"Why I did not report my rapist"

Broody_Allen · 24-02-2017 05:15PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

RMC could post that the sky is blue and Lexie would say that it's red because she has an issue with her. I'm actually amazed that a rape victim would choose not to emphathise about this over some long-standing petty beef.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 24-02-2017 05:18PM

dottie_lottie wrote: »

well no in that situation he didn't do anything wrong. But my fwb, who was physically much bigger and stronger than me and an aggressive drunk, got on top of me and proceeded to have sex with me despite the fact that i verbally told him no, and stopped responding physically to his actions, from that point on, I didn't return his kisses, I didn't respond to his hands on me, I didn't put my hands on him, there was nothing about by language verbal or physical that stated or implied consent. In my mind there's nothing blurry about that.

He had no standing right to my body in that instance because of some unspoken arrangement or agreement we had

I would agree with you, there's nothing blurry about that, you did not given consent.
It's extremely different too, "I said no, and let him take off my top, I was kissing him while he was taking off my pants and I said no but then the pants came off"
Bloody hell even to me that's giving mixed messages, no means no but you need to follow through as in no means no so don't take my pants off and listen I'm happy to kiss you but you can forget about anything else" rather than "I decided to let him have sex because it was easier than having an awkward conversation".

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 24-02-2017 05:19PM

Broody_Allen wrote: »

RMC could post that the sky is blue and Lexie would say that it's red because she has an issue with her. I'm actually amazed that a rape victim would choose not to emphathise about this over some long-standing petty beef.

There's no petty beef. I don't like her but I've stood up for her mere weeks ago when I felt she was being victimised. I don't emphasise with her over this post because she's discrediting actual rape victims and using it to gain a larger audience on her social media. I find that deplorable.

retro:electro · 24-02-2017 05:24PM

Broody_Allen wrote: »

RMC could post that the sky is blue and Lexie would say that it's red because she has an issue with her. I'm actually amazed that a rape victim would choose not to emphathise about this over some long-standing petty beef.

So because two people share an experience of being raped they must perpetually agree on all things rape related forever and always? If anything, DUE to being raped, Lexie has every right to be offended by RMC's words. She did not have the position of privilege that RMC had. She did not have a choice.

mzungu · 24-02-2017 05:25PM

pilly wrote: »

She could have easily stepped up out of the bed, got dressed and asked him to leave. At no stage did she say he was forceful or physical. You ask the question what more could she have done, it's that.

Whilst I agree, this guy was probably a creep for not taking the hint in the first place but sometimes it has to be more blatant than continuing on kissing someone.

Thing is, that is going down the route of "coulda woulda shoulda" with regards to the situation. Sure, getting up and walking out would have been the thing to do. But that is with the benefit of hindsight. However, in the moment that these things happen, things are rather different.

....... · 24-02-2017 05:27PM

This post has been deleted.

B.A._Baracus · 24-02-2017 05:29PM

I bet she's raging she didn't put Google adsense in her blog :pac:

Rightwing · 24-02-2017 05:31PM

Imagine if this was 2 homosexuals. Would the story have any credibility ? No.

One homosexual would be trying to make a name for himself on his blog at the expense of other homosexual.

kunst nugget · 24-02-2017 05:36PM

Rightwing wrote: »

Imagine if this was 2 homosexuals. Would the story have any credibility ? No.

One homosexual would be trying to make a name for himself on his blog at the expense of other homosexual.

What in the shiny shíte are you on about?

pilly · 24-02-2017 05:36PM

mzungu wrote: »

Thing is, that is going down the route of "coulda woulda shoulda" with regards to the situation. Sure, getting up and walking out would have been the thing to do. But that is with the benefit of hindsight. However, in the moment that these things happen, things are rather different.

No I agree, there's no point going down the "coulda woulda shoulda" road. I was simply answering a question someone asked about what she could have done.

Rightwing · 24-02-2017 05:38PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

What in the shiny shíte are you on about?

If you struggle with words and need a dictionary, go to Easons. Apart from that, I can be no longer of any assistance to you.

