Nick Ross on rape - warning you may feel the need to punch a wall

(485 Posts)
DuelingFanjo Sat 25-May-13 23:09:37

sorry it's a daily mail link.

I am full of rage, particularly his comments on aggravated rape. Wtf. Presumably he means that there are situations in which he will not be able to stop himself from raping someone because it is aggravated. This has made me so angry. Please they'll me he no longer works for the BBC. I truly hope he loses his career over this. How the hell are we supposed to educate people who think like this?

WuzzleMonkey Sat 25-May-13 23:20:50

And the point about rape victims not considering themselves rape victims!!!

That's because we live in a society where women's rights to keep their own bodies to themselves are consistently eroded, not because having sex without someone's consent isn't rape!

FFS!!

RiotsNotDiets Sat 25-May-13 23:22:32

Urgh

<bangs head on table>

Greythorne Sat 25-May-13 23:22:50

Is he well known to be hard of thinking?

Is he planning on becoming the quasi serious answer to Jeremy Clarkson?

WuzzleMonkey Sat 25-May-13 23:23:19

And the stuff about conviction rates!!! Well the conviction rate is low so the solution is not to report!

Wtaf do you think you are talking about Nick Ross, you massive, massive cunt.

I'm not even going to read it.

WuzzleMonkey Sat 25-May-13 23:23:53

(apols I didn't mean to call him a c*nt then)

RiotsNotDiets Sat 25-May-13 23:24:36

Yes Wuzzle, I mean really, how hard would it be to tell that someone just isn't in to it? If they're not actively participating and visibly enjoying themselves, any normal person would stop and check they were ok, no???

RiotsNotDiets Sat 25-May-13 23:25:12

What a stupid, stupid man

HoHoHoNoYouDont Sat 25-May-13 23:29:08

So basically 'we're asking for it'

If that's the case then he's asking to get punched in the face as he's aggravating me! Tosser.

squoosh Sat 25-May-13 23:33:08

I'm so shocked by this article. Actual open mouthed type shock.

Our forebears might be astonished at how safe women are today given what throughout history would have been regarded as incitement. Not even in the licentious days of Charles II in the 17th Century was it acceptable for women to dress as provocatively as they have done in Western culture since the 1960s.

Equally they would be baffled that girls are mostly unescorted, stay out late, often get profoundly drunk and sometimes openly kiss, grope or go to bed with one-night stands.

This man is a TV presenter, that is all, not a criminologist, how the fuck does he feel qualified to pass these judgements?

DuelingFanjo Sat 25-May-13 23:33:48

Wuzle, cunt was te first word I thought of and I very early put it into the title of this thread.

squoosh Sat 25-May-13 23:35:04

The assumption is that any woman who chooses not to pursue a claim is being let down by the State or is acting irrationally. But could it be that she is right? What if she feels partly responsible for what happened?

There are no words.

MaryMotherOfCheeses Sat 25-May-13 23:36:40

Women. They're all liars.

hmm

That's what he seems to be saying. What a vile article.

gordyslovesheep Sat 25-May-13 23:36:44

not just judged ...judged by 17th century standards - brilliant ...I love i when men try to edumacate me about rape ...said no woman ever

WuzzleMonkey Sat 25-May-13 23:40:21

"girls are mostly unescorted, stay out late"

whaaaaa? So we need to keep girls in glass boxes and under curfew. And if we don't and they get sexually assaulted, well it's not really a crime.

This man is insane.

Shakey1500 Sat 25-May-13 23:42:52

Wow.

Moxiegirl Sat 25-May-13 23:45:46

Wtf??!
Makes you wonder what he's done in his life doesn't it, to be so defensive.

jacks365 Sat 25-May-13 23:48:28

Maybe it's because I've been there but I do understand what he's saying. I was a victim of dv that included rape but this was my husband. It took me 14 years to admit even to myself that what he did was rape. All he is trying to point out is that things are not always black and white especially to those involved. Should I be made to feel like I'm letting the side down because my husband had me so twisted up that I thought I was being unreasonable.

He also comments about taking reasonable precautions, comparing it to leaving a laptop in view, you wouldn't do that just in case the wrong person was around so why not taken precautions with your own person. It doesn't mean everyone is going to attack you but you never know.

DesperatelySeekingSedatives Sat 25-May-13 23:48:47

hmm far as I know he only presented Crimewatch. He didnt solve the fucking crimes himself.

The fucking fail. between this article and the one where the "journalist" (use that term loosely) watched some child porn to write her article I wonder if the editor has a screw loose?! angry

DuelingFanjo Sat 25-May-13 23:49:14

What he is saying is that he could rape someone because he knows that women sometimes cause their own rape by their behaviour. So he is basically saying he could be in a situation where he has no choice but to rape because they will make him do it.

Insulting fuck.

Insulting to women, insulting to men.

I guess he thinks Jill Dando was asking for it too? Standing In front of her own front door like she was, asking for it. In broad daylight? Asking for it.

He is saying that women should just accept, expect to be raped because the are women and men can't help themselves.

HoHoHoNoYouDont Sat 25-May-13 23:51:49

Don't even start me on 'precautions'.

ravenAK Sat 25-May-13 23:52:23

Has anyone screen shotted it anywhere? I do try to avoid clicking on Daily Heil links...

DuelingFanjo Sat 25-May-13 23:53:01

'He also comments about taking reasonable precautions, comparing it to leaving a laptop in view, you wouldn't do that just in case the wrong person was around so why not taken precautions with your own person. It doesn't mean everyone is going to attack you but you never know.,

BEcause I am a person not a fucking laptop. In who's world does being a woman (yes I know men getvraped too but I am talking about me) mean that you should just accept that some fuck is going to come along and 'take' you because you are 'in view'? You are saying that vbut bbei in view I am making myself vulnerable to rape. Well fuck that. No one is ever go to convince me that 50% of the population should take extra precautions just because they have a vagina. How about the other 50% of the population just don't rape other people for fucks sake?

Terrorvision Sat 25-May-13 23:53:07

Yes, as a woman I am like a laptop. A piece a property, begging to be taken. Not a real PERSON, like a man. Tosser

ItsNotUnusualToBe Sat 25-May-13 23:53:40

Give it three months, I reckon.

squoosh Sat 25-May-13 23:53:54

I'm hugely offended by the laptop analogy.

