"Why I did not report my rapist"

Triceratops Ballet

kjl wrote: »

I am male

I once met this asian girl in a restaurant and we clicked almost instantly.

I got her number and 2 days later we met up for some drinks in The pool hall upstairs in the palace.

About 30 min into the meeting we are already kissing and we are jelling very well. Fast forward about 2 hours and we are back in her place.

Kissing leads to heavy petting. I didn't think I was going to get this far in the night so I didn't bring any condoms.

She is undressing me and she takes off her underwear. Now I am rock hard, she is probably the sexyist thing I have ever seen in my life but aware I don't have protection I tell her that "I don't think we should have sex."

She grabs my penis and starts trying to put it into her vagina.

I stop her. I said "No". She doesn't listen and continues to try and force my penis into her vagina. I am pulling back and again I said "no, not tonight"

Once again she doesn't listen and then pins me to the bed and inserts my penis into her vagina. I am in a couple of inches in when I say "Listen, I really like you but I think we are going a little too fast". This seems to egg her on and she really starts to F%&k me hard.

This might I add ended up being the hottest night of sex I have ever had.

Was I raped? I said no repeatedly and I was completely ignored.

The answer is no and neither was Rosemary McCabe. She is such a clickbait whore that she is actually making light of real rape cases with her moment of weakness.

Don't know what that guy saw in her tbh.

TBH despite the fact that the law deems it to not be the case, I do think you were raped in this scenario. You were forcibly coerced into having sex against your will.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

^ for whatbits worth if she was forceful while you said no that's rape

Force is not the determinative factor here imo, I have a story very similar to Rosemarys with the exception that I did like the guy we had previously had a FWB situation. However when it happened to me despite my protestations, (and I didn't engage I just lay there, didn't reciprocate,) I didn't act with force because he was drunk, and tended to be very aggressive when drunk, had I shoved him or been forceful with him I could have put myself in more danger so I chose to lie there and let it happen because when I evaluated the situation I found myself in that was the least dangerous option for me. Does that mean I wasn't violated?

Outlaw Pete

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Simply allowing something to happen does not change a no to a yes.

I have noticed that these people (the ones using the sexual consent debate as a means of getting attention and also an outlet for their misandry) quite often say that consent is something which is continual and just because someone has given consent at one point of the night, does not mean that they have been giving consent at all points of it.... which is true, I can no along with that.

But, there's a flip side to that.... as if consent is something that must be continually sought... then consent is something that must be continually refused and Rosemary did not do that, as in her words:

"I stopped saying no"

Millicent

Millicent wrote: »

Today, he literally held a pastry a centimetre from my mouth until I took a bite. My mother, come to think of it, is the same. My nanny on my dad's side was, too. You'd refuse something and then you'd be badgered into eating it because it was offending her hospitality.

Ah now cmere and lookit, I'm sorry for your trauma but we are talking about rape here

LightlyGo

mzungu wrote: »

Violence is not necessarily always a feature of rape. There was obviously an uneven power dynamic at play. Hence, this guy carried on after being asked to stop.

Where do you see evidence of that?

I don't see any evidence of an uneven power dynamic at play. He had slept with her the week previously and told her he really liked her and was delighted it had happened. He had gone to her room, spoke to her and ASKED if he could kiss her which she agreed to. At no point does she mention being afraid, being intimidated, being embarrassed, only being uncomfortable at the prospect of rejecting him. She had said no, but followed it with behaviour that suggested yes, she doesn't mention the encounter was hurried, they "kissed for a while" after her top came off. I think it would be fair to assume as she says he was no pushy physically that she was not acting against her will though she was feeling very half hearted. She eventually decided she would have sex with him.

A lot of posters in this thread have spoken of similar situations where they've slept with someone they were not into just to avoid awkwardness. Most people have done some variation of that. It's a mistake and it's naturally followed by regret and uncomfortable emotions and self questioning, maybe even in some cases self repulsion. To think that any negative feelings following sex must reflect that the other party did wrong by you is just not an honest assesment of what happens between two people. To process that discomfort by landing 100% of the blame onto someone else is damaging for them but also for yourself.

