Jump to content

My boyfriend raped me and it took me a month to realize it


Recommended Posts

My boyfriend and I had been talking about having sex for a long time while we were dating...He and I dated between March and July...Well in June my mother and 2 sisters went to California to visit my aunt and my dad worked during the night...Well my boyfriend and I had decided that he would sneak over and we'd see what would happen when he got to my house...

 

Well when he got to my house he was the same normal guy that I loved and trusted so much...Until we were laying on my bed...He asked if I wanted to have sex with him like a gentleman should...Well when we had talked about having sex on the phone he and I decided that if it started to hurt that I would tell him and he'd stop...

 

When he started to put it in me it started to hurt...I thought it was natural so I didn't say anything about it...Well as he kept going it started to hurt more and more and he kept pushing harder and harder...I told him to stop and couple of times, but he didn't...That was the part I was confused on...I just thought nothing of it afterwards...because I didn't try pushing him off or anything...Well I talked to my friends about it and they brought it to my attention that yes he did indeed rape me...

 

Well my question for all of you is should I still love him or should I hate him? In the beginning I hated him so much, but he and I talked afterwards and we broke up...Soon after that he sent me cute emails saying how much he loved me and wanted me back...I think I still love him, but I need more opinions...Should I take him back?

Link to comment

Wow,let me start by saying im incredibly sorry for your situation Your b/f was wrong for not stopping when you asked him.Though,i dont know if it would be considered rape.Anyway,i myself would be mad at him if i were you.I would still love him of course,but i dont think i would take him back.There is no telling whether he he could do it again.My suiggestion,lose him.He is nothing but trouble.Good luck.

 

~Meagan~

Link to comment
I didn't try pushing him off or anything

 

That one sentence stands out above everything else you wrote. I'm going to disagree with your friends and say that I really don't think you should go so far as to consider it rape, had you have been firm with me and tried to push him off and he STILL persisted, THEN you could call that rape. Trust me, when you're being raped it'll occur to right then and there, not a few weeks later. It's actually pretty common for a woman to tell a man to stop without even realising it during intercourse, because she doesn't realise what she's saying and she's overcome with pleasure. Also, he was probably so occupied with what he was doing that he didn't even HEAR you say stop, or if he did he didn't think you meant it, and since you gave him no signs that you did, it's only natural for him to have continued.

If this is the only reason you guys broke up then I think you should consider getting back together with him.

~Tink

xxx

Link to comment

I agree with Tinkerbell. It seems more like an episode of bad sex without proper technique or lubrication (you were scared and thus not producing the necessary natural lubricant for sex). Now, if you would have been hitting him and screaming for him to get off you and he kept going -- that's rape. What you have described is not rape. It's hard to discern nowadays because you can say yes....yes....yes...yes... NO! and then it becomes rape suddenly. You could be literally having sex consentually and then scream "NO!" when you realize you don't want it anymore.

Link to comment

I believe its normal for it to hurt during the fist few times a girl has sex or after not having sex for a long time

 

He should have stopped but I wouldnt consider it rape he might have been too into it to gather the will power to stop.

 

It was wrong but I thinks both of you should get back together. As one of the other members said if you tried to physically get off him and he kept going it would have been rape.

 

If you still love him get back together with him.

Link to comment

I have to agree with some of the others. You don't "realize" that you've been raped, unless you don't understand your own desires or don't know what sex is. Sounds like your friends had to convince you of something. Rape is a VERY SERIOUS matter, and the fact that you're so blase about it, seems to say that you were not in fact raped.

 

But maybe I'm wrong. If you want to take legal action against him (which is what women do if they've been raped) you shouldn't this post here. If a laywer got a hold of this you would have a HARD time proving that you thought it was rape at the time. Rape is when you have unconcentual sex, you either want to or not. If you didn't want to then you would of known then, if you did want to then he didn't rape you, if you didn't know what you wanted then that's still not rape by default.

 

But I'm hoping it's not as bad as your friends think it was.

Link to comment

Rape from a legal standpoint is when somone has sex with someone else without their consent. Not pushing someone off is not a form of consent. So I'd have to disagree and say that legally, yes you were raped. You don't even have to say no for it to be considered rape; an absense of "yes" is a no. I don't know how you want to handle that, because your situation is unique with lots of technicalities. That doesn't change the basic facts though. You're justified in feeling any way you feel at this point, and I hope everything works out.

Link to comment

Legally its rape at the point you no longer consent. And saying "no" is that point. Technically you do not have to push him off or struggle. Saying no is enough.

 

Now PROVING it is a whole other story. Its your word against his. And if you two still have a good relationship and you can talk about what happened and resolve it - that will be much better than trying to sort it out in court. Do you still love him? Thats something only you can answer. Do you think he did it on purpose? Does he understand what he did?

