rape.

Any rape victim who has posted here hasn't believed it was a rape and they more than any of us know the feelings and thought process involved.

Also another thing that is overlooked in the discussion is the age of the guy.

At certain stages I've agreed "yeah he was a sleaze, a creep" but let's remember he was college age so at the horniest stage of his life without the emotional maturity to deal with it. Sorry lads but think about it when you were that age. Were you different to how you are now?

(Presuming most here are finished college)

hatrickpatrick

pilly wrote: »

At certain stages I've agreed "yeah he was a sleaze, a creep" but let's remember he was college age so at the horniest stage of his life without the emotional maturity to deal with it. Sorry lads but think about it when you were that age. Were you different to how you are now?

I have and always have had a ridiculous sex drive, and I would never keep going with somebody after they had said no to me once, let alone several times. I would have been no different at 18 or 21, because I'm not a complete asshole.

hatrickpatrick

holyhead wrote: »

Rape is an emotive word. It implies that one person was subjected to sexual intercourse against their will. Therefore the title of Ms McCabe's is inherently incorrect. As she describes it, it wasn't rape but reluctant (on her part) sex. In putting the title on her blog as she has done so does a monstrous disservice to women who have been raped. Almost trivialises what is heinous crime. Equally idiotic is all those women rowing in behind her.
I can only conclude she is an attention seeking individual. I'm sure the man won't be best pleased either as it might be possible his identity can be twigged by someone. He is entitled to his good name and based on what she wrote he hasn't done anything to tarnish it.

Again: What part of "I said no" is so difficult to comprehend?

J Mysterio

Guys... Is this ever going to run out of gas?

This girl was/is stupid. But - again - the salient points have been made.

I would reccomend RMC take a break from the internet and possibly visit a therapist. Her world view is askew.

I think thas has been instructive for many but it is flogging a dead dog at this stage and - again - i'm not sure she will cope with the sustained scrutiny. Thankfully mental health is not quite the taboo it once was and she may need to look after hers.

Although I think we are right to criticise her awful ****e - and I am very proud of the response of majority of boardies - it is done.

Bambi985

Honestly, she seems emotionally unstable. Her behaviour online following the blog post with all of the blocking, the crying selfie and its subsequent deletion (which deserves a thread of its own such is the level of batsh1tness),the quoting and attacking of multiple boards.ie posters to her audience of adoring followers (which suggest she's following this thread by the minute too) and the #pma #strength #positivity instagram quotes....all suggest an extremely fragile ego, tendency to manipulate and desperate need for validation via her social media channels that goes beyond healthy and normal.

If I were a friend of hers I'd be advising her to take a break entirely from social media for the next few weeks and to get herself into therapy to build up her self-esteem and deal with the issues that seem to be informing these sort of juvenile and immature behaviours.

J Mysterio

Jinx

I would agree with some posters here that most points that needed to be made have been made. We are going around in circles at this stage.

Just to touch on the whole bloggers/social influencer side of things, someone only told me that her friend has fallen into this thing now too. Basically doing monologues into a bloody phone for people to see on SnapChat. She's going on there telling her followers about mundane arguments she's having with her hubby. What the actual f*ck? Who needs to know this. It reeks of vanity and self importance. It's teenage behaviour but these people are well into their 30's. Adolescence really seems to be stretched out in this day and age. It's blokes too, you see them commuting to work on poxy skateboards and everything. I dunno!

Outlaw Pete

I'm surprised anyone is unsure about this not being rape tbh.. and that includes RmacC herself, as by her own admission she 'let' this guy have sex with her.

If I write a blog about why I never reported a car thief and then go on to say how my mate came over one night and kept asking me could he borrow my car and I kept saying no, over and over again, but he wasn't listening to me and so I let him take it to avoid having an awkward conversation.. I'd be laughed at for making such a claim.. and rightly so. As it would pure idiocy to suggest the guy stole my car when in actually fact I had let him take it.... and the same fundamentals apply here.