Millicent

givyjoe wrote: »

Being too polite or afraid to say no isn't exclusive to women.

Did I say it was?

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

She stopped saying no, in her own words, and she shouldn't have, as doing so was clearly then inferred as her consenting to having sex.

How many times do you think she should have said no?

Mr. Incognito

This debate should not be framed in the context of an Accusation against an un-named person who also has a right to be heard.

I find this very discomforting.

Here are a number of facts.

1. Rape is a Crime. If you believe you have been raped, report it to the Authorities.

2. Rape is a Serious crime carrying a possible life sentence, social stigma for the accussed and accusser. Anonymity is central to any accusation and trial until a verdict is delivered and even then the accusser can remain anonymous.

3. In a Court both sides have the Opportunity to speak and give their side of the story.

4. If you are afraid to report it to the Authorities but plaster it all over Social Media then your motives should be held up to the highest scrutiny.

5. Social Media allows you to present a tightly edited one sided version of events.


6. We have 20 pages of people who are forming opinions and make declarations because of a one sided presentation of an event 15 years ago.

7. We do not have any other side of this story.

8. This story is not in the arena of Counselling, or a Police investigation. It is designed, and suceeded in attracting attention to a blog presumably for commercial expoitation/ ego/ media appearances/ attention. This raises serious question about the veracity and motivation behind the publication of this story.

9. Any criticism of the veracity / motivation/ publicity of this story is seized upon as propogating a "rape culture". There is no such thing as a rape culture. There is rape or there is a false accusaion. Both a very very serious. People are entitled to opinions but rape is a crime. People are rightly entitled to question the motivation and bona fides of someone who prints and disseminates such an accusaion. The Journal ran a similar article recently against someone who made accusations of being assaulted in a gym and a friend who was gang raped without a shred of proof or fact checking.
If I question why someone committed a murder am I a murder apologist. This is intellectually dishonest and needs to be stamped out.

10. People talk about the third wave of Feminism. The third wave of feminism as far as I can see it is about equality of men and women. The word Femanism or the promotion of Females over men is sexist and needs to be eradicated. There is equality and there is sexism. I think women need to start a counter movement against this hi-jacking of the Femanist movement which has been propogated by dangerous attention seeking behaviours which are expressed to be femanism but are deeply misandristic and are disturburbing.

Joeface

Not really sure why I am posting on the thread , normal I stay away from these kind threads cause people tend to run hot. But I have seen a few similar stories pop up on other forums and they are getting common fast.
I don't actually know who Rosemary is ,never heard of her before this thread

All I took from her blog and most of the posts here , is If what she recalled is true .Somewhere in Ireland I guy has woke up this morning and he is gone from what ever he was to a rapist . They seem to have hung out in the same group so all that group are now looking at what they believe to be a rapist. If Rosemary's story is in away flawed ( and I mean no disrespect with this but 15years alcohol , my memory would not be that good) ....doesn't matter this guy is a a rapist to everyone who knows him.

This is part of the reason it should be reported properly and dealt with by those with the power to do so.
True or not social media is not the place air these kinda stories . Report it to the proper authorities .And yes I am aware that this can be extremely difficult depending on circumstance .

Then after due process or what ever its called write your blog and Encourage others who have been raped or abused to come forward .

Millicent

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah now cmere and lookit, I'm sorry for your trauma but we are talking about rape here

That's what you gleaned from the post? I was talking about how "no" seems to be an invitation to push harder in Ireland, not the end of a conversation. I used a quick, humorous, and handy reference to illustrate how "no" in polite society is not taken as a full sentence. I'm not sure why you chose that line out of a very long post to mock me.

Would you change your tone if I told you I had been sexually abused, assaulted, and raped countless times in my life?

Little CuChulainn

Mountainsandh wrote: »

That's a nice soundbite, but I think very often actually it does, unless violence is involved.

There was no violence there.

That's a pretty entitled attitude to have.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I have noticed that these people (the ones using the sexual consent debate as a means of getting attention and also an outlet for their misandry) quite often say that consent is something which is continual and just because someone has given consent at one point of the night, does not mean that they have been giving consent at all points of it.... which is true, I can no along with that.