I think energy would be better spent teaching would be rapists not to rape rather than telling women that they're somehow to blame because they get drunk and like wearing mini skirts. Because that's what our chum Nick is saying.

Typical victim blaming.

HoHoHoNoYouDont Sat 25-May-13 23:53:56

The BBC should reconsider his contract after those comments.

joanofarchitrave Sat 25-May-13 23:54:15

So... Nick writes that women are unprecedentedly safe now, despite endless, thoughtless, naughty, premeditated, scanty, heavily-breathing erotic provocation on their part, such as wearing fewer clothes than Queen Victoria. You'd almost think there was no link at all between how a woman dresses, and her behaviour, and a man's decision to rape. Wouldn't you, Nick?

jacks365 Sat 25-May-13 23:57:03

He isn't saying all men would nor is he saying women are to blame just that basic consideration for our own safety seems to have gone out the window. Yes we should be able to do what we want when we want without worrying but just as there are thieves out there there are also rapists and we should take steps to protect ourselves the same as we would our belongings.

RhondaJean Sat 25-May-13 23:57:10

I read the Amanda platell child porn article. I was shock

That's a criminal offence there.

CuttedUpPear Sat 25-May-13 23:57:32

I've cut n pasted the whole article so noone has to click on the DM link:

"Despite a century of feminism, and perhaps partly because of it, women are still mostly portrayed as weak when it comes to the issue of crime. It is 80 years since cinema audiences first thrilled to King Kong abducting the hapless blonde Ann Darrow – her only defence was her beauty.
Even now, much of the news and comment about women and crime tends to smack of sexism and stereotyping – some of it promoted by radical campaigners who are perversely keen to depict the sisterhood as ready victims.
So how much of women’s portrayal in crime stories is fair, or even true? For example, is domestic violence as one-sided as it seems? Is prostitution mostly victimisation, or emancipation? And why, if equality is a goal, do women get much shorter sentences than men for similar offences? Or, paradoxically, if they cross the Rubicon into sex crime, why are they reviled much more than men?

Sobering statistics: About four per cent of British women are raped at some point during their lives
Why, all things considered, do women suffer far less deliberate injury than men. And what about rape? It is plainly objectionable to reproach a victim for her own misfortune – so why do so many women do it? It is common knowledge spiked drinks are a potent menace, but is it a modern myth?
These are all important questions that any sceptic ought to pose. Yet while challenges to orthodoxy were once scorned because of appalling chauvinism, they now risk the wrath of feminists.
Take domestic violence, for example. It is almost universally portrayed as though the perpetrators are men. Indeed, in 1989 the Canadian Journal Of Behavioural Science published the results of a survey that was celebrated as a classic exposé of ‘battered wives’, and was taken up as proof of typical male perfidy.

More...
Chuck Hagel condemns 'scourge' of sexual assaults in military as he addresses West Point graduates
BEL MOONEY: Should I let my drunken, vicious ex-lover be a father to our baby?
However, two years later the Journal acknowledged a different side to the story after the data had been re-analysed. While 10.8 per cent of the men surveyed had pushed, grabbed or thrown objects at their spouses, 12.4 per cent of women had done so too. And although 2.5 per cent of men used serious violence, so did 4.7 per cent of women.
Marilyn Kwong, who carried out the new analysis, also examined eight other studies and found the pattern was universal. Inconvenient facts had been cut out.
Feminism did a vital job putting domestic violence on the agenda – most police officers now take it seriously, and in some force areas it represents one in six emergency responses. Yet the success of feminism and its flattery by mainstream authority meant that for decades professional interventions assumed that men were always the aggressors, and if women were violent, they must have been acting in self-defence.

Old fashioned: A movie poster for King Kong which Nick Ross says demonstrates archetypal stereotyping
It is widely claimed that one woman in four is subjected to domestic violence, though depending on the source, that figure might include minor physical assault, feeling afraid or suffering mild psychological abuse – and any of this at some stage in their lives.
If three-quarters of women went through life without ever once fearing some form of mental or physical attack, however inconsequential, that would be more surprising.
Many reports also ignored the thought that women can be violent to men. Erin Pizzey, the feminist who, in 1971, founded one of the world’s first women’s refuges, has been trying ever since to set the record straight.

Care: Erin Pizzey is the founder of the First Womens Refuge in Chiswick which offered abused women a place of refuge
She once wrote: ‘I will never forget one woman, who was staying in my refuge, telling me in chilling tones, “Knives are a great leveller”... The truth is that much of the violence takes place in squalid, tortured relationships, often involving drink and drugs, where both partners are guilty of verbal and physical assault.’
In Britain, a large Home Office survey in 1995 found that 4.2 per cent of men said they had been physically assaulted or injured by their partner within the previous year – precisely the same figure as for women. When 15 years of British findings were put together in 2012, they told an essentially consistent story: between 30 and 40 per cent of those assaulted were men and they suffered a quarter of all the attacks.
Although in many cases neither men nor women reported injury or emotional effects, about one in ten in both genders had suffered bleeding or broken bones, and three per cent of men and two per cent of women had later attempted suicide.
The same thing was found in a health survey in New Zealand.
Not that most men would confess how they were injured. Women are twice as likely as their male partners to confide in a professional, five times more likely to tell a doctor or a nurse, and three times as likely to go to the police.
None of this diminishes the horror of domestic abuse, especially when it is repeated, severe and one-sided. Women do tend to come off worst, and a small proportion of them suffer relentlessly. However, we should not underestimate the extent of mutual aggression that takes place within the hurly-burly of human discord. Nor should we forget the extent of emotional bullying, where the wounds don’t show. So let us turn to the other crime with which women are almost exclusively identified as victims: rape.
As far as we can tell, about four per cent of British women are raped at some point in their lives, some repeatedly. About 0.6 per cent of women (and 0.1 per cent of men) are victims of rapes and other serious sexual assaults each year.
Rape is one of the most violating crimes. Victims tend to feel dirty, embarrassed, racked with revulsion and self-blame, and, since it almost always involves a male assailant, rape is one of the defining issues for radical feminism. But have the red mists of politics and emotion clouded reality here?
Rape victims were once treated appallingly, as though it was all their fault, but have we now gone too far the other way? Many of the victims seem to think we have. The main argument of my book is this: we can aggravate crime by tempting fate, and we curb it by playing safe.
We have come to acknowledge it is foolish to leave laptops on the back seat of a car. We would laugh at a bank that stored sacks of cash by the front door. We would be aghast if an airport badly skimped on its security measures.
Our forebears might be astonished at how safe women are today given what throughout history would have been regarded as incitement. Not even in the licentious days of Charles II in the 17th Century was it acceptable for women to dress as provocatively as they have done in Western culture since the 1960s.
Equally they would be baffled that girls are mostly unescorted, stay out late, often get profoundly drunk and sometimes openly kiss, grope or go to bed with one-night stands.
No amount of temptation can excuse rape, or any other crime. On that point ‘slutwalk’ demonstrators [those reacting against a Canadian policeman whose advised women to ‘avoid dressing as sluts’ if they did not want to be harassed] are obviously correct. Yet for some it is heresy to suggest that victims should ever be held responsible at all.

