"Why I did not report my rapist"

AoifeCon1996

Wibbs wrote: »

Depends entirely on the boxset in question.



So you think we should all just agree and support any publicly broadcast opinion piece, so long as it agrees with a particular narrative we approve of? That's not how things work, or should work. This goes double in the case of publicly accusing someone of what the vast majority of society(and the law) sees as a heinous crime. So it's OK for someone to accuse someone else of such a crime with no proof but their own testimony? Luckily society and the legal system requires more.

You do realise that the "cup of tea" reference was an illustrative part of a consent discussion? This is often a problem with open debate. More and more people are getting less used to it and can kick off when dissenting voices are raised. The rise of Facebook/Reddit/Whatsapp/Blog echo chambers on all contentious subjects and politics where dissent is down voted(or not invited in the first place) are evidence of that. Which TBH - and correct me if I'm wrong - reads to me like "I respect comments that agree with my worldview, but any dissent, even questions beyond that I take issue with".

You can, but as Seamus points out the facts boil down to "You either were or were not, regardless of how you feel about it". If you were then your decision to believe it gels with the fact of it, if not, it doesn't. I could call the Guards now and claim I was burgled, but if I wasn't, well, I wasn't. My claim has no bearing on it.

" Which TBH - and correct me if I'm wrong - reads to me like "I respect comments that agree with my worldview, but any dissent, even questions beyond that I take issue with"."

I hate that it came across that way because it is not what I meant. As I tried to explain to someone else, I don't just think that people who disagree are "haters" or "trolls". I respect that people have a right to disagree with my world view. I don't expect everyone else to think the same was as me or to even agree. I take issue with bullying and people saying nasty things that are irrelevent. A point can be made without saying such horrible things. That is all.

AoifeCon1996

pilly wrote: »

Whilst I agree with some of your points Aoife I can not agree with the point that if someone "feels" they were raped then they were.

This is very unfair to men, if that's the case they could be accused of rape any time they have sex.

And I say this as a woman.

I never said that I agree with the point either. The matter of fact here is that she said no mupliple times and he continued - this is rape, not a feeling.

AoifeCon1996

Wibbs wrote: »

It kinda does. If "horrible things" have been said of course, rather than disagreement or different viewpoints. Yet you appear to be doing just that.

That's the title she bestowed upon herself. And publicly. That she has some reading that and thinking "eh wut?" is hardly a crime. Neither is questions her narratives. She is publicly declaring them and among them she is openly and publicly accusing another person of a heinous crime. Ireland is a small place and Ireland's social circles are even smaller.

The B word is too often trotted out as a way to stifle debate.

I totally agree with all you've said there except for the fact that there WERE horrible things being said. Not horrible things as in disagreements. All you have to do is read the first few pages to see that. I don't know how many times I can say the same thing over, it seems pointless. Either I'm not making my point well enough or you're not receiving it the way it's written. Either or, its not worth it to keep talking about it because I'm trying to say that I'm not simply taking issue with disagreements, and you think I am!

Agree to disagree and all that

seamus

osarusan wrote: »

I'd say the polarised positions in thread suggests the opposite.

I'd still say "consent is simple", the problem is in communicating it

It's not that straightforward though. Where it is established that there is penetration without consent, there is also the issue of honest belief of consent.*

|Cheers, I wasn't aware of that ruling; https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1111/830984-court-rape/
Which does indeed muddy the waters in general.

In this case though it's not relevant as by her own admission she did consent.

AoifeCon1996

seamus wrote: »

One of the things taught in consent classes is that five "yes"es followed by a "no", means "No". Rightly so.

However, five "no"s followed by a "yes" actually means "Yes".

In her own words, she was not being physically restrained. She was not afraid of this man. He was pushy, but she did not feel in any way coerced into letting him have sex with her except that "I was too ashamed – of my own meanness to say no".

So it comes down to whether or not - at the time of having sex - she had consented. By her own account, she allowed it to happen. She freely consented. And by "freely" I mean that she was in no way forced or coerced to provide consent.