"A woman is not a car ya big man bastard!!"

Had RmacC kept saying no and even remotely struggled to get this guy off her, never actively 'letting' him have sex with her, then I don't think anyone would be of the opinion that she wasn't raped.. but she didn't, as by her own admission she 'stopped saying no' and allowed him to have sex with her, despite no fear of what may happen to her if she did not. That's not rape.

I think she should just give the matter further thought and then write a follow up article maybe. If she still believes she was raped that night, fine, but she needs to further qualify just why it is that she still holds that view, because as it stands nothing she has said so far justifies her doing so.. to my mind at least.

Mountainsandh

pilly wrote: »

Also another thing that is overlooked in the discussion is the age of the guy.

At certain stages I've agreed "yeah he was a sleaze, a creep" but let's remember he was college age so at the horniest stage of his life without the emotional maturity to deal with it. Sorry lads but think about it when you were that age. Were you different to how you are now?

(Presuming most here are finished college)

+ 1
It's not just about being young and randy, but also comprehension skills, attention, perceptiveness, maturity...
When I read her account I have in my head the image of many young men I know who, in the most innocent and stupid way, would simply not even cop on the bad vibes. (That's if she was sending any, since she was still kissing.)

She says herself he probably wouldn't have thought of himself as a rapist.
Well duh... maybe he just didn't cop on. I know a lot of people here think he must have been a creep to go on, but like I said, I know many a young man (my samples are a slight bit younger, admittedly) who simply just wouldn't get the message, unless it was laid on very thick. Even some of the college material (look at the behaviours during rag week sure).

These young fellows are not rapists ! They just need things ... "mansplained" ? (:pac:) or "child-splained" rather.

In a similar way, the young ladies I know require a lot of assistance, emotionally and practically. They're not very independent, and they find it hard to understand why they should be, since everything tends to be taken care of by their family, their friend(s), social media, the state ... They'll post on Facebook that they're strong and don't need something/someone in their life, craving for likes, and hearts, and "r u ok hun ?". Or posting crying selfies maybe.

In that context, maybe it's easier to see the 2 young people here for what they are : a young fellow who's too self-absorbed/thick/spoilt/ignorant to cop basic communication, and a young woman who has trouble being assertive in the situation. A recipe for cringe worthy situations, not rape.

edit ; I think the demographics on boards are pretty literate, and a bit removed from what I'm referencing above, I don't intend to make any college person reading this feel rotten or targeted.

manonboard

Bambi985 wrote: »

Honestly, she seems emotionally unstable. Her behaviour online following the blog post with all of the blocking, the crying selfie and its subsequent deletion (which deserves a thread of its own such is the level of batsh1tness),the quoting and attacking of multiple boards.ie posters to her audience of adoring followers (which suggest she's following this thread by the minute too) and the #pma #strength #positivity instagram quotes....all suggest an extremely fragile ego, tendency to manipulate and desperate need for validation via her social media channels that goes beyond healthy and normal.

If I were a friend of hers I'd be advising her to take a break entirely from social media for the next few weeks and to get herself into therapy to build up her self-esteem and deal with the issues that seem to be informing these sort of juvenile and immature behaviours.

You wrote an incredibly accurate and well worded response there. Kudos to your objective, yet empathetic understanding.

Mountainsandh

J Mysterio wrote: »

Although I think we are right to criticise her awful ****e - and I am very proud of the response of majority of boardies - it is done.

Well this is a bit pat-roniz-iarchal.

But you are right. I feel we're going around in circles, but reading others' points of view was interesting.

I really hope RMC understands that it more the matter of a post that is thought to be very ill-advised that is being discussed, and the group-think behaviour, rather than the person behind it all.

