"Why I did not report my rapist"

muddypaws · 24-02-2017 01:38PM

AoifeCon1996 wrote: »

Just to clarify with replies- I totally agree that people are entitled to disagree and discuss it, but not to compare rape to a cup of tea with a friend or to attack a person as attention seeking and multiple other things. I respect the respectful comments of people with genuine thoughts and disagreements, but there are so many horrible, unnecessary things being said - thats all I was refering to

It is the police that used the example of tea, in teaching about consent as far as I understood the post.

AoifeCon1996 · 24-02-2017 01:38PM

seamus wrote: »

Rape is not a soft and fluffy, "however you feel yourself" thing.

It's a legal term. A very specific legal term, with wide-ranging implications.

Penetration which occurs without consent is rape. It's really that straightforward.

Rape cannot be defined as, "If you feel you were raped, then you were raped". If someone is going to lay bare the details of what happened, and call it rape, then in fact the people who read those facts do have the right to decide whether it's rape or not. Because rape is a specific thing, not an emotion or a feeling.

You cannot "decide" that you have been raped. You either were or were not, regardless of how you feel about it.

but she said no multiple times - there was no consent therefor it was rape. You said it yourself. Saying no multiple times means that there was no consent, I really beleive it is that simple.

elefant · 24-02-2017 01:41PM

AoifeCon1996 wrote: »

but she said no multiple times - there was no consent therefor it was rape. You said it yourself. Saying no multiple times means that there was no consent, I really beleive it is that simple.

The issue is whether in some situations, like in this one, whether consent can be inferred. She was kissing the guy and not under any physical duress, but decided to have sex with him because it was easier than having an awkward conversation.

That's a grey area in the minds of a lot of people. Which is why it is being discussed.

AoifeCon1996 · 24-02-2017 01:41PM

muddypaws wrote: »

It is the police that used the example of tea, in teaching about consent as far as I understood the post.

My apologies did I read the comment wrong? To be honest I very well could of, I was on about page 6 when I couldnt read anymore and was so angry when I wrote my first reply so if I read it wrong I apologise- totally my bad! But there was still plenty of other belittling comments made.

mzungu · 24-02-2017 01:42PM

Deleted User wrote: »

She admitted she let him have sex with her... ergo it wasn't.

She said "no" on a few occasions and he continued on regardless. There was no consent there whatsoever, only a string of requests to stop. So, yes, it was rape.

AoifeCon1996 · 24-02-2017 01:44PM

elefant wrote: »

The issue is whether in some situations, like in this one, whether consent can be inferred. She was kissing the guy and not under any physical duress, but decided to have sex with him because it was easier than having an awkward conversation.

That's a grey area in the minds of a lot of people. Which is why it is being discussed.

I respect your point but my reply to this person was that they stated it was as simple as no consent and penetration meaning rape, which is what happened so I couldnt get why they dont agree with her or implied that she "decided" she was raped. Whereas you are concerned about a grey area which is your right so then I get why you dont think its as simple. But the original poster said it was "really that straightforward"

Mountainsandh · 24-02-2017 01:44PM

meeeeh wrote: »

So a woman that went to sleep, didn't invite the person to the bedroom, said no repeatedly should be educated how to communicate properly.
Got it.

Yes she should. Cop on. He didn't creep on her in her bed in the middle of the night.

He followed her to the bedroom. They talked, they kissed. It went further.
The "no" wasn't convincing enough.
Big freaking deal.

Then rephrase, repeat, use body language, withdraw yourself from the situation. Don't just keep kissing and letting it all happen.