But, there's a flip side to that.... as if consent is something that must be continually sought... then consent is something that must be continually refused and Rosemary did not do that, as in her words:

She said she refused three times. That seems pretty continuous to me. If someone says no to you three times and then stops saying anything do you just assume they have changed their minds? Do you apply that logic outside of the bedroom?

Mountainsandh

mzungu wrote: »

Violence is not necessarily always a feature of rape. There was obviously an uneven power dynamic at play. Hence, this guy carried on after being asked to stop.

I would understand the "uneven power dynamic" if the guy was her boss, or maybe her abductor, or maybe someone whom she had a relationship with long term, who subdued her into such a dynamic.

That's not the case as far as I know.
That's just your bog standard "guy I'd met and we'd had a thing" relationship, as far as I can gather ?

How is there an uneven power dynamic ?
Maybe if your man was a body builder ? He looked so strong she "guessed" he might do harm if she didn't "let him" ?
Nope. Don't see any of that either.

We can't go ahead and say it's ok to accuse someone of rape because we weren't confident enough or assertive enough to make our message very clear, and refuse sex.

It's strange how it's acceptable in other situations to advise someone (person A) to stand their ground, not be a pushover, to be assertive, to make up their minds and follow through, to not take no for an answer for example. In life, in work.
Somehow when it comes to sex, all that vanishes.

Somehow because it's sex, the other person (person has to be all-perceptive, in tune, they have no lee-way for misinterpretation, and a two letter word becomes magical, like something that should instantaneously break the spell.

Assertiveness, confidence, respectful communication, they should apply for both sides.

People have to learn the above for consent, and also for refusal.

It's not "consent in a sexual context" classes that are needed.

Millicent

Millicent wrote: »

That's what you gleaned from the post? I was talking about how "no" seems to be an invitation to push harder in Ireland, not the end of a conversation. I used a quick, humorous, and handy reference to illustrate how "no" in polite society is not taken as a full sentence. I'm not sure why you chose that line out of a very long post to mock me.

Would you change your tone if I told you I had been sexually abused, assaulted, and raped countless times in my life?

Apologies.

It's a tough subject. I don't feel the blog is something to be taken seriously but that doesn't meant that people in the thread arent sharing experiences and opinions on a very difficult and fraught topic, and I've referenced that and my distaste for the rougher posts on either side throughout the topics.

If there had been any hint of your past traumas in your post I wouldn't have made the light-hearted comment I did, and that's not to blame you at all nor to say you had an onus to share that.

There was plenty of other content in your post- I didn't agree with a lot of it but apologies nonetheless if my smartarsedness caused any annoyance, it isn't the thread for it.

LightlyGo

dottie_lottie wrote: »

TBH despite the fact that the law deems it to not be the case, I do think you were raped in this scenario. You were forcibly coerced into having sex against your will.



Force is not the determinative factor here imo, I have a story very similar to Rosemarys with the exception that I did like the guy we had previously had a FWB situation. However when it happened to me despite my protestations, (and I didn't engage I just lay there, didn't reciprocate,) I didn't act with force because he was drunk, and tended to be very aggressive when drunk, had I shoved him or been forceful with him I could have put myself in more danger so I chose to lie there and let it happen because when I evaluated the situation I found myself in that was the least dangerous option for me. Does that mean I wasn't violated?

I'm sorry this happened to you. I think an element of fear or intimidation paints these situations in a very different light even when there is no physical force. Letting something happen very half heartedly v's being too afraid, too intimidated, too shocked to defend yourself are very, very different situations. Violence is not the determinant in deciding what is or what isn't rape, nor should the degree to which you physically defend yourself be. You were violated.

The sad thing about these discussions is that they can polarise opinion too much, leave people who genuinely were assaulted feel as if their experience is negated because they were not screaming no. There is absolutely is nuance and every situation is different. The Rosemary situation is just one that according to comments here is quite common, where someone has reluctant sex they regret not more forcefully communicating no to. Regretting it knowing that you might have taken a beating had you strongly opposed the act is very different from regretting it because had you said "I don't like you like this" it would have been awkward.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

dottie_lottie wrote: »

TBH despite the fact that the law deems it to not be the case, I do think you were raped in this scenario. You were forcibly coerced into having sex against your will.



