Sometimes I call you my rapist,
and
that feels wrong somehow,
but
I cannot keep saying the woman who raped
me
every
time I mention you,
and
cannot say your name
because
I
only know your first name anyway,
and
in saying even that I turn accuser
and
am too aware how easily my case could be undone,
an
accuser who’d been drinking when it happened;
an
accuser who’d consented, at the start;
an
accuser who, at the time, was presenting as male:
an
accuser who’d be bound to fail, in court.
So
I, out of need for variation, name you mine:
My rapist. It feels wrong. Too
intimate
somehow,
suggests collusion, a joint enterprise
between
us. It takes two,
they
say. Two, babe: me. You.
It
smacks of going steady and those
creepy ‘50s love songs:
Every night, I hope and pray
this
fear will go away,
but
I cannot say your name, and
the woman who raped me sounds clunky
and anyway
is
legally someone who can’t exist:
English
law defines rape as an act
committed
only by the male. It’s sexual assault
when
women do it. As if the two are easily distinguished,
but
the woman who sexually assaulted me
is
clunkier still than the woman the law calls impossible,
so,
sometimes, you are my rapist,
and
I wonder if, in some sense, that is true:
was
I the only one? You seemed surprised
that
I said no. Was it shock that spurred you on
as
much as malice? Or instead of it?
And
do I want that? Does it make you better,
or
me special, if it was only the once?
It
doesn’t matter if I’m one or one of many.
I
may call you my rapist but we know
that isn’t true.
Whatever
law or rumour says, whoever else there was,
you
were never mine. You were the rapist
I ran into.
No comments:
Post a Comment