Therefore rape did not occur.

Sexual assault, perhaps. But that's a whole other kettle of fish.

You can realise you were raped, you cannot decide it. The difference is subtle but important.

Deciding you were raped means you are withdrawing your consent after the fact, that even though you did consent, you didn't want to consent.

Realising it means coming to the understanding that you didn't actually consent to it.

Rape is a fact - you cannot decide that it happened. It either did or did not occur.

Honestly you've made some good points there.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

AoifeCon1996 wrote: »

How is it not the case when so many people are saying that "its not rape" "she wasnt raped" etc.

Someone has been publicly outed as a rapist because after a woman said no mupltiple times, they continued to have sex with her without her consent. That is a rapist.

It is really that straighforward to me so if you disagree fair enough, its probably not worth arguing about anymore as I see it that simply.

In my relationship I say no to sex a lot.
"No I'm not waxed" "no we'll be late for work" "no, you sId you'd clean the windows and you never did". But he'll persist and either get me in the mood or have me tell him no seriously I'm not in the humour, and depending on what my reaction is, it will result in him either listening and stopping or we'll have sex.

Since last May I've been quite sick and during the worst of it I had absolutely no interest in sex, for months. But I still did it, even though I felt it was the last thing I wanted to do, because i didn't want to hurt his feelings or have him think i was gone off him. I'm sure if he knew I wasn't into it He'd have been horrified and wouldn't have wanted sex but it was a choice I made.

Never ever ever would I insinuate he raped me or didn't take no for an answer because I have went along with it. She continued to let him kiss her, and she decided that it was easier to **** him than have an awkward conversation.
How would that decision be any different to say, a woman deciding to have sex with her partner when she's unwell because she doesn't want to explain to him she has no sexdrive?

Calhoun

meeeeh wrote: »

Isn't it lucky that we all respond the exactly same socially acceptable way.

Btw my response was to freeze and then I managed to get away. I didn't scream, I didn't fight, I didn't raise alarm, I ran away and hid among other people and kept quiet about it. And I felt embarrassed about not reacting quickly enough, about not hitting him, about having blond hair and wearing a t shirt that was low cut. That was my reaction and yet it doesn't make what happened to me any more excusable or any less wrong.

Why didn't you report it? Your expecting society on your word with going through the law to believe we have a rape culture but when it comes to doing to socially responsible thing of standing up and going through structures we have in law nothing happens.

Neyite

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It's lovely Neyite and it's great.
However, like you conclude, the other person has to learn communication skills too.

I'm of the opinion that really, both young people in this scenario should have better communication skills, and that in the event your child is not an evil guy and simply got his wires crossed, he should not be accused of rape.
Posts such as the one discussed here are implying that your young fellow, if he misinterpreted the young lady's contradictory body language and verbal language, would be considered a rapist. Would you think your son is a rapist if he found himself in the young man's situation ?

The young man in this situation continued past the point where the blogger said "no". How can that be verbally misinterpreted? She wanted to continue to kiss and only kiss. He wanted to and did go further than the blogger wanted him to. It's not up to me to decide whether or not she was raped-I'll leave that to the professionals such as Rape Crisis Centre and the Gardai /Courts.

I'm not even going to get into a hypothetical discussion about my child where you are casting him as a rapist. That's pretty disgusting. He is four FFS.

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

One of the things taught in consent classes is that five "yes"es followed by a "no", means "No". Rightly so.

However, five "no"s followed by a "yes" actually means "Yes".

In her own words, she was not being physically restrained. She was not afraid of this man. He was pushy, but she did not feel in any way coerced into letting him have sex with her except that "I was too ashamed – of my own meanness to say no".

So it comes down to whether or not - at the time of having sex - she had consented. By her own account, she allowed it to happen. She freely consented. And by "freely" I mean that she was in no way forced or coerced to provide consent.

Therefore rape did not occur.

Sexual assault, perhaps. But that's a whole other kettle of fish.

