Women Who Stay in Contact with Their “Rapists” Should Be Stigmatized

On the Clavicular case

Clavicular is being charged with rape, drugging a person for sex, and providing alcohol to a minor. The case appears to be a result of the same incident for which a civil lawsuit has been filed, and we can get the story as told from the plaintiff/alleged victim there.

In her lawsuit, [Aleksandra] Mendoza alleges that one night in May 2025, Peters paid for an Uber to take her from where she was staying in Massachusetts to his parents’ Cape Cod home. She went, according to the lawsuit, in the hopes of helping her career as an influencer.

Instead, “with [Clavicular’s] mother’s full knowledge,” she alleges, “excessive amounts of alcohol were being served” at Peters’s home. Peters invited her into his bedroom, according to the suit, where he allegedly gave her multiple vodka shots.

“Peters then had sex with Mendoza while she was knowingly intoxicated, to the point where she was unable to give consent,” her lawsuit reads. “That morning, while Mendoza was asleep, she woke up with Peters penetrating her and having sex with her, again without her consent.”

Mendoza’s lawsuit alleges she ran into him again that November in Miami, where Peters allegedly injected her cheeks on camera with a fat-dissolving substance despite apparently neither having the medical expertise to perform the injections nor providing her—a minor—with warnings that the substances were not FDA-approved. During the injections, Mendoza alleges that Peters perforated her right cheek. She also feared that Peters, who has talked about smoking meth to achieve a hollowed-out “snatched” look for his face, had put meth into the injections.

It must be noted here that she was 17 at the time,¹ which is the age of consent in Massachusetts. For any sexual encounter here to be considered a crime, it would have to depend on Mendoza being too drunk to consent or being penetrated while she was sleeping.

I obviously don’t know what happened between Clavicular and Mendoza. If the claim about penetrating her while asleep can be proved, that’s certainly worthy of being treated as a crime. But going to a man’s bedroom, getting drunk, and then claiming you were “too intoxicated to consent” is not something a sane society can put someone in jail for. This is universally understood to be a signal that sex is on the table. If a woman gets up at a certain point and starts hitting her partner, then it’s reasonable to say implicit consent has been withdrawn, and him applying force should be treated as a crime. The same is true if she literally passes out. But what you can’t have is a girl getting drunk, going along with the encounter, and then later deciding it was rape because she got intoxicated – which she chose to do in the bedroom of a man.

In this case, we might take a step back and say that, as a 17-year-old, getting drunk wasn’t a real choice. But the rape charge doesn’t depend on her age, even though the providing alcohol to a minor part does. If Mendoza had been 25, nothing about the rape charge would be any different. I guess I’m fine condemning Clavicular for being with a minor while she was drunk, but that’s not what supposedly made the initial sexual encounter illegal. Again, the allegation of penetrating her while asleep is a different story.

But what really turns me against Mendoza is the fact that she appeared on a livestream with Clavicular months after her alleged rape.

Now, it’s possible to get raped and then stay in contact with the perpetrator. What happens at time T+1 can’t change what happened at T, and if T was rape, it was rape. But from the perspective of how society should think of such women, they unquestionably should be stigmatized for their behavior.

When a woman claims sexual assault and it is revealed that she remained in contact with her alleged perpetrator, we’re often told that this doesn’t prove that she was lying, because this is something that victims often do. But if a woman cuts off contact with a man after an alleged sexual assault, that is clearly treated as useful evidence against him. We can’t have a world where, no matter how a woman behaves after an alleged incident, it contributes to the man being found guilty. We need to ask which is the more likely event in each case. If a woman has been sexually assaulted, is there a higher probability she stays in touch with her attacker or cuts him off? And what course of action would make more sense if she were lying? Even though some victims may stay in contact with their rapists, a woman doing so should certainly be seen as evidence that she is lying.

On a social level, however, whether a woman was actually victimized or not in such a case, she should be widely denounced for her behavior. Women who stay in contact with men who do harm to them impose a cost onto the rest of society. They hurt rape victims by making their allegations more difficult to prove since, to the degree that a woman staying in contact with a man can’t be treated as evidence she is lying, a woman cutting off contact isn’t helping her case. This also harms men who need to defend themselves against false accusations, since practically nothing a woman does can possibly absolve the supposed perpetrator.

In other words, women who continue associating with their victimizers and those who make excuses for them take away one of the best tools we can possibly have for differentiating between real and false allegations. This is particularly important since many rape and sexual assault allegations are notoriously difficult to prove and boil down to a “he said, she said” situation.

People will try to get around this by doing the therapy culture thing of reframing personality flaws as medical issues. She was a “trauma victim.” But there’s a difference between having a panic attack or shaking upon seeing someone who assaulted you, and sitting there on a livestream and calmly letting him inject chemicals into your face. If the trauma framework can supposedly explain literally any observed behavior, it is useless as a concept.

I don’t know if Aleksandra Mendoza was raped. But I do know that women like her are doing real harm to society, and returning to a world where we stigmatize them would be better for all of us.

1. This post earlier said that Mandoza was 16 at the time of the incident. She was 16 when she met Clavicular, but 17 at the time of the alleged rape.