 

Try and sort it out between the two of you. Unless you feel he is a dangerous person and needs to be locked up.

Link to comment

Ok maybe I said a few things wrong.

 

Check it out:

link removed.viewArticle&ArticleID=913&page=1

 

-Absense of "no" is not consent.

-Even saying "yes" under certain circumstances can be seen as not concenting. For example if it's forced.

-BUT it's not rape if he thought it wasn't rape. That is, it's not rape if he too thought that her "no" was referring to the feeling rather than the act itself.

 

So if he thought he didn't need to stop if he made it feel better, then this wouldn't constitue rape. Replace that "no" with an "ouch" and it definitely isn't rape. I don't know. It seems like a hard call.

 

But either way, I doubt it would hold up in court with phrases like "should I love him or hate him?" "I realized a month later that I was raped," "I thought it was natural" etc. I mean how is he supposed to know if it's rape if she doesn't even know.

Link to comment

I'm sorry, but if the woman says "no", then it's RAPE. Plain and simple. I don't care if she's already had an orgasm, decides she's had enough, and tells him to stop before he cums or something...if she tells him to stop and he doesn't, she has withdrawn her consent and it's rape.

 

The question here is what to do about it. Legally, it's true that you don't have a leg to stand on. Feeling confused and ambivilant is natural (especially since it wasn't a *violent* rape), and there's nothing wrong with having mixed feelings.

 

Maybe he *did* misunderstand, but that doesn't change what he did.

 

At the very least, you need to talk to your guy and set up a 'safe word'. It's a word that you wouldn't ordinarily say during sex (like 'house' or 'radio'...DO NOT use words like 'no' or 'stop'). You agree on the word and agree that if you say that word he is to STOP whatever he's doing IMMEDIATELY.

Link to comment
I'm sorry, but if the woman says "no", then it's RAPE. Plain and simple.

 

We're talking about language and law here--It's never that easy:

 

link removed

 

Maybe he *did* misunderstand, but that doesn't change what he did.

 

And this is why it would never hold up in court. I wasn't there, so I'm sure I don't have all the facts, but from what she is telling us there's a good chance that he didn't do anything morally wrong, esp. if he missunderstood.

 

But a safe word would be a GREAT idea.

Link to comment

We're talking about language and law here--It's never that easy:

 

Ah, but I wasn't talking about legally -- I meant morally. Finish reading my above post and you'll find I completely agree it wouldn't hold up in court. I stated:

 

Legally, it's true that you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

You and I are on the same side...we just stated things differently.

Link to comment

I don't think that its right to say it wasn't rape and that it wouldn't take her this long to figure it out. Alot of woman don't know what constitutes as rape or molestation and assume that what happened was natural. Many go through depression, blame themselves, see the truth, and have an epiphany. Others don't even want to admit that they were sexually assaulted. Morally, it was beyond wrong but legally, its a hard case to try. -hugs- Darlin, I know how it feels when people don't have full belief in what you say and I know how it feels when the conclusions are drawn and the truth comes out. If you ever want to talk, please do not hesitate to contact me. I think that what he did was wrong. You said No and he didn't listen and thats wrong.

Link to comment
I think that what he did was wrong. You said No and he didn't listen and thats wrong.

 

 

The fact is we just don't know all the facts. He could of been a horny guy that just wanted some sex. OR she may have gave a passive "no" twice that he confused with "it hurts". Legally rape is defined if HE thought HE had consent, NOT her. And morally, there are a thousand circumstances whereby he may have done NOTHING wrong morally. (Just ask me and I'm sure I can make up a story for you.) This is obviously a story of two people (or at least one) that are in "love" and proabably arn't emotionally mature enough to be having sex. It's the "gentleman thing to do" to ask to have sex? She's asking if she should "love or hate" him? She doesn't push him off, she thinks the pain is natural (which it is at first) and she doesn't mention anything. She has to discuss it with her girlfriends to "decide" if it was rape. Rape is SERIOUS, and I can't believe we would group this case (and a long with a 4 year prison term) with all the other horrible rapes out there. Is it all the sudden that a girl has to mutter "no" once and it's suddenly rape NO MATTER WHAT?

 

We don't even know the guys side of the story, and I think it's horrible that people hear the word rape and assume a death sentence for the guy.