Clear message: Protesters making their point in London after a policeman told women not to 'dress as sluts' - implying they were partly to blame for sex crimes
There was an outcry when our Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority cut recompense to rape victims who had ‘contributed’ to their plight through ‘excessive’ drinking. The decision had to be reversed. But for any other crime, compensation can be reduced according to ‘the conduct of the applicant before, during or after the incident’.
There was another outcry in 2011 when Ken Clarke, the then Justice Secretary, was urged to resign by Labour leader Ed Miliband for using the words ‘serious rape’.
The transcript of the interview makes it clear that Clarke meant aggravated rape, but it has become sacrilege to suggest that there can be any gradation: rape is rape.

Error of judgement: A report on Ken Clarke's comments in which he said not all rapes were ‘serious’
The real experts, the victims, know otherwise. Half of all women who have had penetrative sex unwillingly do not think they were raped, and this proportion rises strongly when the assault involves a boyfriend, or if the woman is drunk or high on drugs: they led him on, they went too far, it wasn’t forcible, they didn’t make themselves clear... For them, rape isn’t always rape and, however upsetting, they feel it is a long way removed from being systematically violated or snatched off the street.
Such stranger attacks – the sort most often reported by the newspapers – make up only a small proportion of rapes that women divulge through surveys.
The assumption is that any woman who chooses not to pursue a claim is being let down by the State or is acting irrationally. But could it be that she is right? What if she feels partly responsible for what happened? What if she realises there is no evidence other than her word against his? What if her life is bound up with that of her assailant? What if she feels humiliated as well as violated?
Should she be expected to disclose all this in public and then put her life on hold for the greater good? Do we want a justice system that overrides the victims’ sense of what is in their own best interests, or one that, in order to accommodate them, ceases to be just?
It’s little wonder that, despite the fact that reporting rates have soared, fewer than 20 per cent of rape victims go to the police. When they do, about a sixth of complaints are rejected (rightly or wrongly) by police as implausible; a third are abandoned for lack of evidence; and a third are dropped because the complainant withdraws.
Bear in mind that some of the allegations are made weeks or even years after the event took place, and the average rape case takes nearly two years to come to trial. When cases do go to court, 55 per cent result in a conviction.
Could it be that court proceedings are not always the best way of dealing with what happens in relationships? If that is the case, could it be that women (and men who are raped) are generally acting wisely if they choose not to take that route?
This brings us to another vexatious issue: drug-rape. Fears about women swooning from spiked drinks became so widespread that several TV soaps, the BBC and newspapers warned about the growing menace. The publicity turned Rohypnol – a previously obscure pre-anaesthetic sedative – into a household name.
There was always an implausibility about widespread drug-facilitated rape. For one thing, every assailant would need to control the dosage of a dangerous medication to allow extraction of the victim from her social setting without complaint or alarm from her friends.

Date rape: Rohypnol - a sedative that, if ingested, slows down the central nervous system
In any case, the evidence is vanishingly thin. The UK’s Forensic Science Service tested samples from more than 1,000 women who complained of being sexually assaulted after being given drugs surreptitiously – and found most of the women were drunk.
In 98 per cent of cases, there was no evidence of drugs other than self-administered alcohol, sometimes with cannabis and cocaine. This is in line with other studies both in the UK and the United States.
Critics suggest evidence was missed because samples were not taken early enough, and that the media reinforces the impression that such drugs are almost undetectable. Not so: some of the studies were on samples taken within hours, and anyway, some of the metabolites of hypnotics can be detected for days or even weeks.
Perhaps the drug-rape story has such a grip on our collective imagination because it fits so well with the time-honoured horror story: that of the insensible woman at the mercy of the wicked male.
Prostitution is another issue where women tend to be portrayed as victims. Those who work in the sex trade tend to be scandalised by this patronising view. Females are as capable as men of making decisions on whether to work in an office, a factory or a knocking shop. But the view persists that they are fragile creatures who have been trafficked and set to work under duress.
There have been claims over recent years about a white slave trade – thousands of naive girls from abroad being smuggled into Britain and forced to work as prostitutes. Small brothels that had more or less endured for many years suddenly faced crackdowns from local authorities and police.
Government spokesmen were widely quoted saying that of 80,000 working girls in Britain, ‘the majority are under control from traffickers, pimps or brothel owners’.
The Home Secretary leapt into action and an extraordinary law was introduced. Instead of targeting the supposed pimps, Section 14 of the Policing And Crime Act 2009 targeted the clients. It placed the onus on them to prove their innocence, even though the Bar Council, which represents barristers in England and Wales, warned that the measure was unenforceable.
So where had the statistics for prostitutes come from, and how could anyone know that most of them were sex slaves?
Due to the furtive nature of the industry, the only number available – 80,000 – had been extrapolated from a small survey compiled 20 years previously by Hilary Kinnell, a health outreach worker in Birmingham. She later described the constant quotation of the figure as ‘bizarre’.
As for the alarming idea that ‘the majority’ of the women were trapped by violent pimps – a figure of 80 per cent was cited by a former Minister – that really does seem to have been invented.
Nonetheless, Scotland Yard set up a dedicated Human Exploitation and Organised Crime Unit (SCD9) to tackle it. Officers estimated that 30,000 women were working as escorts or from flats and brothels, of whom 2,600 were definitely trafficked. How did they know? They asked about 250 of the women and generalised from the results. Of 210 who came from abroad, fewer than 20 indicated they were not working entirely of their own volition.
Leaving aside the statistical stretching required, how meaningful are the results? If you were an illegal immigrant, if you may have to go to court and if your mother might find out, what would you say when asked if you were duped or under duress? It would hardly be surprising to say yes.
Perhaps the proof of the pudding is what happened next. One series of 822 raids found only 11 victims who asked for police help. Two intelligence-led sweeps involving 55 forces found 250 people who might have been trafficked.