Force is not the determinative factor here imo, I have a story very similar to Rosemarys with the exception that I did like the guy we had previously had a FWB situation. However when it happened to me despite my protestations, (and I didn't engage I just lay there, didn't reciprocate,) I didn't act with force because he was drunk, and tended to be very aggressive when drunk, had I shoved him or been forceful with him I could have put myself in more danger so I chose to lie there and let it happen because when I evaluated the situation I found myself in that was the least dangerous option for me. Does that mean I wasn't violated?

I'm not going to tell you how you felt, if you felt violated I'm in no position to tell you that you weren't. If you didn't consent to sex and he took it anyway then you were raped. If you went along with it, then the lines are blurred.

In my own situation, I went into his apartment, into his room. I let it go so far but then said no when it was time to get down to business. He got on top of me, learned back to get a condom and I sat up to get up. He pushed me back down, I said no stop, I was crying but I wasn't struggling with him. He was on top of me with my hands over my head. I kept asking him to stop, he kept going, whispering shussssh it's ok, it's ok, while I lay under him looking up at him wondering if he was going to kill me afterwards so as I wouldn't tell.

Of course looking back there's a better way to act in that situation. Put up a struggle, stab him, knee him in the balls, don't lead him on, don't go home with him, don't be a "cocktease" (yes that was an actual description used to describe being friendly to men), don't let a man be on top so he can't control you and you can stop if you need to. There's so much to take from it, so many different feelings, so much I could do next time to ensure it would never happen like that again.
From 17 to a month before my 21st, I wouldn't give most guys the time of day. The first guy I slept with after that incident (my now partner) I knew him -he was my closest friend for 3 years. I'm 28 now, with 1 proper relationship (with that guy) 1 other situationship with a friend who I would have trusted and felt safe with. I've slept with other people but seem to lack being able to form a normal relationship with someone I don't know for a long time beforehand.

I'm sure that's not the same for a lot of women who've been raped. I don't believe there's a correct way to react in situations. I think you'll do whatever you feel you need to do to survive/feel better/block it out.


I read an article a while ago about these ladies who had sex with someone who later turned out not to be who they said they were, i.e. I think they were undercover cops and told these women they were someone else, and ince the women found out, they claimed it was rape. In that moment, if you're NOT consenting, and you're trying to stop it be that asking him to stop or being forceful then it's rape. You don't willingly have sex with someone, withdraw consent then write a public blog about your rape experience.

Knex*

anna080 wrote: »

A lot of people are using this thread as a place of projection and throwing out irrelevant sound bites.
Rape is disgusting, brutal and horrible. I have worked along side rape victims. I've seen the after effects and its manifestations. Christ though. I've never, ever come across someone who has, 15 years after the situation, decided she was raped, wrote a blog post about it, plugged it on every social platform, bragged about the traffic it's getting, and post a crying face selfie in order to further promote your blog post. It's. Just. Incredible. I will not get into what I personally think of RMC, because for now that is neither here nor there. But the facts are, she was in a position of privilege that night as, she had a CHOICE, which is a thing that other victims do not have. She decided to have sex with this person because she didn't want to tell him she didn't fancy him. That is the crux of it! That is it! That is not rape.

Sticky this and close the thread, tbh.

Triceratops Ballet

LightlyGo wrote: »

I'm sorry this happened to you. I think an element of fear or intimidation paints these situations in a very different light even when there is no physical force. Letting something happen very half heartedly v's being too afraid, too intimidated, too shocked to defend yourself are very, very different situations. Violence is not the determinant in deciding what is or what isn't rape, nor should the degree to which you physically defend yourself be. You were violated.

I know that's the case now and maybe that coloured my explanation of the situation, I didn't at the time though (probably about 10 years ago) I thought, well I was kissing him, I did voluntarily get into his bed. The purpose of my message was to try and dispel the idea that rape has to be a violent encounter, and the idea that if you truly don't want something to happen you'll get very assertive straight away.
I think it's an important part of the narrative that forgets forgotten, it is possible to rape someone despite the fact that they have consented to kissing, or to previous sexual encounters.
A lot of people in this thread have talked about women needing to be more assertive in this situation, which is fine in some situations, but there is literally no amount of assertiveness that would have helped me in my situation. So what then?