Link to comment

I have been molested more than once. I never said no. I showed signs of discomfort by trying to get off the bed, crying, and curling up into a fetal position. They never stopped. She said no and I don't care what his story is, I don't care how horny he was, it doesn't matter. When a girl says no, she means no. She doesn't mean, oh its okay...keep going...it means to stop. Maybe it isn't rape but what he did was wrong but not stopping at her saying no. I'm sure he has a story and thats good for him but NOTHING justities someone not stopping when you say no or show signs of distress. He should have listened and he should have stopped no matter how horny he was. It doesn't matter what she was saying no to, whether it be the pain or not wanting it anymore. NO MEANS NO! I'm sorry If I am sounding like a ranting 16 year old, but I have been sexually assaulted. You can sit an argue that I wasn't or that she wasn't, but it doesn't change whats in my head. She said no and I tried to get up but was forced back to the bed. It may not be the exact definition or rape but honestly, when a woman says no she means business.

Link to comment

So when I have sex with my gf and she says stop and I interpret it as "stop hurting me, but let's keep having sex" and let me proceed (like what happened in her situation) suddenly I've raped her. "No means no" is good to put guys in their place, and you know what? She can mean "no" down to her soul, but if he, for some reason, doesn't understand it the same way she does then he cannot be held legally or morally accountable. I'm just saying we don't have all the facts. I mean the fact that she would say something like "should I love him or hate him?" seems to scream "bias!" I just can't believe you would so easily convict him without hearing his side of the story. I'm very sorry about your situation, It's horrible you had to go through that, but that's why they wouldn't put you on the jury for this case, and it's obvious you're applying it to judge this guy.

Link to comment

I think these two situations are entirely different so I'm going to step in to help this debate before it gets out of hand.

 

mymelancholysoul was molested. This is totally different because she was too young to consent at all. She does not need to tell someone no or push them off or do anything because they should have NEVER HAD SEX WITH HER IN THE FIRST PLACE. This is why there are age of consent laws. Young people should not have to worry about such things and so its ALWAYS a crime.

 

Now the meesha87 was at the age of consent (hopefully). She is a little older and is allowed to make that yes or no decision about having sex. This is where you have to make your choice about consent clear to the other person. Its true that no means no. But a jury will take into account how long the relationship existed between these people, whether there was any force used, how exactly did she withdraw consent, injuries sustained, etc. None of us were there, so none of us know exactly what happened.

 

Legally rape is defined if HE thought HE had consent, NOT her.

 

This is very wrong. Rape is defined as whether a "reasonable person" would believe they had consent. The law does not presume that the accused is a reasonable person. Its up to the jury to decide whether a reasonable person would believe they had consent. NOT to decide what the accused though. Lets face it, some people would believe they had consent even if the other person was screaming "Get off of me!!!!".

 

I hear what you are saying about not knowing the guys side of the story and that is completely true. All we can do is advise meesha87 based on what she told us. We aren't the jury, so lets just help her as best we can ok?

Link to comment
Legally rape is defined if HE thought HE had consent, NOT her.

 

This is very wrong. Rape is defined as whether a "reasonable person" would believe they had consent. The law does not presume that the accused is a reasonable person. Its up to the jury to decide whether a reasonable person would believe they had consent. NOT to decide what the accused thought. Lets face it, some people would believe they had consent even if the other person was screaming "Get off of me!!!!".

 

Avman I'm sorry I still think you're wrong. This was discussed:

 

link removed.viewArticle&ArticleID=913&page=1

INTENTION AND CONSENT It must be proved that a man who is accused of rape knew he was committing rape. In other words, he must have intended to have intercourse with the woman without her consent. He will not be guilty of rape if he genuinely believed that the woman consented, because then he would not have had the necessary intention. If a woman does not consent, but her actions have induced an honest and reasonable belief on the part of the accused that she has consented, he cannot be found guilty of rape. However, the fact that the woman did not resist does not mean that a court will accept that she consented to having sexual intercourse. A woman may submit as a result of intimidation, fear or fraud, as well as force.

 

AND

 

link removed

Reasonable Belief in Consent

Even where the accused uses force, the intercourse may not constitute rape. If, under the circumstances, the accused could reasonably have believed the victim was consenting, there is no forcible rape. This is unlikely when any significant force is used.

 

And the point of "reasonable person" is moot. Fine, we can replace this guy with a reasonable person. It is still dependent on what the GUY thought in this case. And as the second link shows, sure the guy can still think he had consent if she was kicking and screaming. This is very unlikely. But say the person was mentally retarded we don't find this person legally or morally responsible anymore than the mentally retarded person who drowned their baby brother because he/she thought he should live underwater. Call it rape if you want, but you can't hold some morally accountable for his/her own ignorance. The law does sometimes, but they still wouldn't in this case.

 

 

I hear what you are saying about not knowing the guys side of the story and that is completely true. All we can do is advise meesha87 based on what she told us. We aren't the jury, so lets just help her as best we can ok?

 

I think we're way past that. She's not listening to this thread. You're right maybe we should start a new thread.

Link to comment

My friend, your first source is South African law. That has absolutely no bearing in the United States..