Hope this helps.

pilly · 24-02-2017 05:40PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Exactly! You don't know if it is or isn't but yet you proceeded to call it a rape situation.

This is what drives me mad. Just because a woman says she was raped or feels she was raped, it does not make it true and anyone who says otherwise is attacking victims.

In fact you also called her a victim.

An automatic assumption can not be made that because a woman says something then it's gospel and she's a victim.

I think it does a disservice to women. That's what makes me so angry about it. It's too easy to thrown these accusations out there and it's diminishes the actual suffering of real victims.

....... · 24-02-2017 05:40PM

This post has been deleted.

Mountainsandh · 24-02-2017 05:41PM

mzungu wrote: »

Thing is, that is going down the route of "coulda woulda shoulda" with regards to the situation. Sure, getting up and walking out would have been the thing to do. But that is with the benefit of hindsight. However, in the moment that these things happen, things are rather different.

This situation had not escalated to a situation of fear, or violence though, or even just insidious psychological manipulation.
This was just a normal enough interaction, with a bit of drink taken, something that really could have been a non event had she been a bit more assertive.

Do you ever find that sometimes, you click with people and then communication is easy, but other times, you need to put a bit more work into communicating ?

Well there you go. Maybe this guy just isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, maybe he's a stubborn eejit, maybe he's full of himself and he thinks no one in their right mind can possibly resist his charms, maybe he's normally perceptive enough but the drink makes him somewhat less perceptive ... and he needs a bit more telling.

The above traits in a person do not make that person a rapist. The same guy may well be reading comments on this story and be horrified that people might think he raped her when it didn't occur to him.

....... · 24-02-2017 05:48PM

This post has been deleted.

24-02-2017 05:48PM

....... wrote: »

Regardless of whether or not this was a rape, yer man sounds like a right creep that he ignores repeated verbal no's from a partner.

If someone says NO in an intimate situation you need to stop what youre doing.

The fact that you understand that no means no, is very confusing because you don't seem to know that not stopping when someone says no is rape.

....... · 24-02-2017 05:49PM

This post has been deleted.

kunst nugget · 24-02-2017 05:55PM

Rightwing wrote: »

If you struggle with words and need a dictionary, go to Easons. Apart from that, I can be no longer of any assistance to you.

Hope this helps.

I can read all proper with the wordsies, thanks. I'm just struggling to understand what your point is in relation to gay people and this type of scenario.

meeeeh · 24-02-2017 06:01PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The above traits in a person do not make that person a rapist. The same guy may well be reading comments on this story and be horrified that people might think he raped her when it didn't occur to him.

But sometimes we all do things despite not intending them.

I think the problem is that people understand rape only as someone dragging a victim somewhere and having sex with him/her despite them fighting him and screaming. Sexual violence against men is often dismissed because people can't apprehend the mechanics of it. Two people drunk only the victim being unconscious drunk and not consenting. Rape is not always done by the lowest of the low. Sometimes is just people who don't respect their partner enough to hear them say no. That doesn't mean they are as bad a predator waiting for victims in dark alley but they did do something to another person that they didn't consent to.

Rightwing · 24-02-2017 06:01PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

I can read all proper with the wordsies, thanks. I'm just struggling to understand what your point is in relation to gay people and this type of scenario.

Common denominator = publicity seeker.

No one would even comment on the homosexuals, but here there is an element of sympathy involved as there is a woman involved.

The author should be ashamed of herself, not because of her bogus article that only a simpleton would believe, but because she is belittling a terrible situation some unfortunate people find themselves in.

r93kaey5p2izun · 24-02-2017 06:08PM

I don't know much at all about the legalities around consent. It seems consent can be withheld but honest belief of consent can still be there.

It seems the author honestly believes she did not give consent. And lots of people agree she did not.

It seems the man honestly believed consent was there (the author says she thinks that was the case too). And lots of people agree consent was there in the end.