What does everyone here do when someone says 'no' to them?
I just stop whatever I'm doing

Mountainsandh

LexieOnRale wrote: »

In that moment, if you're NOT consenting, and you're trying to stop it be that asking him to stop or being forceful then it's rape. You don't willingly have sex with someone, withdraw consent then write a public blog about your rape experience.

The contrast between your harrowing story and her blog post is enough to end the thread by itself Lexie. Wishing you well.

I'm considering deleting my previous post as I realize that out of context, a victim could look at it and think it refers to their situation.
My stance on communication and respect is completely out of the sphere of a situation like the above. I hope that's clear.

Triceratops Ballet

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I'm not going to tell you how you felt, if you felt violated I'm in no position to tell you that you weren't. If you didn't consent to sex and he took it anyway then you were raped. If you went along with it, then the lines are blurred.

the bolded part is what bothers me though, in the case of a husband and wife, where she says no, maybe there's no violence maybe outside of that one incident they have a picture perfect marriage but he's bigger than her and on top of her, if she says no first but doesn't struggle, then is she not raped?

that's not specifically directed at you btw, just a general question

retro:electro

bubblypop wrote: »

What does everyone here do when someone says 'no' to them?
I just stop whatever I'm doing

What her posts highlights is the disparity and consequence between the verbal no and the physical no. Verbally she was saying no but her physical actions said yes. Like if I'm handing you my pen but at the same time I'm saying "give me back my pen". People are judged more on their actions than their words. I can tell you I'm a dancer, but you wouldn't actually believe me unless I showed you my dance moves.

Mountainsandh

dottie_lottie wrote: »

I think it's an important part of the narrative that forgets forgotten, it is possible to rape someone despite the fact that they have consented to kissing, or to previous sexual encounters.
A lot of people in this thread have talked about women needing to be more assertive in this situation, which is fine in some situations, but there is literally no amount of assertiveness that would have helped me in my situation. So what then?

You're right, violence is not the word exactly. Fear is probably more meaningful. Fear could apply to more psychological manipulation too.

anna080

anna080 wrote: »

What her posts highlights is the disparity and consequence between the verbal no and the physical no. Verbally she was saying no but her physical actions said yes. Like if I'm handing you my pen but at the same time I'm saying "give me back my pen". People are judged more on their actions than their words. I can tell you I'm a dancer, but you wouldn't actually believe me unless I showed you my dance moves.

Well she wasn't kissing him when she said no.
Or when she said she didn't want to have sex

mzungu

pilly wrote: »

Where was the uneven power dynamic? It's not at all obvious.

LightlyGo wrote:

Where do you see evidence of that?

I don't see any evidence of an uneven power dynamic at play. He had slept with her the week previously and told her he really liked her and was delighted it had happened. He had gone to her room, spoke to her and ASKED if he could kiss her which she agreed to. At no point does she mention being afraid, being intimidated, being embarrassed, only being uncomfortable at the prospect of rejecting him. She had said no, but followed it with behaviour that suggested yes, she doesn't mention the encounter was hurried, they "kissed for a while" after her top came off. I think it would be fair to assume as she says he was no pushy physically that she was not acting against her will though she was feeling very half hearted. She eventually decided she would have sex with him.

A lot of posters in this thread have spoken of similar situations where they've slept with someone they were not into just to avoid awkwardness. Most people have done some variation of that. It's a mistake and it's naturally followed by regret and uncomfortable emotions and self questioning, maybe even in some cases self repulsion. To think that any negative feelings following sex must reflect that the other party did wrong by you is just not an honest assesment of what happens between two people. To process that discomfort by landing 100% of the blame onto someone else is damaging for them but also for yourself.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I would understand the "uneven power dynamic" if the guy was her boss, or maybe her abductor, or maybe someone whom she had a relationship with long term, who subdued her into such a dynamic.

That's not the case as far as I know.
That's just your bog standard "guy I'd met and we'd had a thing" relationship, as far as I can gather ?