 

Your second source is an interpretation of the law. That is not the law itself. They conveniently ommitted the following sections of California law:

 

 

 

So as you can see, rape is defined quite liberally in California and they do take the age of the victim into account. So even if the victim consents, the circumstances under which they consent is a factor as to whether it is rape. Lets face it, if these laws were cut and dried there would be no need for judges and juries to interpret them.

Link to comment

So as you can see, rape is defined quite liberally in California and they do take the age of the victim into account. So even if the victim consents, the circumstances under which they consent is a factor as to whether it is rape.

 

First of all, I agree with most of that. Of course you should take their age into account, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm just saying that it's relative to what the guy really thought. Besides this is only California law, and we have problems when you just go by strict definitions:

 

Rape, California-style

...

With its ruling Monday, the California Supreme Court affirmed John Z.'s conviction. Although Justice Janice Rogers Brown agreed with the rape definition, she dissented on whether the boy had been guilty of rape. She noted that he might have had an "honest and reasonable belief" that the girl didn't waive consent, a defense recognized by California courts.

 

link removed

 

So EVEN IF you use this definition he shouldn't be guilty of rape. But why should we just go by the books anyways? Interpretaion is closer to morality and legality. The fact is that the courts wouldn't find such a man guilty in most, if not all, states. And if the guy honestly thought he had consent, what would you hold him morally accountable for? For a mistake? Would you send him to prison for a mistake?

Link to comment
And if the guy honestly thought he had consent, what would you hold him morally accountable for? For a mistake? Would you send him to prison for a mistake?

 

This gets into an interesting area. Because this happens ALL the time. You can still be guilty of a crime even if you didn't intend to commit one.

 

"Well I didn't mean to shoot him" - still guilty of murder

"I thought I had enough money in my checking account" - still guilty of writing bad checks

"I didn't know she was underage" - still guilty of sexual abuse

 

Now when the penalty for committing a crime is decided, they definitely take intent into account. And some crimes have different degrees of severity depending on intent (such as murder vs involuntary manslaughter). But nonetheless, the lack of intent to commit a crime does not in and of itself mean that a crime was not committed.

 

I'm not disputing that I would have a tough time convicting the original poster's boyfriend of rape. Based on what little I know, I would think it would be very questionable (and I did post to that effect).

 

I'm also not disputing that judges and juries can have very different interpretations of the law. That happens all the time. Two identical cases can have completely different outcomes depending on who hears the evidence and how they read the law.

 

The only thing I am disputing is just because a guy didn't intend to rape someone doesn't mean it wouldn't still be considered rape. For example if the girl was drunk and he was not, she says yes while intoxicated so he thinks he has consent, yet she was SO drunk she had no idea what she was consenting to - that is RAPE. She was unable to consent. And he had a clear enough head to realize that.

 

I'm sure we just have very different interpretations of this but I'm actually enjoying the debate

Link to comment

EXACTLY! And this is where morality and legality break down. I forgot to put money in the meter a couple of weeks ago. I got a parking ticket. Did I commit a crime. Yes. Did I do something wrong. No. He tried to kill him (on purpose). Did he kill him. No. But did he do something wrong. Yes.

 

Sure in the examples you gave you can call them "rape" or "murder" if you want (actually they wouldn't call that murder in your example, and it might not even be called manslaughter but rather criminally negligent homicide under certain circumstances.)

 

But these terms have suddenly become loaded terms that are misnomers.

They say "I committed a crime but did nothing wrong." And I would hate to place the label "rape," with all it's negative connotations, on any old circumstance that fits the books. I'd rather reserve that for a horrible crime.

 

But like I said, if we define rape

-by the books

-by final judgement of peers

-by morality

 

the guy would still not be guilty of rape in possibly all those circumstances.

 

-by the books: if it's in a different state

-by final judgement of peers: I doubt anyone would convict the OPs boyfriend or anyone who had significant evidence of "reasonable belief in consent"

-by morality: now this is the one that matters:

 

Criminal liability has a mens rea aspect (mental state)

 

link removed

 

and actus reus aspect (actual action)

 

link removed

 

In morality it is the mens rea aspect that actually matters. And not having a 1-to-1 correspondence is why we have all those stupid laws:

 

link removed

 

and why Edward Coke says:

 

actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea -- which roughly translated means 'an act does not make someone a criminal unless (their) mind is guilty'.

source: wikipedia link #1 above

Link to comment

To the original poster: I get the sense that you suspect what happened is wrong. And I agree with you. He should have stopped. And most guys would have.

 

I don't have any legal advice or suggestions for you. But morally, I would not get back with this guy if I was you. And maybe the consequences of losing you will prevent him in the future from not stopping if a girl asks him to.

 

- Scout

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...