Opinions: Nick Ross, creator of Crimewatch and author of 'Crime: How To Solve It - and Why So Much of What We're Told Is Wrong'
Meanwhile, the predicted surge in victims at the time of the Olympics failed to materialise.
In fact, the most reliable figure we have for people brought to Britain on false pretences and exploited for sexual purposes is not ‘80 per cent’ of 80,000 but a tiny fraction.
It’s no wonder that Hilary Kinnell, the woman who first tried to quantify prostitution in modern Britain, has become utterly cheesed off. She protests her original figure was no more than a guess, and that the trafficking scare that followed was based on wild exaggeration.
In crime, as in everything else, women are stronger and more capable of making their own decisions or running their own lives than we allow. In sex, as in so much else, almost everything we’re told about crime is wrong. "

HoHoHoNoYouDont Sat 25-May-13 23:58:53

So if we take a taxi one evening and get raped by the taxi driver.....

olgaga Sun 26-May-13 00:41:48

Yet for some it is heresy to suggest that victims should ever be held responsible at all.

Being drunk isn't an invitation to rape, any more than it is an invitation to be beaten up or have your wallet or other possessions stolen.

If a drunk man has his wallet stolen is that ok?

Er, no.

If a drunk man is raped, is that ok?

Er, no.

If a drunk woman has her handbag stolen, is that ok?

Er, no.

If a drunk woman is raped, is that ok?

Er, apparently yes - she must have been responsible.

Really?

Fucking hell.

biscuit

MeiMeiMeiMei Sun 26-May-13 00:45:22

So a woman who is out at night is asking for it, is she Nick? You sick bugger!

ravenAK Sun 26-May-13 00:47:17

Thanks.

Ugh.

What a complete arse. Grrr.

hopkinette Sun 26-May-13 00:48:55

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

BasilBabyEater Sun 26-May-13 00:51:46

I wonder why so many people feel the need to stand shoulder to shoulder with rapists instead of with rape victims.

He's just a bog-standard rape apologist with what is doubtless an extremely badly researched book to sell isn't he.

I've not got to that bit yet, I'm stuck at this:

If three-quarters of women went through life without ever once fearing some form of mental or physical attack, however inconsequential, that would be more surprising.

Eh? What ... so it's totally ok and unsurprising if women (or men) expect to suffer physical and mental attacks from their partners?

What a wanker.

jacks365 Sun 26-May-13 00:54:11

"No amount of temptation can excuse rape, or any other crime."

Did this comment he made completely elude everyone?

I think it eluded him jack.

If he's not trying to excuse rape, what is he trying to say?

Btw, did it 'elude' you that there are differences between a laptop and a person's body?

Yes, it's terribly sad if someone nicks your laptop.

It's a bit different if someone rapes you.

That's why we don't treat women's bodies as property any more. And why his comparison is a load of horseshit.

HoHoHoNoYouDont Sun 26-May-13 00:58:24

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

hopkinette Sun 26-May-13 01:00:59

No amount of temptation can excuse rape, or any other crime... Yet for some it is heresy to suggest that victims should ever be held responsible at all

I'm not a racist. But etc

Jinsei Sun 26-May-13 01:01:41

Oh god, that article is just awful. Unbelievable. sad

I know I'm picking on words here and they're hardly the main issue - but I really dislike his use of 'heresy' in this context. That term implies that feminists' views (well, I think most normal people's views, but he seems to think it's feminists') are akin to a repressive religion. I find that really off, actually. It's sly way to argue.

jacks365 Sun 26-May-13 01:04:16

I think mumsnet has just proved his point. I'm out of here.

grin

Funny.

Almost like 'I don't have an argument but I want to pretend I do'.

BasilBabyEater Sun 26-May-13 01:05:59

It's really creepy actually.

Really creepy.

I just wish men would STFU about women being like laptops and needing to stop men from raping them by just not being there, doing things that make men want to rape them, like drinking or flirting or wearing "provocative" clothing.

When men talk like this, they sound like they identify with rapists.

Most men don't need to resist the "temptation" to rape women.

Because most men aren't tempted to rape women, because most men aren't rapists.

That "no amount of temptation" bit makes it sound like men are constantly struggling not to rape women.

confused

This is only a valid phrase, if you believe all men are rapists deep down and just need the right "temptation" to release your inner rapist.

Creepy.

Amen to that.

It is the weirdest thing, this idea that most men are walking around suppressing the desire to rape someone. It is total bollocks.

BasilBabyEater Sun 26-May-13 01:08:23

Also the word "heresy" in that context.

I mean, really?

Rape apology is the fucking norm, not a heresy.

Apart from the general creepiness of it, the Jeremy Clarksonishness of imagining that he's also uttering heresy, when what he's expressing is bog-standard rape apology.

Boorish AND creepy. Even Clarkson can't manage that. shock

GettingStrong Sun 26-May-13 01:10:31

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

hopkinette Sun 26-May-13 01:12:46

He has so completely missed the point wrt women who have been raped by partners not considering themselves rape victims

EXACTLY!

squoosh Sun 26-May-13 01:14:37

Add message | Report | Message poster jacks365 Sun 26-May-13 01:04:16
I think mumsnet has just proved his point. I'm out of here.

I think Mumsnet has shown his article to be offensive and filled with victim blaming.

See ya!

hopkinette Sun 26-May-13 01:15:02

He really, desperately wants to frame rape within a relationship as something that arises from the specific dynamic of that particular relationship - just another way that couples relate to each other. As opposed to actual, real, stranger-in-an-alley PROPER HARMFUL rape.

YY, agree basil - it's that whole 'poor me, the world is so against me, I'm not even allowed to speak out bravely with my rape heresies'.