As a general rule, when one hears "no" then that should be the point where things stop. After multiple times hearing "no" then it surely should register that things are one sided. Simply carrying on regardless would suggest the man must have had some idea that she was hesitant. The uneven power dynamic was that she was obviously uncomfortable and she vocalised this with "no" and followed this up with a further two "no's". Thereafter by her own admission she gave in when those requests were not heeded. There was intimidation there, subtle as it was. Hence, on the power dynamic side of things, she obviously had very little of it and the authority was on his side.

One could say she exercised her part in the personal responsibility side of things, and I think he should have exercised his side of the bargain by taking heed of what she said.

Lets just change the "no" to a "yes". In that case we would be saying that she gave full consent and that the man in question was not to know any better. However, in this article it was a case of her saying "no" as she didn't want to have sex. What else should she have done?

You can be certain if she had said nothing at all during the encounter then people would be saying "Well why didn't she say no?" etc.

If there is one rule I think people should abide by, it would be that when you hear your partner say "no" then things have to stop there. Abide by that and it will reduce the instances of these things happening.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

dottie_lottie wrote: »

the bolded part is what bothers me though, in the case of a husband and wife, where she says no, maybe there's no violence maybe outside of that one incident they have a picture perfect marriage but he's bigger than her and on top of her, if she says no first but doesn't struggle, then is she not raped?

that's not specifically directed at you btw, just a general question

I had a fwb that I had no business ever having sex with TBH. I'd have probably ruined my life less if I went off and smoked crack but nevertheless, I did it anyway. Yeah it was a terrible idea, I should never have done it, I was hurting a lot from other things in my life and let's say, self medicating, but he never raped me even if deep down we both knew I wasn't totally into him. It was just sex, and I would never do it again but he never did anything wrong. I guess that's what I'm getting at with blurred lines

.......

This post has been deleted.

pilly

mzungu wrote: »

As a general rule, when one hears "no" then that should be the point where things stop. After multiple times hearing "no" then it surely should register that things are one sided. Simply carrying on regardless would suggest the man must have had some idea that she was hesitant. The uneven power dynamic was that she was obviously uncomfortable and she vocalised this with "no" and followed this up with a further two "no's". Thereafter by her own admission she gave in when those requests were not heeded. There was intimidation there, subtle as it was. Hence, on the power dynamic side of things, she obviously had very little of it and the authority was on his side.

One could say she exercised her part in the personal responsibility side of things, and I think he should have exercised his side of the bargain by taking heed of what she said.

Lets just change the "no" to a "yes". In that case we would be saying that she gave full consent and that the man in question was not to know any better. However, in this article it was a case of her saying "no" as she didn't want to have sex. What else should she have done?

You can be certain if she had said nothing at all during the encounter then people would be saying "Well why didn't she say no?" etc.

If there is one rule I think people should abide by, it would be that when you hear your partner say "no" then things have to stop there. Abide by that and it will reduce the instances of these things happening.

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.

Yourself isit

The whole no thing is a bit over exaggerated. Remember when my wife was my gf and we were at her parents house.

I tried it on that night. No, she giggles. Parents in the next room. I grab a beast. No she giggles. ..then we did it quietly. Albeit passionately. Both passionate.

Pretty common I would say. Consent waa later consented to non-verbally. She got into it.


To be fair to the original journalist it looks (as she writes it anyway) that she didn't really reciprocate.

Triceratops Ballet

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I had a fwb that I had no business ever having sex with TBH. I'd have probably ruined my life less if I went off and smoked crack but nevertheless, I did it anyway. Yeah it was a terrible idea, I should never have done it, I was hurting a lot from other things in my life and let's say, self medicating, but he never raped me even if deep down we both knew I wasn't totally into him. It was just sex, and I would never do it again but he never did anything wrong. I guess that's what I'm getting at with blurred lines

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

.......

This post has been deleted.

pilly

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

All very true in a rape situation, you're correct.

What we're discussing is NOT a rape situation. There's your difference.

Broody_Allen

....... 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

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

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

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

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.

.......

This post has been deleted.

B.A._Baracus

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

Rightwing

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

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

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

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

....... 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.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mountainsandh

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.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

....... 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.

.......

This post has been deleted.

kunst nugget

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

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

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.