By your reasoning, my husband would be a rapist for heaven's sake.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 24-02-2017 01:44PM

AoifeCon1996 wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear that, I really am.
The thing is, she didn't shout rape. I'm almost sure that she is in her 30's (?), this happened almost 9 years ago and even after being a journalist for how many years, a blogger for almost 2 (?) and having endless conversations about rape with multiple people on public platforms, she never shouted rape. I always thought that she was just someone who felt strongly about it, never a victim of it. I do honestly think that as she said, she was inspired by someone else's post to share her own story, after multiple opportunities to. I think that that was the inspiration here. I think that she did it in order to help her readers who have also gone through it and it was her own attempt to tackle the stigma surrounding rape. As a victim of rape, I totally respect your opinion to publicly talk about it or to not discuss it, but Rosemary had her own experience and she choose to discuss it publicly as it was her story to tell - nobody elses. I dont see why this is such an issue?

And yes she is a journalist and yes she put this blog post out and i totally get that there are people who will disagree and say horrible stuff but my point is why isn't any of this being moderated (the particularity bad comments not just everything) when the mention of a bloggers name was under such moderation?

She's publically outed someone as being a rapist, on the internet, taking away his right of clearing his name or proving he didn't rape her. That's a dispicable thing to do.

Rape is not a feeling. You can feel lied to, taken advantage of, feel like you were blind, feel regret, you can have so many feelings after sex but those feelings don't mean you've been raped.
I'm personally taken aback with the sentence "I let it because it was easier than having an awkward conversation". What?

She's completely trivialising the act of rape. She admitted she consented, though she wasn't into it. To come out 9 years later and post that about someone all over the Internet without giving him a fair trial is vicious and dangerous.

People from that time in her life will know well who she's talking about, names will travel and mud sticks.

The Backwards Man · 24-02-2017 01:44PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I was binge watching a box set with a mate recently. We got to the last episode and he said he was too tired to go on.

"Please," I said "we got this far, do not flake on me now".

He said he had an early start in the morning and wanted to call it a night.

"Go on," I said "They are only 20 minutes long each, we can do this"

After a few more protests I added "Do not leave me doing this on my own, we came this far together, the finish line is so close".

Then as a ploy I started the episode running and the opening credits and music and the like.

In the end he said ok and flopped back down in the couch and we watched the Season Finale and he went home to bed.

If it is established that what is described in the OP is "rape" then please let me know, so I can turn myself in for kidnapping.

That's back to the whole culture of not taking no for an answer again, sometimes it just makes you a lousy mate, sometimes it makes you something a lot worse.

nacho libre · 24-02-2017 01:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I was binge watching a box set with a mate recently. We got to the last episode and he said he was too tired to go on.

"Please," I said "we got this far, do not flake on me now".

He said he had an early start in the morning and wanted to call it a night.

"Go on," I said "They are only 20 minutes long each, we can do this"

After a few more protests I added "Do not leave me doing this on my own, we came this far together, the finish line is so close".

Then as a ploy I started the episode running and the opening credits and music and the like.

In the end he said ok and flopped back down in the couch and we watched the Season Finale and he went home to bed.

If it is established that what is described in the OP is "rape" then please let me know, so I can turn myself in for kidnapping.

so it's her fault for not being direct enough with him. Perhaps you are right, she should not have just relented and let him get on with it, but i would still lay most of the blame on him. It seems his penis was determined to be in the magic circle and he was not going to deprive it, so he just ignored her saying no.
Perhaps quite a few here have had sex with the other person reluctant to do so - their no, really meant yes. To me once you hear no, that's it, no matter how hard your cock is, it's a selfish violation of another person to continue on.

24-02-2017 01:46PM

AoifeCon1996 wrote: »

This thread is literally ripping this woman apart

AoifeCon1996 wrote: »

and proving that rape culture is still very much a thing.

Both of those things are untrue, especially the first one as it's all online and not physically possible.

Also, actually laughing here at the notion of you defending her anonymity. She's a social influencer haven't you heard?!

One eyed Jack · 24-02-2017 01:46PM

seamus wrote: »

Rape is not a soft and fluffy, "however you feel yourself" thing.

It's a legal term. A very specific legal term, with wide-ranging implications.

Penetration which occurs without consent is rape. It's really that straightforward.