Yeah, mate, it's really tough, why, those pesky feminists have even started protesting against the police using the same sorts of rhetoric in their anti-rape campaigns. hmm

getting - yes, exactly. sad

FreudiansSlipper Sun 26-May-13 01:18:02

lordy even dm readers are questioning his victim blaming

and really if you are going to write a book on crime get some up to date information. Though Erin Prizzey has done some wonderful work her views of women who love too much are so outdated

what a prized tit

Well, that's positive at least, if he's getting questions in the DM.

Erin Pizzey is an odd one, isn't she? <polite version>

squoosh Sun 26-May-13 01:19:37

Quelle surprise, he's got a book coming out.

'Hmmmmm, let me see, what's the best way to get my name in the headlines thus ensuring maximum sales'.

Shame on you Mr Ross. Oh no wait, it's shame on the rape victims.

Darkesteyes Sun 26-May-13 01:45:36

Not hard to see how Savile et al got away with it for so long is it? Mysogyny and victim blaming seems to be endemic and ingrained in the entertainment and/or TV presenting business.

StuntGirl Sun 26-May-13 01:58:36

Oh god, I couldn't even read more than half of that. Who the fucking hell does he think he is? What a vile little toad.

BOF Sun 26-May-13 01:59:34

That is quite possibly the most offensive thing I've ever read.

Sunshineandwaves Sun 26-May-13 02:14:11

Offensive and personally very upsetting. Does he still work for the bbc?

Snowyelephantshavewrinkles Sun 26-May-13 07:55:49

Read half of it. It really was hurtful and a horrendous publicity stunt.

For years I blamed myself for someone I went through. It was not my fault. According to that article then I should have been blaming myself.

ZillionChocolate Sun 26-May-13 08:04:39

OP I disagree with your interpretation of "aggravated". I think he was using it in the Ken Clark way, ie all rape is bad, but some are worse. For example, a planned rape of a especially vulnerable victim involving more violence and degradation than required to commit the offence is worse.

Trazzletoes Sun 26-May-13 08:16:44

I assumed "aggravated" rape to be a crime like "aggravated" burglary - having knives and stuff like that. No idea whether that's right or not!

BabyMakesTheBoobiesGoLeaky Sun 26-May-13 08:17:49

What a fucking dickhead. Its absolutely obvious that he has no idea what he's writing about which is why he's spouting bollocks for the Daily Fail angry

Try being a woman. Try going into a coffee shop and having the man behind you press his groin into your back. Try nipping into a pub to use the toilet and have people leer at you. Try sitting on a train or bus beside someone who 'accidentally' leaves their hand palm up on the seat as you sit down. Try being judged,not on your abilities and achievements, but on how 'hot' you look. Try having a wave of stupid pricks telling you that it wasn't really rape when a man forces his penis inside you.

Instead of warning women how not to get raped,warn men that rape is always wrong.

ApocalypseThen Sun 26-May-13 08:25:02

The main message I got from the article is that Mr Ross is potentially a very dangerous man, and women would be well advised to keep their distance.

WuzzleMonkey Sun 26-May-13 08:29:24

Zillion, I don't really understand what you mean when you say this:

"involving more violence and degradation than required to commit the offence"

rape is an act of violence and degradation in and of itself. Your turn of phrase there makes it sound as though rape is a 'job' that can be completed with minimal distress to the victim.

Though I appreciate that the point you were making is that some rapes involve more violence and physical pain than others.

Anifrangapani Sun 26-May-13 08:31:02

Or be a woman and have your bum patted by a small boy ( younger than my son) and the father say "on ya son". That happened yesterday I guess I was behaving in a provocitive manner as I was talking to my husband and son. How very dare I not have my back to a wall and my eyes cast to the floor.

He is also factually incorrect - women are more likely to be jailed for longer in like for like offences. Women are also more likely to be given custodial sentences for non criminal offences eg non payment of tv licence.

hackmum Sun 26-May-13 08:32:32

They never give up, do they? We've been hearing all this stuff for years and years and years. The poor old menz. Wrongly accused of rape just because the woman was too drunk/didn't shout No loud enough/had the audacity to be too damned attractive.

It's particularly unfortunate that he's coming out with this stuff right now, when barely a day goes past without us hearing of some vile atrocity perpetuated by men against girls and women - the Cleveland kidnappings, the Oxford sex ring, the Chetham's sexual abuse, the Tia Sharpe case, the Stuart Hall conviction, and on and on I could go. But instead of focusing his anger on the relentless abuse suffered by women, instead we get some diatribe about how men are the victims. Well, he can fuck right off.

Minifingers Sun 26-May-13 08:34:51

Where's Lisbet Salander when you need her?

This is a hideous, creepy article.

The problem with sex crime in the UK isn't that many men are being unfairly convicted of rape or receiving unjustly long sentences. It's that too few cases are coming to court.

It's so wrong headed its hard to know where to start.

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 08:46:45

Blimey.

Is he worried about Yewtree and getting his mitigation in early?

And, yes. More articles about perpetrators as a group would be refreshing. Or what some men really think, because I'm not sure if women on the whole believe it. Like this m.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/24/india-rape-disturbing-attitudes-men

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 08:47:36

Or like nick ross', i suppose, but with less obvious endorsement.

gordyslovesheep Sun 26-May-13 08:52:11

I hate the drunk / responsibility thing with a passion

if you get pissed and fall under a bus - tragic accident

if you get pissed and someone PUSHES you under a bus - murder

women don't get drunk and accidentally fall onto a penis - men choose to rape them - the men are culpable

BabyMakesTheBoobiesGoLeaky Sun 26-May-13 08:52:14

Do you know what I got from the article? An overwhelming tone of 'you have a vagina,its designed for sex,so you really have no right to complain' sad .

What do they not get? Seriously,why is it so difficult to grasp? If a number of women were going around forcing carrots up men's nostrils when they were drunk or were acting like they were into that sort of thing or just pouncing on them or they were doing it to their partners would there not be national outcry? Of course there would because they are not trying to overturn centuries of abuse.

MadamFolly Sun 26-May-13 08:53:20

What an atrocious cunt sad

limitedperiodonly Sun 26-May-13 08:53:39

If someone was to write that a soldier shouldn't walk down a British street in his uniform in case it tempted murdering bastards to hack him to death I wonder if the Daily Mail would print it.

bigkidsdidit Sun 26-May-13 08:54:27

I can't read it, I just can't. It would make me cry.

