"Why I did not report my rapist"

Cupcake_Crisis · 26-02-2017 08:38PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Lexieonrale why are you being so harsh? In fact I would say (some) women can be each others worst enemies on this.
I remember, and will never forget, when I was raped as an adult, I told one woman I knew, and her response was 'so what I have been raped twice - by a family member, and by a stranger ' that she had suffered more so I shouldn't complain.
I think in knowing the damage of peoples words after rape, I would never ever condemn or critisice someone who feels hurt in this area, and said no on numerous occasions. Put yourself in her shoes, that you were diacussing your rape online and everyone was nasty to you about it. I just think you should be a little more careful with your words.

As has been mentioned numerous times, she chose to put this in the public domain, she knew it would cause a debate. You can't post on such a provocative subject and expect every single person to agree with you.

26-02-2017 08:40PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

If being a feminist means degrading men, making issues male vs female, trivialising a serious crime and expecting special treatment because of my anatomy, I'm glad I'm not smart enough to be a feminist. I'm glad I don't hate men, because some of the kindest most sincere and best friends I've known were men with their big rapey heads on them.

And there's no doubt in my mind that most men would step in and help any woman they could see was in danger.

+1 Lexie, plus fcuking one.

Feminism in 2017 and for the last couple of years has been about everything BUT equality. It's turned into a dirty word associated with trigger warnings, echo chambers and man hating. If anyone feels the need to define themselves as a feminist, I instantly am wary of them. Feminism used to strive for equality back in the day. Nowadays, in this guise, it does more to separate the sexes.

26-02-2017 08:42PM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

As has been mentioned numerous times, she chose to put this in the public domain, she knew it would cause a debate. You can't post on such a provocative subject and expect every single person to agree with you.

She posted a very ambiguous story, and seems to have expected unambiguous support.

If you post a provocative scenario, don't be surprised when people talk about it and not all of them agree with how it's framed.

Lau2976 · 26-02-2017 08:46PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Lexieonrale why are you being so harsh? In fact I would say (some) women can be each others worst enemies on this.
I remember, and will never forget, when I was raped as an adult, I told one woman I knew, and her response was 'so what I have been raped twice - by a family member, and by a stranger ' that she had suffered more so I shouldn't complain.
I think in knowing the damage of peoples words after rape, I would never ever condemn or critisice someone who feels hurt in this area, and said no on numerous occasions. Put yourself in her shoes, that you were diacussing your rape online and everyone was nasty to you about it. I just think you should be a little more careful with your words.

I'm sorry to hear about what happened to you but comparing rape to what happened to Ms Macabe does no victim any favours.

If we accept that consent can be withdrawn at any time we also must accept that a refusal can be withdrawn. She showed the man she was with she was not intimidated enough to not say no. She had clearly demonstrated that she had the ability to give or withdraw consent. He stopped when she said no. He tried again and she gave what was seen as consent.

I stand behind any man or woman who was raped. But was Miss MaCabe? No. Was he pushy? Yes. That is not rape.

Also discussing rape is perfectly healthy. It opens a dialogue that is often shied away from.

hatrickpatrick · 26-02-2017 08:47PM

Candie wrote: »

It's just not okay to call being badgered and giving in a rape, like this blogger.

Candie, leaving the actual intercourse aside for a moment, would you agree with my assertion that she was both sexually harassed and sexually assaulted before the sex itself, on the grounds that she told him to stop undressing her and he didn't?

26-02-2017 08:49PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Candie, leaving the actual intercourse aside for a moment, would you agree with my assertion that she was both sexually harassed and sexually assaulted before the sex itself, on the grounds that she told him to stop undressing her and he didn't?

I'm gonna jump in here and ask this. Is it not weird that consensual sex takes place straight after a sexual assault? Can't wrap my head around that.

retro:electro · 26-02-2017 08:50PM

The narrative she's peddling does nothing only create more of a divide than already exists. I think the majority of her followers have no idea what they're actually subscribing to by promoting her bs. They hear this confident and aggressive woman ready and willing discuss important and controversial societal issues and they think "yea great, women! Equality! Woo!!", and that is not me being ignorant or patronising. It just seems to be the case.