Rape cannot be defined as, "If you feel you were raped, then you were raped". If someone is going to lay bare the details of what happened, and call it rape, then in fact the people who read those facts do have the right to decide whether it's rape or not. Because rape is a specific thing, not an emotion or a feeling.

You cannot "decide" that you have been raped. You either were or were not, regardless of how you feel about it.

You can of course?

Rape isn't just a legal term either. The charge of rape has a number of different constituents to the crime, one of the most important of which is to establish whether the alleged victim had capacity to consent. This is why there have been numerous calls for a legal definition of consent to be included in the Sexual Offences Bill.

....... · 24-02-2017 01:48PM

This post has been deleted.

pumpkin4life · 24-02-2017 01:49PM

The irony is that people like Rosemary are adding more to so called rape culture, because by making these kinds of comments, more and more people are wired to say "just another spoofer", which puts people who are victims of sexual abuse far more at risk. Also, in terms of your own biases.

They'll think I'm a spoofer. Maybe it didn't happen. Maybe I was looking for attention and I'm a crappy person like Rosemary. It wasn't abuse. I'm not a fruitcake blue haired fembo. They'll think I'm an attention seeker.

elefant · 24-02-2017 01:50PM

AoifeCon1996 wrote: »

I respect your point but my reply to this person was that they stated it was as simple as no consent and penetration meaning rape, which is what happened so I couldnt get why they dont agree with her or implied that she "decided" she was raped. Whereas you are concerned about a grey area which is your right so then I get why you dont think its as simple. But the original poster said it was "really that straightforward"

Your initial point was 'they have the right to decide when someone is raped or not'. This is not the case.

This is a tricky scenario, and it isn't straightforward (in a lot of posters' eyes). Yet someone has been publicly outed as a rapist.

Wibbs · 24-02-2017 01:50PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I was binge watching a box set with a mate recently. We got to the last episode and he said he was too tired to go on.

If it is established that what is described in the OP is "rape" then please let me know, so I can turn myself in for kidnapping.

Depends entirely on the boxset in question.

AoifeCon1996 wrote: »

Where the hell are the moderators on this thread??? If a thread about bloggers goes up and someone even dares to name them, they are there in a flash handing out bans left right and centre. Yet here we have multiple people publicly naming this woman, demeaning everything she has said and making fun of rape yet they are nowhere to be seen??

This thread is literally ripping this woman apart and proving that rape culture is still very much a thing and how ****ing uneducated people are in this country, still. I had to stop reading because it was actually painful to see people make fun of someone who had opened up about their experience of rape. Then they wonder why people don't report it or ever tell people about it? "its not rape if you didnt report it" eh NO, they dont report it because of people like YOU who will come and make fun of what they're saying and call them attention seeking and every name under the sun. They dont report it because you take it upon yourself to say that they are wrong when you've absolutely NO RIGHT to. Discusting.

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.

Just to clarify with replies- I totally agree that people are entitled to disagree and discuss it, but not to compare rape to a cup of tea with a friend or to attack a person as attention seeking and multiple other things.

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.

I respect the respectful comments of people with genuine thoughts and disagreements, but there are so many horrible, unnecessary things being said - thats all I was refering to

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".

One eyed Jack wrote:

You can of course?

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.

AoifeCon1996 · 24-02-2017 01:52PM

Omackeral wrote: »

Both of those things are untrue, especially the first one as it's all online and not physically possible.

Also, actually laughing here at the notion of you defending her anonymity. She's a social influencer haven't you heard?!

