A teenager goes public claiming she was raped by a 23-year-old man but the, um, evil prosecutor refused to bring charges. See here
Well, even the post goes on to admit that court papers show "both [parties] said they had an ongoing sexual relationship." And -- the important sentence: "The prosecutor concluded that the Crystal and the man had had consensual sex."
The post goes on to ask, rhetorically: "Since when does having having a relationship with someone mean they can't rape you?"
OK, now I'm lost. The post assumes a rape occurred even though the prosecutor concluded sex was consensual.
What part of the word "consensual" doesn't the writer understand?
There is no indication that the prosecutor's conclusion was based solely on the fact that the parties had a relationship. To assume that is the case is nothing short of absurd wishfulness on the part of someone so caught up in her own victim mentality that she can't see reality.
A relationship is a factor to be considered in determining whether sex was consensual but it is not dispositive.
The author of the post has decided that the young woman must have been raped because she said she was. The prosecutor, obviously, was wrong in reaching the conclusion that sex was consensual, regardless of what the facts showed.
It must be convenient to parse out information that doesn't agree with your world view-- you could win every argument by doing that.
The saddest thing is that the author of this post likely has so deluded herself that she actually believes what she wrote. That's what happens when you view the world through a gender lens, where every act becomes "evidence" of another instance where women are victimized by men and the world men run. How frighteningly naive. For their own mental health they need to start looking at the world for what it is: a countless variety of greys with very few black and whites, and oppression coming from all different directions.