The suggestion of changing the law to "reasonable belief of consent" makes sense to me. But we obviously need a lot more clarity around what consent is, even though it seems to anger a lot of people on both sides, if lots of people can look at one scenario and come to opposing conclusions and lots of people struggle to decide in either favour. There's little to be gained from insulting those with different views on it, the fact there are plenty in all camps means it's not likely just some outlandish fringe element in disagreement with you.

Personally I find all the talk of tea and cake so unhelpful. Someone can force a cup of tea or cake on you against your wishes but ultimately you have to eat/drink it yourself, by your own active participation - unless they force it down your throat and that's completely outside normal behaviour (nobody in a normal situation would just let someone shove food in their mouth) and involves using force which isn't so much of a grey area. Sex can involve active participation but it can also involve just lying there and letting it happen as part of normal behaviour it seems. It happens that people do just lie there not reciprocating and "let someone have sex with them". No active participation is required as part of normal behaviour it seems. This makes tea and cake unlike sex for consent (if it wasn't already enough unalike as to make comparison silly).

neonsofa · 24-02-2017 06:14PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

This situation had not escalated to a situation of fear, or violence though, or even just insidious psychological manipulation.
This was just a normal enough interaction, with a bit of drink taken, something that really could have been a non event had she been a bit more assertive.

Do you ever find that sometimes, you click with people and then communication is easy, but other times, you need to put a bit more work into communicating ?

Well there you go. Maybe this guy just isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, maybe he's a stubborn eejit, maybe he's full of himself and he thinks no one in their right mind can possibly resist his charms, maybe he's normally perceptive enough but the drink makes him somewhat less perceptive ... and he needs a bit more telling.

The above traits in a person do not make that person a rapist. The same guy may well be reading comments on this story and be horrified that people might think he raped her when it didn't occur to him.

See I do agree with you and if I had read the story without the blogger giving her own thoughts ("I didn't want to have an awkward conversation so I let him") on the issue I would have objectively said that if the woman said no multiple times and he continued then she was raped. Then I read that she kissed him back which does show mixed messages, but again if she said no to sex, she said no to sex, and that needs to be accepted.

The fact that we know her thought process on why she eventually "allowed" him confuses how I feel about it tbh, because many a genuine victim has frozen in fear during rape. I did so myself after saying no multiple times. And that does not mean they consented or allowed it to happen. This freezing may come across like "letting him" so even to go by your logic above, if the man thought by her freezing she was "letting him" is he a rapist or just not the sharpest tool in the box? Surely it is not up to the victim to continually say no throughout the ordeal and if she is frozen by fear and cannot continue to do so, out of fear or danger or just utter despair at what is happening to her then its just not rape??? Keeping in mind she did say no. It then becomes very subjective imo. What if her thought process had been different when she "allowed" him, if she thought her life was in danger and she froze, is he then a rapist or just not great at reading the situation? My head is in a spin tbh. The fact that she gave her thought process on preferring sex to an awkward conversation but then she claims it was rape just baffles me. I don't know what to think and there are so many good points on the thread on both sides of the debate.

Mountainsandh · 24-02-2017 06:57PM

Yes I get the confusion too.
I think the fear/danger element is strong myself.

In this case I think because she didn't fear the man, she just made a decision, that she knew was going to put her in a situation of distress, or maybe discomfort. She preferred that to the awkwardness of having to explain, according to herself. I don't think preferring one situation over another is any way related to rape. We all make very reluctant choices sometimes, but that's all they are, reluctant choices.

I think when it's really rape, you can't "prefer" something over something, you simply don't have a choice.

mzungu · 24-02-2017 06:59PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

This situation had not escalated to a situation of fear, or violence though, or even just insidious psychological manipulation.
This was just a normal enough interaction, with a bit of drink taken, something that really could have been a non event had she been a bit more assertive.

She states she gave up after her repeated attempts at "no" were ignored. There was something psychological at play there alright.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Do you ever find that sometimes, you click with people and then communication is easy, but other times, you need to put a bit more work into communicating ?