I keep thinking things are getting better and we are making progress then something pops up like this to slap me back down again sad

gordyslovesheep Sun 26-May-13 08:54:47

bloody good point Limited

bigkidsdidit Sun 26-May-13 08:57:18

oh god I scrolled to the bottom and saw the comments, 'finally someone telling the truth'

RedHelenB Sun 26-May-13 08:58:44

Having read the article I can't see he is being an apologist for rape. And I think it is naive to think that being drunk & going back for one night stands isn't making a woman more at risk.

gordyslovesheep Sun 26-May-13 09:02:50

but it's only making them 'at risk' because men can be a bit rapey

I read this;

Rape is one of the most violating crimes. Victims tend to feel dirty, embarrassed, racked with revulsion and self-blame

And then I read this;

Half of all women who have had penetrative sex unwillingly do not think they were raped, and this proportion rises strongly when the assault involves a boyfriend, or if the woman is drunk or high on drugs: they led him on, they went too far, it wasn’t forcible, they didn’t make themselves clear...

And then I fucking laughed. Did he even READ this shit before he published it?

lougle Sun 26-May-13 09:06:32

He has a point in some areas. I studied DV in men even if my lecturer hated me for it at Uni over 10 years ago and the statistics were surprising.

Rape is rape. No doubt.

Women should not have to dress to avoid rape. But then, neither should people have to place their laptops to avoid theft. Societies have people in them that do not play by the rules.

I do think it's a greyer area when someone has sex in the heat of the moment and then regrets it later. It's very open to interpretation, then, whether the sex was consensual or whether the woman 'tried to say no' or 'couldn't say no' etc.

It's very messy.

I don't think the article did very well at balancing the arguments.

JerseySpud Sun 26-May-13 09:07:18

It is the daily mail so makes me wonder how much was twisted to get them talked about

But even then, seriously? Gobsmacked.

DuelingFanjo Sun 26-May-13 09:07:24

Still seething. I think he still works for the BBC. I will be writing a letter. In the light of the Savile stuff I am sure the BBC won't want to be associated with someone who victim blames to the extent.

gordyslovesheep Sun 26-May-13 09:09:00

it's not messy at all - if a woman doesn't want sex and a man has sex with her (or a man and a man etc) then it's rape - very clear to me

lougle Sun 26-May-13 09:16:26

I agree gordy. But if a woman has sex with a man and she is a bit drunk and when she is sober she regrets it and she realises that had she not been drunk she wouldn't have entertained sex with the man, then people suggest that she didn't really want sex in the first place...

That's messy. Is it the man's fault that the woman made a decision she later regretted, or may never have made had she not been drunk?

I'm not talking about a woman so intoxicated that she can't make a decision. I'm talking about a woman who is intoxicated enough that her choices differ from those she would make if sober.

firstpost Sun 26-May-13 09:16:40

sad angry sad

Men like Nick Ross are the reason that rape victims dont report. The fear that the policeofficer you talk to will hold his views. Very, very upset this was published as it legitimises what I had hoped was a minority view. I will be emailing the BBC too, and wish there was more I could do.

Sorry to all of you who will be triggered by this disgusting article.

ExcuseTypos Sun 26-May-13 09:17:35

When people write stuff like this, I often wonder if they are trying to justify past behaviour.

Women should not have to dress to avoid rape. But then, neither should people have to place their laptops to avoid theft. Societies have people in them that do not play by the rules.

Yeah, and these people who don't play by the rules are going to suddenly play by the rules if someone wears a pair of jeans instead of a miniskirt? hmm

Does this mean if we all wear Burkas, or, as I like to call them, ' magic rapist-repelers' we'll never be raped or sexually assaulted again? OMFG why hasn't no-one told me this before. Oh, that's right, because it's a load of horse shit.

hackmum Sun 26-May-13 09:18:42

In the scenario you describe, lougle, I think it's highly unlikely that the woman would go to the police with an accusation of rape.

FanjoForTheMammaries Sun 26-May-13 09:18:56

People have been saying things like this just before arrested re historical charges. .am watching this space.

I'm talking about a woman who is intoxicated enough that her choices differ from those she would make if sober.

It's still not messy, because it still isn't rape.

BabyMakesTheBoobiesGoLeaky Sun 26-May-13 09:20:09

You really can't compare theft of a laptop with rape. Leave a laptop on a bus - silly. Have a vagina - not an invitation for rape.

Ignore my shitty grammar and spelling.

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 09:24:38

I don't know where the feminists think all men are rapists trope comes from, when it's actually men like nick ross and the ones in the article I linked to who have that belief.

limitedperiodonly Sun 26-May-13 09:25:46

I've had sex and later wished I hadn't bothered. I imagine lots of us have. Don't usually go to the police and report a rape though, do we?

Dragonwoman Sun 26-May-13 09:26:23

And these stats that are always trotted out about male victims- I always wonder how many of the male victims involve male perpetrators too? Isn't at least some of these cases of male DV victims instances between same sex partners or father-son etc?

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Sun 26-May-13 09:27:01

you can't leave your vagina unattended on the back seat of a car you have to take it with you. A better analogy would be organ thieves. Idiots, carelessly walking about with kidneys inside then, flaunting their urine production for all to see. You can't blame people for taking them, especially if you were out in public or were drunk or asleep.

Dragonwoman that's what I was thinking too.

McNewPants2013 Sun 26-May-13 09:29:29

If it is true that its what the women wears, why doesn't rape happen more in swimming pool changing rooms or around beach areas where women are in bikinis and swim wear.

This whole thing reminds me of this ridiculously offensive poster published in Egypt, about preventing rape, here. Which is pretty ridiculous when you look at the rates of sexual attacks and rapes in these countries, they are ridiculously high regardless of how much they wear.

It's almost like, gasp, clothe have fuck all to do with whether someone will sexually assault/rape you or not. hmm

limitedperiodonly Sun 26-May-13 09:32:00

ithink grin It's so ridiculous it's almost not worth getting angry about except for all those people who'll go: 'Yeah. What do women expect?'

Some of those people are in possession of a vagina themselves.

By 'these countries' I mean middle eastern countries where women covering up is the norm.

StillSeekingSpike Sun 26-May-13 09:32:39

And Ross needs to be less of a bellend and realise that rape was incredibly common in Victorian times and during the Civil war- and in fact in all times throughout history. But IT WASN'T SEEN AS A CRIME. I mean seriously, is he really that thick?????
I mean, there were no thefts of laptops in Victorian times either....