I'm not defending her anonymity or if you thought I was , it's not my intention. I get that she is a public blogger and put up a public post - but that doesnt give people the right to say such horrible things. And i'm not that naive that I think that a disagreement is a "horrible thing". People are justified to disagree and voice that but only if it is not just for the point of attacking her as a person or "influencer". I dont agree with people basically bullying another person for the sake of it, but I do agree with disagreements that are voiced in a respecful way

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 24-02-2017 01:53PM

nacho libre wrote: »

so it's her fault for not being direct enough with him. Perhaps you are right, she should have just relented and let him get on with it, but i would still lay most of the blame on him. It seems his penis was determined to be in the magic circle and he was not going to deprive it, so he just ignored her saying no.
Perhaps quite a few here have had sex with the other person reluctant to do so - their no, really meant yes. To me once you hear no, that's it, no matter how hard your cock is, it's a selfish violation of another person to continue on.

In an ideal world a simple "no" would be enough. It's never the victims fault however people do need to take some personal responsibility. If a gentle "no" isn't having the desired effect, (while still kissing him) the reasonable thing to expect would be to cease kissing, a firmer rebuttal and a request for him to leave.

Yes no should mean no, but I've been guilty of not accepting a no as an answer and I've been equally guilty in saying no but acting and demonstrating yes.
As an adult, to protect yourself, to stop yourself being violated and used it's not unreasonable to expect "please stop. Get off me. You're scaring me and I don't want to have sex". Leave absolutely no room for any doubt.

Mountainsandh · 24-02-2017 01:53PM

Neyite wrote: »

I've a son. I want to teach him to be the kind of guy that when noticing that the girl (or guy!) he is kissing is not into it or is reluctant /drunk/falling asleep, or says no that he stops right away. That the correct action to take is to put that person in a taxi home, find their friend, or tuck into bed clothed and unmolested. If it turns out that the person kinda sorta did want sex, then they learn to be clearer the next time about what they want and not bandy the word "no" around in a half hearted and ambiguous way.

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 ?

pilly · 24-02-2017 01:54PM

AoifeCon1996 wrote: »

Just to clarify with replies- I totally agree that people are entitled to disagree and discuss it, but not to compare rape to a cup of tea with a friend or to attack a person as attention seeking and multiple other things. I respect the respectful comments of people with genuine thoughts and disagreements, but there are so many horrible, unnecessary things being said - thats all I was refering to

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.

eviltwin · 24-02-2017 01:55PM

AoifeCon1996 wrote: »

but she said no multiple times - there was no consent therefor it was rape. You said it yourself. Saying no multiple times means that there was no consent, I really beleive it is that simple.

With all due respect to the woman, just because she feels she was raped it doesn't mean she was actually raped.

Rape, as Seamus said, is a legal definition and fits very defined parameters. That doesn't mean that there won't be people who find themselves in positions that leave them feeling violated but its still not rape.

At worst, she was coerced into sex which isn't a nice thing to do but its not rape.

January · 24-02-2017 01:57PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Yes she should. Cop on. He didn't creep on her in her bed in the middle of the night.

He followed her to the bedroom. They talked, they kissed. It went further.
The "no" wasn't convincing enough.
Big freaking deal.

Then rephrase, repeat, use body language, withdraw yourself from the situation. Don't just keep kissing and letting it all happen.

By your reasoning, my husband would be a rapist for heaven's sake.

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.

AoifeCon1996 · 24-02-2017 01:58PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

She's publically outed someone as being a rapist, on the internet, taking away his right of clearing his name or proving he didn't rape her. That's a dispicable thing to do.

Rape is not a feeling. You can feel lied to, taken advantage of, feel like you were blind, feel regret, you can have so many feelings after sex but those feelings don't mean you've been raped.
I'm personally taken aback with the sentence "I let it because it was easier than having an awkward conversation". What?

She's completely trivialising the act of rape. She admitted she consented, though she wasn't into it. To come out 9 years later and post that about someone all over the Internet without giving him a fair trial is vicious and dangerous.

People from that time in her life will know well who she's talking about, names will travel and mud sticks.

I dont really agree with "She admitted she consented, though she wasn't into it." I think it was more that after multiple times of trying to say no, she stopped because she felt like it was useless and that this man was ignoring her.
I think it was an act of feeling powerless and that her consent was not of importance to the man.

