This morning, we have more evidence of the widespread refusal in our culture to name a rape a rape:
Former University of Colorado linebacker Michael Sipili was arrested Tuesday morning on suspicion of sexually assaulting a 22-year-old woman last month at an off-campus apartment, according to Boulder police.
. . . . . .
Witnesses told police that Sipili went into a room at the apartment with one woman. He then entered a room in which his friend and the other woman were engaged in consensual sex.
That woman told detectives that the next thing she knew, Sipili began having sex with her. She said she told him to stop and said “this hurts” numerous times.
She said Sipili had sex with her for about five to 10 minutes before leaving.
When the woman got up to leave, the affidavit said, she noticed blood on the sheets and said Sipili’s friend tried to cover it up.
A rape examination later revealed she had suffered multiple tears to her vagina, according to the affidavit.
What??? A “rape examination?” The story said merely that the alleged perpetrator “had sex with her.“
How would it feel to live in a world in which reporters and newspapers actually used the verb “to rape” or “to commit sexual assault” when describing an arrest for rape or sexual assault? I’m totally cool with the nouns “alleged rape” and “alleged rapist,” since of course no one has yet been convicted.
Let’s give credit where credit is due: neither the Denver Post nor the Boulder Daily Camera article on which it was based use the term “accuser,” as though a lone woman were accusing the perpetrator of sexual assault and bringing him up on charges and not the Boulder County District Attorney’s office. (The Daily Camerastory actually uses the old-fashioned, unmodified term “victim” once, which is appropriate since the DA’s office has in fact determined that a crime was committed.)