Having to say "no" however many times is an indication to me at least that she was coerced into having sex, and by your own standard, penetration did occur, therefore that's two elements that could easily see the guy in the dock taking his chances with the jury.

You can realise you were raped, you cannot decide it. The difference is subtle but important.

Deciding you were raped means you are withdrawing your consent after the fact, that even though you did consent, you didn't want to consent.

Realising it means coming to the understanding that you didn't actually consent to it.

Rape is a fact - you cannot decide that it happened. It either did or did not occur.

If a person themselves can't decide they were raped, then how does anyone else here have the authority to say that the person in this particular case wasn't raped? Wouldn't that be up to a jury to decide if an allegation was made then?

Look I don't like the idea of rape allegations being used as a tool to further a political agenda either, but I'm also not going to say to anyone who feels they have been the victim of a crime, that they weren't the victim of a crime at all. In a situation like the case related in that blog, I would understand why they felt the way they did, but nine years later I would also acknowledge that it would be unlikely to lead to a successful prosecution.

Take the example of the victims of clerical sexual abuse - if they hadn't felt they were raped, then they were unlikely to come out in public and say so because they assumed they would be villified in the media for speaking out against a member of the clergy. That's how it wasn't acknowledged for so long, because each of them were isolated and assumed it had only happened to them.

Calhoun

Neyite wrote: »

The young man in this situation continued past the point where the blogger said "no". How can that be verbally misinterpreted? She wanted to continue to kiss and only kiss. He wanted to and did go further than the blogger wanted him to. It's not up to me to decide whether or not she was raped-I'll leave that to the professionals such as Rape Crisis Centre and the Gardai /Courts.

I'm not even going to get into a hypothetical discussion about my child where you are casting him as a rapist. That's pretty disgusting. He is four FFS.

That's the reality of what we are facing into if we keep down this path of identity politics as a male he will automatically be assumed to be a rapist.

seamus

Calhoun wrote: »

Why didn't you report it? Your expecting society on your word with going through the law to believe we have a rape culture but when it comes to doing to socially responsible thing of standing up and going through structures we have in law nothing happens.

I think that's quite unfair. Any kind of personal assault; be that sexual assault, a mugging, being attacked in the street, etc., is psychologically difficult for the victim.

Following on from the initial panic and fear comes a strong desire to move on and forget about the incident, once you realise that you are not physically injured. "It could have been worse", "I might have been wrong to go down that street", etc. etc.

Making a statement and making a complaint not only means that you don't get to close the incident and move on with your life, but also means having to retrace all of the steps you took which led to the incident. And potentially proving that it was in fact you who was in the wrong.

It's really easy and understandable to say, "If you were really upset, you would have followed through to the full extent of the law". But far harder in practice to actually do it. In many ways, the more upset someone is about an incident, the less they want to have to talk about it over and over and over.

Millicent

Omackeral wrote: »

Aren't you the one who makes your very own boyfriend verbally ask you if it's ok to have sex now during a kiss? Yeah, I won't be taking your ideas on sex seriously at all. God love him btw, no spontaneous up-against-the-wall fun for him, poor guy.

Did you actually just say that to a rape victim? You're deplorable.

professore

Why didn't she tell him no and get up and walk out of the room?

Don't know what it's like now but if you asked a girl out in my day and she said no, or went in for a kiss and she said no, or any sexual activity whatsoever, and you took the first no as an actual no, you would never get anywhere. It was part of the game.

Going up to a girl, saying "Do you want to have sex?" she says yes and then you do it, continually saying "Are you sure?" where is the fun in that? That's awful.

In my experience, there was a lot of difference between no with words and no with your body. If she's saying no and moaning and putting her hand down your pants at the same time, then is that consent or not?

On the other hand, a girl could say yes out of fear, or peer pressure, or a host of other things, but actually wouldn't want sex, is that then OK?

If a girl wanted to say no, she was generally very obvious about it. Then again there was far less of a hookup culture than there seems to be now - generally speaking people didn't just meet and have sex.