I'm all for gender equality, and I think the majority of posters here are too, we just cannot get on board with the horse sh1t that comes out of that ones mouth. For me, gender equality isn't underpinned by the need to demote or antagonise male status, but for RMC, it's becoming quite clear that the erosion of male status in our society is detrimental in order to receive any perceived benefits, in fact she sees it as conducive to its success.

Outlaw Pete · 26-02-2017 08:51PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Actually you're the one who's leaving out some crucial stages.

Amended list:

Well you should have added those to begin with if you feel they are so crucial to what occured, rather than tritely saying "She said no. He persisted. Case closed."

She said no.
He persisted.
She said no.
He tried to undress her.
She said no.
He took off her top.
She said no.
She kissed him.
He persisted.
She stopped saying no and let him have sex with her to avoid having to tell him she did not fancy him.
Case closed.

I have no problem with you adding the above.... but what you fail to grasp is that the last emboldened and underlined one is what makes the sex consenual. I's not rape just because she only said yes to avoid an awkard conversating. At the end of the day she "let him" have sex with her and unless she did so out of fear, then it's not rape.

It's the part where he continued to undress her after being told not to, that makes this a sexual assault. The part in bold, specifically.

If you tell me not to undress you and I proceed to unzip your trousers and pull them off, I have just committed sexual assault. Nothing which happens afterwards brings us back in time and changes the fact that at the exact moment I took off your trousers, I had been told not to. Therefore, it is assault. Nothing else is remotely relevant.

Laughable nonsense. Her letting him have sex with her negates her refusals before. There immaterial. She consented.

26-02-2017 08:58PM

I know a female who was ' seduced' for want of a better word, by her cousin.
They were about 18 or 19.
They were good friends as well as cousins and had the same group of friends.
One drunken night, he kissed her, she kinda kissed back, but didn't really want to. She told him, it was wrong & it should stop. She told him she wasn't interested in him in ' that way' they were cousins.
At no stage did she want to be with him, she was not interested in him.
He persisted, took of her underwear & had sex with her.
She didn't fight back, or shout or scream.
She ' let him ' if that's the words, because she didn't want to cause a scene, in her aunt's house, in front of her family.
Afterwards he acted like everything was grand.
She was devastated, never told any of her family because she didn't want to make a fuss, or cause arguments in her family.
It has caused her serious hardship & has affected her life, big time.

Now, do you think she wasn't raped?

I know this girl.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 26-02-2017 09:00PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Actually you're the one who's leaving out some crucial stages.

Amended list:

She said no.
He persisted.
She said no.
He tried to undress her.
She said no.
He took off her top.
She said no.
She kissed him.
He persisted.
She stopped saying no and let him have sex with her to avoid having to tell him she did not fancy him.
Case closed.

It's the part where he continued to undress her after being told not to, that makes this a sexual assault. The part in bold, specifically.

If you tell me not to undress you and I proceed to unzip your trousers and pull them off, I have just committed sexual assault. Nothing which happens afterwards brings us back in time and changes the fact that at the exact moment I took off your trousers, I had been told not to. Therefore, it is assault. Nothing else is remotely relevant.

Again, he didn't take off her top. She didn't take off her top. It happened all by itself.

He tried again. My top came off.

She is coming across as being very unable to communicate simple things such as how the top came off. For someone who claims superior intelligence to the rest of us mere mortals, it certainly doesn't appear that way.

26-02-2017 09:01PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I have no problem with you adding the above.... but what you fail to grasp is that the last emboldened and underlined one is what makes the sex consenual. I's not rape just because she only said yes to avoid an awkard conversating. At the end of the day she "let him" have sex with her and unless she did so out of fear, then it's not rape.

Laughable nonsense. Her letting him have sex with her negates her refusals before. There immaterial. She consented.

Lots of rape victims ' let' their rapist have sex with them. It's very common in rapes for the victim to ' let' someone rape them. It really doesn't mean they consented or allowed it.

26-02-2017 09:02PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Candie, leaving the actual intercourse aside for a moment, would you agree with my assertion that she was both sexually harassed and sexually assaulted before the sex itself, on the grounds that she told him to stop undressing her and he didn't?

I don't think a jury would buy a person kissing someone attacking them, continuing to kiss them, cooperating with undressing, and then deciding to have to have sex with them instead of telling them they don't fancy them. It's far too ambiguous. He could reasonably have thought she was into it, even if it's not as much as he was. It definitely wouldn't give the impression that she was being forced or was unwilling in any way.