Ireland is such an easy place to fall into group think, when you're young, imo. Is it M.D. Higgins who proposed philosophy classes ? He's right, there's a huge need for them. (I had philosophy up to Baccalaureat, I was useless at it, but I use crumbs of it all the time in life).
Definitely more of a need for them than for consent classes.

westernlass

deleted post

One eyed Jack

pilly wrote: »

I'm swinging backwards and forwards on this, have to be honest but there's one thing that has convinced me that's it's not a rape.

Any rape victim who has posted here hasn't believed it was a rape and they more than any of us know the feelings and thought process involved.

They'd only know the feelings and thought processes involved for themselves as individuals, they wouldn't know the feelings and thought processes involved for anyone else but themselves, and that still wouldn't qualify them to be able to determine whether the circumstances for anyone else were or weren't rape.

pilly wrote: »

Also another thing that is overlooked in the discussion is the age of the guy.

At certain stages I've agreed "yeah he was a sleaze, a creep" but let's remember he was college age so at the horniest stage of his life without the emotional maturity to deal with it. Sorry lads but think about it when you were that age. Were you different to how you are now?

(Presuming most here are finished college)

No, even back then I knew when someone said no, they meant no.

Samaris

Mountainsandh wrote: »

that it more the matter of a post that is thought to be very ill-advised that is being discussed, and the group-think behaviour, rather than the person behind it all.

Mod: As it should be, but there's a few posts that are going over the line to analysing her character and making personal comments (I'm not picking on a single comment for both). Given at this stage everyone's well aware that the person they're speaking about can read what's here, they should be treated to some extent as a fellow-poster. I realise that "public" and "private" are a bit mixed up in this case but play the ball, not the person.

Skyfarm

Hi Samiris

where does victim blaming come into play ? im not really suggesting it has taken place in this thread (or any other) but I'm really interested to the moral conundrum thats faced by public companies with heart , maybe not the best place to discuss , but my heart is saying , if theres an issue of safety for the blogger or theres nomore points to be made , wheres the line of caring for the blogger/person ?

Samaris

Mod note: The line is making insinuations about her employability, her looks, her moral character or her mental health (all of which have happened somewhere in the thread). There's plenty to discuss about the article itself without delving into any of the above in what is, after all, a public forum that will only ever consist of speculation about any of those topics. I don't want this thread to be derailed though, skyfarm, so if you have any questions on it, drop me a PM please.

___________

I am sorry to see that feminism has such a bad rap though. Some of it I do think is cynical, but there are definitely people that go overboard with somewhat dubious extreme-feminism ideals. Feminism might see a resurgence though, especially in countries where rights might start vanishing. Much like the media got a short, sharp shock with Trump getting into power in the US, the feminists without a particular direction might suddenly get revitalized to doing something useful. Overall, I do see it as a force for good, but like anything else run and imagined by people, it gets stretched to cover stuff it was never really intended to and doesn't necessarily make sense. There's usually a core to the issue - this case goes back fifteen years, so applying strictly modern standards to it might be a bit unfair. If the "no - no - yes" issue is still here today (and it is, imo), it was probably worse fifteen years back, along with hang-ups about women's sexuality. I don't think from how it was put that she -was- raped, but there's issues buried in that that deserve discussion. Female sexuality has been a thorny issue for generations and it's going to take more than one or two generations to weed out centuries of ingrained social influence.

I do feel sorry for the guy (if he exists) in the middle of it all. The same way that young men need to be taught how to deal with females in terms of not pushing them into sex, young women also need to be taught of how serious rape is, how to protect themselves, and never to make a false claim or even false insinuation of rape. Also how to recognise rape. The consequences are just too serious for everyone. I have been sexually assaulted, on several occasions (two reported, one not) and as angry as I still am that there were no repercussions for the reported ones, I have to grit my teeth and admit that I prefer that than an innocent person being blamed and punished for it.

Skyfarm

But why is it always the "man/boy" who has the desire or urge for sex?
i feel the huge struggles women have made to be heard fully is totally diminished when people suggest they devoid of the same urges feeling surrounding intimacy as men

as a man , i can honestly say i have said no and not be in the "mood"