Her account does not describe “an existing sexual relationship,” but you start by contradicting…
S Irene

What he did was wrong. It shouldn’t have happened.

But you don’t think the fact that they had a sexual relationship might have been important context to disclose? No, it doesn’t excuse his behavior, but it does paint a rather different picture than what she stated. Her account made it sound as though this was one of their first dates, they didn’t know each other well, and it was totally shocking of him to have laid hands at her at all. As it turns out, she was uncomfortable with him laying hands on her in public.

The reason I am bothered by this is that she clearly felt the need to hide her sexual relationship with him. It shouldn’t have mattered; what he did was wrong regardless. But she felt the need to paint a picture of her ‘purity,’ so to speak, in going into this date. She’s only perpetuating this sociological need to see women as innocent, non-sexual beings.

And this myth is why we DO get false rape accusations — because of this inane puritanical need to deny sexual relationships, which leads some women to feel they’ve been taken advantage of after the fact when in fact they were just as complicit. She’s not helping when she leaves out the sexual context of their relationship. She is implying by omission that it would have undermined her credibility.

That’s the problem.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.