The guy was a pushy creep, but he didn't rape her.

Peregrine · 26-02-2017 09:02PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

She wrote an interesting point on her twitter. Should threads like this, aimed at and targeting a named person, be allowed to exist on boards? Is it a form of bullying? Can the mods review this?

She published an article on her website. If she didn't want it debated or if she didn't want to hear opinions that goes against her opinion on what was a very ambiguous article then she shouldn't have published it in the public domain.

Having said that, I've banned several people for inappropriate comments and will continue to do so. Debating the content of what she published is fine but personal attacks on her and her looks isn't fine. Please report any such posts.

Move on, midlandsmissus, and drop the backseat moderating.

Mod

26-02-2017 09:03PM

bubblypop wrote: »

I know a female who was ' seduced' for want of a better word, by her cousin.
They were about 18 or 19.
They were good friends as well as cousins and had the same group of friends.
One drunken night, he kissed her, she kinda kissed back, but didn't really want to. She told him, it was wrong & it should stop. She told him she wasn't interested in him in ' that way' they were cousins.
At no stage did she want to be with him, she was not interested in him.
He persisted, took of her underwear & had sex with her.
She didn't fight back, or shout or scream.
She ' let him ' if that's the words, because she didn't want to cause a scene, in her aunt's house, in front of her family.
Afterwards he acted like everything was grand.
She was devastated, never told any of her family because she didn't want to make a fuss, or cause arguments in her family.
It has caused her serious hardship & has affected her life, big time.

Now, do you think she wasn't raped?

I know this girl.

Not wanting to cause family war because of incest is a little different to not wanting an awkward conversation with someone you had sex with the week before. There's fear there in your story, not in Ms Mc Cabe's.

Cupcake_Crisis · 26-02-2017 09:05PM

bubblypop wrote: »

Lots of rape victims ' let' their rapist have sex with them. It's very common in rapes for the victim to ' let' someone rape them. It really doesn't mean they consented or allowed it.

But RMC completely blurred the lines by continuing to kiss him. She never makes it clear if she said no and put some distance between them, but she does say that he was in no way physically pushy. Her description she is very vague, and it's unfair to brand someone a rapist when the details are so vague.

26-02-2017 09:09PM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

But RMC completely blurred the lines by continuing to kiss him. She never makes it clear if she said no and put some distance between them this may never have happened, we don't know. But in her description she is very vague, and it's unfair to brand someone a rapist when the details are so vague.

I suspect it was deliberately vague CC, just to provoke this reaction online. She's got a goldmine of material to validate her worldview from this thread alone, given her penchant for selection.

retro:electro · 26-02-2017 09:11PM

bubblypop wrote: »

I know a female who was ' seduced' for want of a better word, by her cousin.
They were about 18 or 19.
They were good friends as well as cousins and had the same group of friends.
One drunken night, he kissed her, she kinda kissed back, but didn't really want to. She told him, it was wrong & it should stop. She told him she wasn't interested in him in ' that way' they were cousins.
At no stage did she want to be with him, she was not interested in him.
He persisted, took of her underwear & had sex with her.
She didn't fight back, or shout or scream.
She ' let him ' if that's the words, because she didn't want to cause a scene, in her aunt's house, in front of her family.
Afterwards he acted like everything was grand.
She was devastated, never told any of her family because she didn't want to make a fuss, or cause arguments in her family.
It has caused her serious hardship & has affected her life, big time.

Now, do you think she wasn't raped?

I know this girl.

Sad story. Not sure what it has to do with this case though.

26-02-2017 09:11PM

bubblypop wrote: »

Lots of rape victims ' let' their rapist have sex with them. It's very common in rapes for the victim to ' let' someone rape them. It really doesn't mean they consented or allowed it.

Her mealy mouthed reason of ''I didn't want to have to have an awkward conversation with him'' doesn't wash. Bubblypop, you say some victims let their rapist do it but I don't think they do, I think it's more a case of self preservation in fearing violence or worse. Rosemary felt no fear according to her story, she just didn't wanna have that awky momo with the rebound guy she had sex with last week. Massive difference.

26-02-2017 09:12PM

Omackeral wrote: »

Not wanting to cause family war because of incest is a little different to not wanting an awkward conversation with someone you had sex with the week before. There's fear there in your story, not in Ms Mc Cabe's.

