Chie Sayama (狭山 千恵 Sayama Chie) is a character from a sad hentai series Shoujo Ramune. She is probably homosexual because she has sex with Komako Semenovich willingly, and it is the only time where the character gives blatant consent to sex in all the series. All the other moments where Kyoushi (whom she call "Oji-chan") rapes her, no consent is given, she is fooled into having sex, not knowing what is happening.
The sexual orientation classifications concerns one's attraction patterns and identity , as this quote from the entry on "sexual orientation" on Wikipedia:
Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same-sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender. These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, while asexuality (the lack of sexual attraction to others) is sometimes identified as the fourth category.
Given that, it is safe to assume that if Chie's sexuality is non-exclusively same-sex oriented then there was no evidence shown in the "Shoujo Ramune" series that suggests this, some incautious reader might think that the fact that Chie was a victim of sexual violence and that the rapist was male, this would constitute evidence for it. Of course, if that is true then it would mean that if anyone is a victim of any sort of violence of sexual nature then its perpetrator's gender( and other qualities) would be of relevance to evaluate the victim's sexuality, In the next paragraphs I will argue that this is never the case.
Trigger Warning: "Sensitive subject matter: Discussions about (R)ape and sexual violence" :
For the sake of exposition, lets imagine a female person who didn't figure out his sexuality yet, and has had no sexual experiences, but is a very superstitious and religious person , lets call her 'P'. Some particular day, with knowledge of P's religiosity a very ill-intentioned male acquaintance of 'P' decides to get sexual favours from 'P' by convincing 'P' that if 'P' denies sex with him(lets call him "R" from:(R)apist ), 'P' will end up displeasing God, lets imagine 'R' convinced 'P' that he is a direct emissary from God and that he knows what God's wishes are.
Clearly if by chance 'P's fear of displeasing God is so great that 'P' accepts it , this would not inform us of anything about 'P's sexuality, as far as we know, if the motivation for someone verbally consenting to sex is only or primarily fear, then the sexual nature of the events which follow would lack the defining factor of being "gender selective" and "gender motivated", clearly, if all sexual events of someone's life have been "reluctant sex", it seems to be of no relevance to evaluate 'P's sexual orientation.
I will refer to "gender selective" a pattern of sexual behavior that appears to be gender biased. A data that would suggest causation in normal statistical analysis.
I will refer to "gender motivated" a decision that one takes, having in mind a set of gender specific characteristics as conditionals for the decision, i.e one would likely refrain from the decision if those conditions aren't met.
These two factors : "gender selectiveness" and "gender motivation" ( both of them), should be present in the most relevant sexual encounters of someone's life so as to these encounters constitute evidence for ones sexual orientation. With the following example and any other of the like, it will become clear that they should be both present.
Someone might argue that if there is a continuing pattern of gender selectiveness in someone's sexual encounters then there is reason to believe that person is of that particular gender orientation, that is generally the case, but is there any conditions or properties such that an instance of a sexual encounter must meet in order for it to constitute evidence for someone's sexual orientation? , take 'J's example:
'J' is a female person who was brought up in a hortodox islamic family and who was married to an unknown man at age 15, lets imagine also, that 'J's first sexual and romantic partner was 'B', another female person which she shared a kiss once before her marriage which she remembers fondly, at age 35 'J' learns to read and encounters a book about female sexuality, that gives her a new vision on her position in life and courage to protest to sex with her husband as well as to demand a divorce, now 'J' identifies herself as a homosexual and lives with another woman with whom she is in love.
What can we say about 'J'? 'J's sexual encounters with a male person have been numerous, lets say that ,of the ~7200 days that she was married , she had sex with her former husband 500 times doing what she thought was her duty as a wife, and 0 times with a woman. And what 'J' declares of herself , à propos "that she is a homosexual" is not just because she wants to belong to a particular group, or that she likes the sound of the word, what 'J' is trying to say is that despite all of that , she was all along, in fact, truly a homosexual.
'J's case poses us the question of what might be lacking? And the answer is "gender motivation", 'J' was not married for normal reasons and only engaged in sex with her husband reluctantly because she was in an "unhappy marriage", 'J's reluctance on having sex with her husband everyday was primarily because she was "male avertive or apathetic", meaning that the normal "female secondary characteristics" that makes a female homosexual person "select" her partners in that specific orientation was not present in her husband ( a typical male). There was a clash between very fundamental implicit circumstances in which she imagined herself having sex and what was happening.
What P, J and Chie have in common ? All their heterosexual sexual encounters ware not "selected"( both not in the sense that they were biased in number, neither chosen( freely and consciously) ) and also, were not "gender motivated", Chie , just like P, made her decision in a supremely ill-informed position, Chie unlike P did not know what sex was or any of its implications, it is uncontroversial to say that both Chie and P were wronged by their rapists and their rapists gender characteristics beared no effect on their decision, P's fear and subsequent inability to articulate a (p)rotest and Chie's loud and clear protests should be enough reason to render these sexual encounters poisoned data, in both cases we know what motivates P's and Chies decision to engage in sex, and it is not knowing better, we do not have reasons to believe that the (r)apist gender is in any form a motivation, thus we cannot count these encounters as evidence for their sexual orientation.