> it does not ignore it; it explicitly describes the case being dropped, explaining how and why It discusses it in a manner unrelated to the agency of the wome

> it does not ignore it; it explicitly describes the case being dropped, explaining how and why It discusses it in a manner unrelated to the agency of the women involved, ignoring the fact that they were involved in it being reinstated. I should have associated the two clauses there more closely to make it clearer what I was objecting to. > implies that caitlin johnstone, the author of the post that you were presumably commenting on, believed or at least suggested that the alleged situation would not amount to rape, if it had happened This was intended to be in reference to the observation that initially nobody asserted that they'd been raped. Rape isn't defined by whether someone believes they've been raped, and there's evidence that many people who will disclose that they've been subject to all the elements of rape will refuse to describe it as such. A victim failing to describe it as rape doesn't give you a significant amount of information.