SanityClause Sun 26-May-13 09:32:54

Women shouldn't leave themselves "in view"?

Well, that makes sense, because in middle eastern countries, where they all have to be covered up, there is no rape, is there? hmm

SanityClause Sun 26-May-13 09:33:50

Oh, x-post, it seems.

McNewPants2013 Sun 26-May-13 09:35:33

With a laptop you can get it insured against theft, you can't get insurance on your vagina.

ZillionChocolate Sun 26-May-13 09:35:40

WuzzleMonkey perhaps that wasn't the best phrasing, but it's difficult to explain. If having raped you, a rapist defecated on your face, took a photo and then posted it on your Facebook page and sent it to your mum, that would be an aggravating feature. Of course any rape is degrading.

But limited there is a major difference you are missing (and apologies if I've misunderstood your comment) ...

Having sex then wishing you'd not bothered / regretting consenting to sex = not rape

Being co-erced (sp) into sex / forced to have sex / not being capable of giving consent = rape

It is unfortunate that his rape comments are so vile because he makes a very good point about domestic violence. My DNeices wouldn't have been left to be abused by their mother for 3 months if the authorities had listened to my brother about his violent abusive wife.

Anomaly Sun 26-May-13 09:42:52

I am seething with rage. What can I do? Any suggestions as to where to write? I can't believe that article got published its disgusting.

WuzzleMonkey Sun 26-May-13 09:44:00

The act of rape is degrading in and of itself, zillion.

And it's not for non-victims to decide that one rape is more or less bad than another.

FWIW I have a friend who has unfortunately been raped twice - once in a stranger attack scenario and once by a 'friend'. She described the 'friend' attack as more devastating to her because he was someone she trusted. That to her was an aggravating feature.

It's not for you or anybody else to decide that one rape has more aggravating features than another.

I'm sorry but I don't think it's the wording that's out, it's your sentiment: "involving more violence and degradation than required to commit the offence"

Please don't write about rape as though it's something that can be committed with some kind of level of care or concern to the victim. Those features are absent in EVERY SINGLE case of rape.

The same train of though that teaches men it's acceptable to date-rape and abuse women, is the same train of thought that teaches men that being manly is not showing weakness.

As far as I am concerned the patriarchy is to blame for both of them.

K8Middleton Sun 26-May-13 09:44:23

I don't know what I'm more offended by, the rubbish being spouted or the poor way in which data has been used.

He is equipped to read words off an auto cue while looking at a camera. He does not appear able to process data or understand concepts like feminism. He should not have a platform.

I've seen first year undergrads write better researched articles. Awful.

K8Middleton Sun 26-May-13 09:50:40

Obviously it's the misogynistic bull shit I find most objectionable.

BridgetBidet Sun 26-May-13 09:53:14

I do love the way he is confidently asserting that a survey shows that women are more likely to be violent because more of them admit it.

Then a sentence later he is pontificating about how much more likely men are to hide and deny things whilst women are five times more likely to admit things and confide in professionals.

Do you not see how the two are linked dickwad????

DuelingFanjo Sun 26-May-13 09:54:47

He uses the words 'tempt fate' as if being raped is fate.

BridgetBidet Sun 26-May-13 09:56:01

"Our forebears would be baffled.....girls are mostly unescorted, stay out late and sometimes openly kiss".

I'm clutching my pearls RIGHT NOW!

ZillionChocolate Sun 26-May-13 09:58:47

"The act of rape is degrading in and of itself, zillion."

I agree. I said so in my last post.

I'm not interested in comparing and contrasting rapes to tell victims how they should feel, or that their experience wasn't "as bad" as someone else's. That would be wrong. Crimes, including rape, do have to be categorised for the purposes of punishing them. Abuse of trust is quite rightly an aggravating feature.

BabyMakesTheBoobiesGoLeaky Sun 26-May-13 09:58:51

I was seven when I was first raped. It wasn't done with a knife or threats. He simply used his body weight. I will never forget the pain. I will always wonder who I would be if it had not happened. It has impacted my whole life and the lives of my children. So don't tell me that some types of rape are worse than others.

DuelingFanjo Sun 26-May-13 09:59:04

His wife founded childlike confused

limitedperiodonly Sun 26-May-13 09:59:24

glen my point was in reply to lougle's post about drinking and sobering up to wish you hadn't done what you did.

Sex in that situation is common but unlikely to result in a report of rape to the police. Many people firmly believe that it does, though, but I'm not sure if lougle is one of them.

DuelingFanjo Sun 26-May-13 09:59:26

Childline

Is he on twitter? Maybe a succint # summarising why his views are offensive. Bombard him with that.

quoteunquote Sun 26-May-13 10:00:51

Nick Ross this may help you not to rape or assault people, please keep a copy with you at all times, re read before opening your mouth and saying stupid things.

#rapeisrapeblametherapist

DuelingFanjo Sun 26-May-13 10:02:34
quoteunquote Sun 26-May-13 10:03:35

www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk/

www.notever.co.uk/the-campaign/

for any of the backward people such as Nick Ross, who need advice.

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 10:03:50

He's been an advisor to Victim Support. And sat on government committees relating to crime reduction.

Scary. These attitudes are so deeply embedded in our society. And people with power and influence are so rigid in their thinking.

His wife was a founder of Childline-do they never talk over the dinner table?

limitedperiodonly Sun 26-May-13 10:04:51

He is equipped to read words off an auto cue while looking at a camera. He does not appear able to process data or understand concepts like feminism. He should not have a platform.

I think he considers himself an expert on all sorts of meaty topics

But I agree, it's just one more example of why we shouldn't let people get above themselves just because they'd been on the telly.

BridgetBidet Sun 26-May-13 10:05:29

I am going out with my husband tonight. I may even 'openly kiss' him. Do I deserve to be raped?

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 10:08:35

Rape is the crime. Aggravating or mitigating factors come into play in sentencing. Additional crimes, such as kidnap or wounding, are often prosecuted at the same time.

Solopower1 Sun 26-May-13 10:09:50

'About four per cent of British women are raped at some point during their lives' Where did this rubbish come from? Four percent??

