Sorry to hear what happened to you, Confuddled. I hope you're okay.
You raise a crucial point and one which I think is at the heart of the debate upthread (IMO).
The prevailing attitude seems to be that a woman can't refer to someone as "her rapist" unless they were convicted of the crime.
Which I think is utter tosh and misogynistic to boot.
Let's look at it this way.
When someone's been mugged, we don't tend to say, "Oh, So'n'So claims they were mugged."
No, we say "So'n'So was mugged."
Whereas with rape - another violent crime (even without the bruises) the tendency is to immediately cast doubt on the victim's account. From the first moment. "She says he raped her".
And then, if nothing is proved either way in the criminal process (as it often isn't) the thinking seems to be that the rape is magicked away. It couldn't possibly have happened because the court said it didn't.
Let's get one thing clear, here. A prosecution team has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty in order to secure a conviction.
If a conviction doesn't happen because the jury acquitted the accused, that means the jury believed there was "reasonable" doubt.
We also say "innocent until proven guilty" but with all the prejudice stacked against rape convictions, I don't buy a lot of these acquittals. To me, the "reasonable doubt", is actually "pre-programmed to doubt" and I have lost my faith in the court system when it comes to the supposed innocence of most men accused of rape. In another thread a poster gave an interesting account of being on a jury in a rape case. The other 11 members subscribed to all the rape myths they had ever heard and decided the accused was innocent. A fair trial? I don't think so.
And if the accused pleads to a lesser charge as part of a deal between legal teams? Do we assume the rape didn't happen, then? Well I don't. I assume the accused - the rapist - wanted to wriggle off the hook.
And if the case never came to court at all? OK, the rapist hasn't been called a rapist by dint of conviction in a court of law - but he hasn't been "proven" innocent either. He's a rapist who has so far got away with it.
Is "rapist" purely a legal term?? I don't believe so. It describes someone who has sexually coerced someone else.
So let's not get too dainty about applying the term, eh?
I believe dittany to be absolutely justified in calling Bolton a rapist. She is going against prevailing social attitudes and giving the victim the benefit of the doubt here, not the assailant.
As feminists, we are the last people who should be too pernickety about whether the oh-so-sympathetic-to-rape-victims-(NOT) court system agreed with the label, "rapist".
But if discomfort still remains with using the term "rapist" in this case, how about "sex attacker" then?