To use the car dealer analogy, if you are telling the salesman no, but still looking longingly at the car, should he just walk away?

Human sexual relationships are not clear cut, despite what modern society wants us to believe. No wonder the Japanese herbivore men and MGTOW is becoming so huge.

Neyite

Calhoun wrote: »

That's the reality of what we are facing into if we keep down this path of identity politics as a male he will automatically be assumed to be a rapist.

I've never subscribed to identity politics. Ever.

Rightwing

Neyite wrote: »

The young man in this situation continued past the point where the blogger said "no". How can that be verbally misinterpreted? She wanted to continue to kiss and only kiss. He wanted to and did go further than the blogger wanted him to. It's not up to me to decide whether or not she was raped-I'll leave that to the professionals such as Rape Crisis Centre and the Gardai /Courts.

I'm not even going to get into a hypothetical discussion about my child where you are casting him as a rapist. That's pretty disgusting. He is four FFS.

This woman is confused, maybe those 'beer bottles' had something to do with it. She put herself in a vulnerable position, then she refused to get out of that position. Granted she didn't egg him on. I would say the sex wasnt great and she cried foul. Too late then love.
If a salesman asks me 'do you want that' I say no, if he asks again, i say 'fcuk off cnut'. This usually brings the situation to a head.

Little CuChulainn

professore wrote: »

Why didn't she tell him no and get up and walk out of the room?

It was her room?

seamus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Having to say "no" however many times is an indication to me at least that she was coerced into having sex

Coercion specifically involves the use of some kind of threat or intimidation (express or implied) to get someone to do something. People often conflate "coerce" and "persuade", but they're not the same thing. That's why I used it.
Her own words make it very clear that there was no coercion.

Mountainsandh

January wrote: »

The 'no' shouldn't need to be convincing enough.

It's quite possible your husband is a rapist if he's having sex with you when you told him no. Whether you let him or not.

Good thing I'm not drinking tea because I would probably splutter it out through my nose. That's exactly my point. My husband is the most gentle soul you could imagine. And he can be very convincing.

That's exactly my point.
It's ridiculous to imply that a "no" is worth the same in every interaction, that a 2 letter word can be enough in any situation, imo.

Ambiguity is part of every language, and it's a possibility in every aspect of life. That's why we learn more words than just yes, and no.

Calhoun

seamus wrote: »

I think that's quite unfair. Any kind of personal assault; be that sexual assault, a mugging, being attacked in the street, etc., is psychologically difficult for the victim.

Following on from the initial panic and fear comes a strong desire to move on and forget about the incident, once you realise that you are not physically injured. "It could have been worse", "I might have been wrong to go down that street", etc. etc.

Making a statement and making a complaint not only means that you don't get to close the incident and move on with your life, but also means having to retrace all of the steps you took which led to the incident. And potentially proving that it was in fact you who was in the wrong.

It's really easy and understandable to say, "If you were really upset, you would have followed through to the full extent of the law". But far harder in practice to actually do it. In many ways, the more upset someone is about an incident, the less they want to have to talk about it over and over and over.

No no I don't think so, what results are we expecting from these conversations ? Do we want rape to be taken seriously by society? Or is it we want trial by media or an accusation by one sex to carry more weight than the other?

If we in society are to take it very seriously and an accusation can ruin someone's life you have to be socially responsible and actually report it through the right structures.

Help me out here though as I just don't understand what we are hoping to accomplish here.

notsoyoungwan

Calhoun wrote: »

Exactly yah if this crime is one of the worst things that can be done to a person, you don't just lie there and take it you fight your corner.

timmy880 wrote: »

If you genuinely believe you were raped, you would have reported it. End of story.

Wow, I didn't realise there was a set of instructions I was to follow when I was raped.