& thats fair enough, but at the same time she didn't post this mans name when she easily could of. From the story do you think he deserves a fair trial? Why is it that he is innocent until proven guilty but she is a liar until proven truthful? I don't think that her post will destroy this mans life as she didnt name him, actually the contrary. She publicly put it up herself and is now the subject of many people discussing her and disagreeing with her. I'm not saying that this is ruining her life by any means, but it will surely affect her mental health and how people perceive her. Yet, she did it at the cost of reaching out to others who have gone through it as well, which is what I think people are forgetting

Wibbs · 24-02-2017 02:01PM

AoifeCon1996 wrote: »

I'm not defending her anonymity or if you thought I was , it's not my intention. I get that she is a public blogger and put up a public post - but that doesnt give people the right to say such horrible things.

It kinda does. If "horrible things" have been said of course, rather than disagreement or different viewpoints.

And i'm not that naive that I think that a disagreement is a "horrible thing".

Yet you appear to be doing just that.

People are justified to disagree and voice that but only if it is not just for the point of attacking her as a person or "influencer".

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.

I dont agree with people basically bullying another person for the sake of it, but I do agree with disagreements that are voiced in a respecful way

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

One eyed Jack · 24-02-2017 02:03PM

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

It's not at all as simple though as "you were, or you were not", and that's why the accused (in this particular case she didn't accuse anyone, so nobody actually has been accused of rape, same logic?) is entitled to a fair trial in front of a jury of their peers, their peers who will decide upon hearing the evidence whether the accused is guilty or not guilty of the specific charge they were charged with, and that's why I pointed out that the law allows for numerous different charges relating to rape and sexual assault.

Your claim of course has a bearing on it, especially if you can provide evidence that you were burgled. Burglary though is a lot more clear cut than an allegation of rape.

osarusan · 24-02-2017 02:04PM

seamus wrote: »

Consent is simple. It's very easy.

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

seamus wrote: »

Penetration which occurs without consent is rape. It's really that straightforward.

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.*

I think this thread is another example of how everybody agrees that consent is important and rape is wrong, yet there are huge differences of opinion in what those things actually mean.

*Currently under review - I would not be surprised if the term was changed to 'reasonable belief', similar to the UK, as 'honest belief' doesn't exclude beliefs that, while genuinely held, are unreasonable.

seamus · 24-02-2017 02:04PM

AoifeCon1996 wrote: »

but she said no multiple times - there was no consent therefor it was rape. You said it yourself. Saying no multiple times means that there was no consent, I really beleive it is that simple.

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.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can of course?

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.

* I would like to note for the record that if someone was being taught this, I would encourage them to err on the side of caution and wait for more "yes"es before proceeding. But from a factual point of view, "yes means yes" regardless of how many "no"s came first.

AoifeCon1996 · 24-02-2017 02:05PM

elefant wrote: »

Your initial point was 'they have the right to decide when someone is raped or not'. This is not the case.

This is a tricky scenario, and it isn't straightforward (in a lot of posters' eyes). Yet someone has been publicly outed as a rapist.

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.

24-02-2017 02:06PM

Imnotthehulk wrote: »

I regret opening up his thread and reading through it.

There are some number of tools on these boards!

There are really two stances. Those like me who agree with the law as it stands, that sex without consent is rape, and it's hard to beat the word "no" as indicative of...well...no. And those who have an issue with that, including a few who disagree with the law or think it is not nuanced enough (perfectly legitimate), some who think no might mean yes if, well, you know, she kinda did this or allowed that (I disagree), a few who seem to think a proper rape needs a bit of the ol' ultraviolence (just...no). But no one is a "tool", it's just different opimnions.

Rightwing · 24-02-2017 02:07PM

She didn't report it because it didn't happen.

We can safely assume she'd be going to the gardai if she met larry murphy.

"Why I did not report my rapist"

Comments