Well there you go. Maybe this guy just isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, maybe he's a stubborn eejit, maybe he's full of himself and he thinks no one in their right mind can possibly resist his charms, maybe he's normally perceptive enough but the drink makes him somewhat less perceptive ... and he needs a bit more telling.

I suppose we are into hypotheticals here. Even so, all or some of, the listed traits could be used to describe either Gandhi or Ted Bundy!

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The above traits in a person do not make that person a rapist.

You're right, those traits alone do not make a person a rapist. However, not stopping when requested to by a partner does bring things into the area of non-consent.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The same guy may well be reading comments on this story and be horrified that people might think he raped her when it didn't occur to him.

A valid point, this man could be reading Twitter and realise that it was him she was referring to. Presumably their old inner circle of friends will recognise him and they will probably tell their friends etc. So, one way or another his name will be dirt. Of course, there is also the fear that other people she knew might mis-identify this man, and somebody completely innocent might end up getting tarred. This is one (of many) problems with trial by Twitter.

Hence I don't want to stick virtual daggers into the man. So when I comment I do so in general terms. The OP requested opinions on whether the facts as outlined in the article would constitute a rape. Personally, I do think (in any case) carrying on after being asked to stop does mean a lack of consent and therefore is rape.

neonsofa · 24-02-2017 07:07PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Yes I get the confusion too.
I think the fear/danger element is strong myself.

In this case I think because she didn't fear the man, she just made a decision, that she knew was going to put her in a situation of distress, or maybe discomfort. She preferred that to the awkwardness of having to explain, according to herself. I don't think preferring one situation over another is any way related to rape. We all make very reluctant choices sometimes, but that's all they are, reluctant choices.

I think when it's really rape, you can't "prefer" something over something, you simply don't have a choice.

Absolutely, 100%. But let's pretend she didn't give that insight to her reasoning. We didn't know she "chose". We just know she stopped saying no...did he rape her? Considering she said no and he continued to have sex with her despite that. As far as he was concerned she told him no and he continued, he didn't know if she stopped out of "convenience" to avoid awkward conversation, or out of fear or out of desire. If he couldn't read that she didn't really want to have sex then can we really assume he knew that she wasn't going along out of fear either.

TheChizler · 24-02-2017 07:15PM

Everyone might not be aware but IFAIK Rosemary posts on Boards, so bear in mind you're talking about another member. Whatever you think about her reasoning for the blog post she's probably reading the comments saying she's an "attention seeker" or worse and the ones saying you can't stand her etc. Might be an idea to consider would you say these things to someone in person, cause you basically are.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 24-02-2017 07:22PM

TheChizler wrote: »

Everyone might not be aware but IFAIK Rosemary posts on Boards, so bear in mind you're talking about another member. Whatever you think about her reasoning for the blog post she's probably reading the comments saying she's an "attention seeker" or worse and the ones saying you can't stand her etc. Might be an idea to consider would you say these things to someone in person, cause you basically are.

She'll have no problem posting info to the posts she doesn't like on her own social media for her followers to abuse.

retro:electro · 24-02-2017 07:25PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

She'll have no problem posting info to the posts she doesn't like on her own social media for her followers to abuse.

Exactly. She won't post here, but she'll cherry pick the "mean posts", alter them, and then feed them to her echo chamber on Twitter for them to tell her how disgraceful people are and how amazing she is.

When actually, her followers should get off Twitter, and come and actually read this thread for themselves because actually there are some very good points being made from either side.

Wibbs · 24-02-2017 07:27PM

TheChizler wrote: »

Might be an idea to consider would you say these things to someone in person, cause you basically are.

If someone outlined what was written in that blog to me in person(including the explanation for going through with the sex), I would fire the same questions at them as I have in this thread. Especially if they accused another of a crime where even the suggestion alone could cause major issues. Actually I would likely be more not less likely to call shenanigans in person. I'm usually far more reserved here on Boards.

Winterlong · 24-02-2017 07:28PM

Its a bit nuts telling posters to be nice and not call an attention seeker names incase she does not like the attention.

"Why I did not report my rapist"

Comments