I was 17, about to turn 18, and was at a house party. I'd had a few drinks but was not very drunk. My sister who had come to the party with me had fecked off with a fella, and with the only house key. (She was in college, I was due to start a few weeks later, was visiting her for a few days) I had no key to her place and no way of contacting her (this was well before mobile phones) so I stayed at the party house. Went upstairs to bed on my own. About an hour or two later I was woken by a guy beside me in the bed, someone I'd chatted to earlier in the night. I had not flirted with him, kissed him or done or said anything which may have led him to believe I was interested in him.when I was woken by him I asked him wtf he was doing, he responded by mauling my breasts. He tried to pull my top up. I told him not to. I told him to stop, said no, said I didn't want to, repeatedly. He didn't stop. He kept at me. I kept saying no, he kept saying that he knew I really wanted it, that I wasn't as innocent as I looked. I kept asking him to stop, telling him he was hurting me, telling him I didn't want it, I told him I was a virgin (which was true) and that I did not want to have sex with him. That didn't stop him. I tried to push him off, I couldn't. He was bigger and stronger than me. When he told me to "shut the fcuk up", I did exactly that as I figured he might hit me/beat me up/strangle me otherwise. Better to 'just' be raped than to be raped and murdered, eh? So I lay there while he raped me, crying, torn and bleeding. I actually lay beside him for a few hours afterwards, as he snored, I was upset, traumatised and frozen. When he woke he actually kissed me and thanked me before he left.

I didn't tell anyone immediately afterwards. I was traumatised, scared, embarrassed and humiliated. I wanted to forget it. I didn't want my parents to find out, it would have destroyed them. I didn't want my sister to feel guilty for leaving me in the house. So focussed was I on keeping it quiet that I gathered the blood-stained bed sheets and took them home with me to wash, telling the
host and my sister that I had puked and it was only fair I do the laundry. I never reported it cos I didn't want the stress, the degradation, the humiliation on top of what I'd already had. I didn't want to have to discuss it with guards. I didn't want my parents to ever find out. I didn't want to go through a trial with a barrister asking me awful questions. And I felt that somehow I was partly responsible as I put myself in a situation where I was in a bedroom of a house where there were strangers.

But yeah, maybe it would have been better if I'd read the manual on what to do while you're being raped and afterwards, and behaved exactly as people (who have never been raped, as if they had they would not come out with such idiotic definitive statements) think I should have.

professore

Actually, here's a cup of tea analogy for it in an Irish context:

meeeeh

Calhoun wrote: »

Why didn't you report it? Your expecting society on your word with going through the law to believe we have a rape culture but when it comes to doing to socially responsible thing of standing up and going through structures we have in law nothing happens.

Does it matter? It's very easy to pontificate about what other should do.

Anyway it happened on the morning of leaving the Turkey. I had absolutely no intention reporting it and it would do absolutely nothing for me, i would be my word against his. I'm not naive enough to believe in some universal justice.

Edit: Btw someone said that the author ousted out an innocent on internet man. Actually no name is mentioned, the only named person that mud is sling at is Rosemary.

professore

notsoyoungwan wrote: »

Wow, I didn't realise there was a set of instructions I was to follow when I was raped.

I was 17, about to turn 18, and was at a house party. I'd had a few drinks but was not very drunk. My sister who had come to the party with me had fecked off with a fella, and with the only house key. (She was in college, I was due to start a few weeks later, was visiting her for a few days) I had no key to her place and no way of contacting her (this was well before mobile phones) so I stayed at the party house. Went upstairs to bed on my own. About an hour or two later I was woken by a guy beside me in the bed, someone I'd chatted to earlier in the night. I had not flirted with him, kissed him or done or said anything which may have led him to believe I was interested in him.when I was woken by him I asked him wtf he was doing, he responded by mauling my breasts. He tried to pull my top up. I told him not to. I told him to stop, said no, said I didn't want to, repeatedly. He didn't stop. He kept at me. I kept saying no, he kept saying that he knew I really wanted it, that I wasn't as innocent as I looked. I kept asking him to stop, telling him he was hurting me, telling him I didn't want it, I told him I was a virgin (which was true) and that I did not want to have sex with him. That didn't stop him. I tried to push him off, I couldn't. He was bigger and stronger than me. When he told me to "shut the fcuk up", I did exactly that as I figured he might hit me/beat me up/strangle me otherwise. Better to 'just' be raped than to be raped and murdered, eh? So I lay there while he raped me, crying, torn and bleeding. I actually lay beside him for a few hours afterwards, as he snored, I was upset, traumatised and frozen. When he woke he actually kissed me and thanked me before he left.