But not wanting to cause hassle is not in itself fear. It's not wanting all the family arguments etc that could take place.
She wasn't afraid of him as such, she just didn't want the massive fallout from saying he raped her

26-02-2017 09:13PM

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

But RMC completely blurred the lines by continuing to kiss him. She never makes it clear if she said no and put some distance between them, but she does say that he was in no way physically pushy. Her description she is very vague, and it's unfair to brand someone a rapist when the details are so vague.

She said no.
Same as my example.

26-02-2017 09:16PM

anna080 wrote: »

Sad story. Not sure what it has to do with this case though.

It's exactly the same, except she was related to him, she didn't want to cause hassle in her family.
She knows he raped her, the friends she told, knows he raped her. Her family are oblivious, because she didn't want to cause hassle.
As she says, it was easier at the time not to make a fuss, it's easier to let it go now.
Doesn't mean she wasn't raped

Cupcake_Crisis · 26-02-2017 09:18PM

bubblypop wrote: »

She said no.
Same as my example.

I can think of several occasions off the top of my head that went very similarly RMC's story. Situations where I verbally said no but my body language did not. None of those occasions were rape.

The fact of the matter is that none of us were there, we only have one account of the story to go on. And that account isn't communicated very well.

26-02-2017 09:19PM

anna080 wrote: »

She also told him she wasn't into him, and he persisted anyway.
RMC acknowledges if she said those words, they wouldn't have had sex and the situation never would have happened.
What you are describing is incest.

She told him she didn't want to have sex!
Fairly unambiguous in my opinion.
And cousins having sex is not incest.

retro:electro · 26-02-2017 09:19PM

bubblypop wrote: »

It's exactly the same, except she was related to him, she didn't want to cause hassle in her family.
She knows he raped her, the friends she told, knows he raped her. Her family are oblivious, because she didn't want to cause hassle.
As she says, it was easier at the time not to make a fuss, it's easier to let it go now.
Doesn't mean she wasn't raped

It's not the same. She told him she's not into him. RMC acknowledges had she said those words the situation would never had happened.

26-02-2017 09:21PM

anna080 wrote: »

It's not the same. It's incest. And she told him she's not into him. RMC acknowledges had she said those words the situation would never had happened.

It's not incest.
And fyi, incest can happen between two consenting adults.

Are you saying she wasn't raped?

26-02-2017 09:22PM

bubblypop wrote: »

But not wanting to cause hassle is not in itself fear. It's not wanting all the family arguments etc that could take place.
She wasn't afraid of him as such, she just didn't want the massive fallout from saying he raped her

Now hold up a minute, that's not true at all. She didn't want the hassle of having an awkward conversation with him. They're her own words. She said that herself. Rape isn't a little awkward bit of hassle ffs!!!

26-02-2017 09:24PM

Omackeral wrote: »

Now hold up a minute, that's not true at all. She didn't want the hassle of having an awkward conversation with him. They're her own words. She said that herself. Rape isn't a little awkward bit of hassle ffs!!!

But tbf, you can say the same to my friend. Just because there would be hassle in the family is no reason not to tell anyone he raped her.

ibarelycare · 26-02-2017 09:24PM

bubblypop wrote: »

She told him she didn't want to have sex!
Fairly unambiguous in my opinion.
And cousins having sex is not incest.

Rosemary said that she said the word "no." She didn't say that she said "I don't want to have sex with you". Yes, he should have stopped when she said no, but she said he wasn't physically pushy. It could very easily been the case that he paused when she said no, then chanced his arm by kissing her again, and when she reciprocated (which we know she did), he took that to mean that she had changed her mind. It's a very common scenario.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 26-02-2017 09:24PM

"This is wrong. I don't want to. I'm not interested in you because you're my cousin"
I don't know how she could have made herself any clearer to be honest.

Unless she was kissing him inbetween helping him undress her? You do not mention anywhere she she was "unclear"

26-02-2017 09:26PM

bubblypop wrote: »

But tbf, you can say the same to my friend. Just because there would be hassle in the family is no reason not to tell anyone he raped her.

Difference is genuine fear, stigma and embarrassment. Rosemary's lacked all of those elements. A world of difference.

"Why I did not report my rapist"

Comments