I didn't tell anyone immediately afterwards. I was traumatised, scared, embarrassed and humiliated. I wanted to forget it. I didn't want my parents to find out, it would have destroyed them. I didn't want my sister to feel guilty for leaving me in the house. So focussed was I on keeping it quiet that I gathered the blood-stained bed sheets and took them home with me to wash, telling the
host and my sister that I had puked and it was only fair I do the laundry. I never reported it cos I didn't want the stress, the degradation, the humiliation on top of what I'd already had. I didn't want to have to discuss it with guards. I didn't want my parents to ever find out. I didn't want to go through a trial with a barrister asking me awful questions. And I felt that somehow I was partly responsible as I put myself in a situation where I was in a bedroom of a house where there were strangers.

But yeah, maybe it would have been better if I'd read the manual on what to do while you're being raped and afterwards, and behaved exactly as people (who have never been raped, as if they had they would not come out with such idiotic definitive statements) think I should have.

That is awful and clearly rape in anyone's book. I think the issue we are discussing here is giving mixed signals, and being free to leave or ask him to leave at any time in no uncertain terms, none of which was present here. You didn't invite him into your bedroom. You didn't kiss him. You didn't appear in the least enthusiastic.

I actually think the consent laws will make rape easier for predatory rapists, as they will scare their victims into saying yes, and then claim she gave consent.

jameorahiely

Alcohol seems to be the reoccuring theme.

Calhoun

Neyite wrote: »

I've never subscribed to identity politics. Ever.

You may not but it doesn't mean that is how society will judge him in the future.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Make a comment on her FB page... All you get back is replies of "fück you" from women who all look the same.

Fat.
Glasses.
Dyed hair.

This is feminism.

ibarelycare

January wrote: »

It's quite possible your husband is a rapist if he's having sex with you when you told him no. Whether you let him or not.

Fucking ridiculous. My boyfriend is not a rapist. Neither are any of my ex-boyfriends. Yet they've all had sex with me after I initially said no, and then changed my mind but didn't vocalise it to them. To accuse them of being rapists is hysterical and insulting not only to them, but to victims of actual rape.

buried

The young lady should go to the Police. It is utterly pointless to just create a blog to the online masses about this incident without going to the actual authorities who could investigate it under the actual proper balanced system of the law.
These are serious allegations. If you're prepared to write a online public blog about being a victim of a crime then its also your civic duty to give a statement to the Gardai about the incident also. What's the point reporting it on a blog? What do you expect the internet to do about it- Have a huge $hitstorm row about the story, as per usual? Report it to the police if you're going to report it at all. You may not have much faith in receiving justice through the actual criminal law system, fair enough, but you sure as $hit won't get it on the internet whatsoever.

Calhoun

meeeeh wrote: »

Does it matter? It's very easy to pontificate about what other should do.

Anyway it happened on the morning of leaving the Turkey. I had absolutely no intention reporting it and it would do absolutely nothing for me, i would be my word against his. I'm not naive enough to believe in some universal justice.

Edit: Btw someone said that the author ousted out an innocent on internet man. Actually no name is mentioned, the only named person that mud is sling at is Rosemary.

It's very easy to pontificate but it's also very easy to sit and through around allegations that Ireland has a rape culture.

If we aren't going to follow the societal rules of law and order what do we want instead ?

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

I'm not even going to get into a hypothetical discussion about my child where you are casting him as a rapist. That's pretty disgusting. He is four FFS.

You brought your son into this conversation.