In the early 1980s my group of friends once did a straw poll. Every single one of us had been subjected to some unwanted form of touching by a male, ranging from rape to stuff that just made you feel a bit yuck. How can it be that only 4% have been raped? Not possible.

But - going against the grain here a bit, maybe - I think you should take these attitudes out and shake them from time to time. As other posters have said, if we don't know what people are thinking, we won't be able to unpack the most harmful views.

So I think we should try to be constructive about it, even if that involves taking some of the responsibility for changing attitudes. It's our problem as well as theirs. How can men change the way they think and behave? And what can we do to stop men seeing us as available for sex when we're not?

TwllBach Sun 26-May-13 10:11:50

What a massive, unrelenting cunt. It's people like him that make the issue something to debate, where really it is simple -

Rapists rape. Men who are not rapists won't be tempted or provoked in to raping someone because <big reveal> they are not rapists

It doesn't matter what women are wearing, where they are or whether they've been drinking or taking drugs. If they are in the presence of a rapist, they will be raped. If they are not, then they won't. Blaming women, then, for being raped is essentially blaming them for not being mind readers.

I fucking hate this shit.

TwllBach Sun 26-May-13 10:14:12

I wondered about the 4% thing as well. I'm pretty certain when MN did the We Believe You campaign, their statistics were higher. Maybe he meant 4% of British women have been proven to be raped by a court of law and their rapist was convicted? <grasps at straws>

Sparklymommy Sun 26-May-13 10:23:27

4% seems exceptionally low. Maybe it's a misprint and should say 44%? I know, as a previous poster stated, that near enough all my friends have had some kind of unwanted sexual attention. Out of a group of 12, at least 4 had been raped. Such a crap story, with crap statistics all the way through it. Disgusting.

TheCrackFox Sun 26-May-13 10:26:17

Why is he so keen to stand shoulder to shoulder with rapists anyway?

YoniMatopoeia Sun 26-May-13 10:32:31

Nick Ross, for example, is a twat

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 10:35:54

Do you think he'd do a webchat?

Jux Sun 26-May-13 10:38:21

Get him on here for a web chat. That would be, um, interesting!

magdalen Sun 26-May-13 10:43:57

There are recent statistics for England and Wales (published January 2013) here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/143910/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf.pdf
The executive summary gives the figure of 1 in 20 women aged 16-59 reporting "being a victim of a most serious sexual offence since the age of 16". That'd be about 5%. One in five (20%) report other sexual offences (sexual threats, touching, indecent exposure).
I think he is being utterly revolting, by the way.
Cheers.

IcaMorgan Sun 26-May-13 10:47:14

its 1 in 4 women that have been raped or sexually abused not the 4% he states

sillyoldfool Sun 26-May-13 10:48:04

I've never been raped. I've been very very drunk, and worn short skirts and clevage revealing tops and been very very drunk, in the presence of men. Those men made sure I was safe, got me some water etc. because they were men, not rapists.
I've slept with men when very very drunk, then thought the next day that it wasn't a great idea, the men were decent, made me a cup of tea, we agreed that we wouldn't do that again, because they were men, not rapists.
sex and sexuality have very little to do with rape imo.
rape is about power, not sexual attraction.

TheFallenNinja Sun 26-May-13 10:58:04

I read it all.

He's promoting a book by courting controversy.

I've just tweeted Caitlin Moran to see what she think of the vagina/laptop analogy.

The article is beyond shocking. I hope someone writes an appropriate retort that blows all his ludicrous points out of the water.
Someone needs to wipe the floor with this pig.

IsBella Sun 26-May-13 12:15:19
SilverOldie Sun 26-May-13 12:19:49

I have no words to describe how I feel about this cretin. I wonder if he would feel the same way if it was his wife or mother or daughter who was raped?

IsBella Sun 26-May-13 12:21:37

Apparently he doesn't have any daughters.

It's quite well known that men don't realise women are human until they do. hmm

For example, company directors who have daughters tend to have more commitment to equal opportunities in their companies.

Pity some men have to actually help produce females, before they can realise that we're actually people like them. hmm

scottishmummy Sun 26-May-13 12:28:06

nr appalling comments,vile.good to see him being pilloried for this
but no I don't think he representative of decent minded people
also I don't think pithy generalisations about men not caring about women are helpful

KittensoftPuppydog Sun 26-May-13 12:42:01

My husband has no children but 3 sisters and 6 nieces. He understands women's point of view very well. Wouldn't get away with anything else.
Nick Ross is just a cunt.
Apart from anything else, views on what is considered to be women 'asking for it' vary from country to country. It's like an arms race. In the end you get to the victorians, covering up piano legs so that they don't give anyone the horn.

TheFlipsideOfTheCoin Sun 26-May-13 12:50:04

The assumption is that any woman who chooses not to pursue a claim is being let down by the State or is acting irrationally. But could it be that she is right? What if she feels partly responsible for what happened?

I feel responsible for something that happened to me a long time ago. I was drunk with a group of friends in a hotel. It was a wedding, so there were a lot of people booked into rooms. I was sharing a room with a female friend.

This female friend and I got chatting to a group of people. One of the men was complaining that he was unable to drive home (he lived nearby) and so female friend drunkenly suggested that he stay in our room. I said it would be okay. Later on, I go up to the room to find that female friend is asleep in her bed. I assume that the man got a lift home.

But then there's a knock at the door. I open the door and the man is there (quite drunk). He gets into my bed. I get into the bed too and expect us both to just go to sleep.

He puts his arm around me. In the back of my mind I'm a bit confused ...but don't say anything because I was very drunk and sleepy. Next thing I know he's pulling my underwear down and touching me. I absolutely did not touch him or anything. It was a complete surprise. He then ended up putting his penis inside me.

I sort of froze and didn't know what to do. For some reason, I felt like I couldn't say anything...maybe this was because I was drunk. Friend was still fast asleep in other bed. I sort of just thought it'd be easier to let it happen than to say anything I think.

The next day he was gone but there was a number left on the side of the bed. I was crying in the morning and told my friend what had happened. She was shocked and rang the number. He was extremely apologetic...thought I was a lovely girl, did not realise that it wasn't consensual because I didn't say anything (I didn't bloody do anything, just lay there in stunned silence, half passed out.) He was so genuinely sorry. I later found out that he hit a woman when he was drunk and used to get in some violent fights (these incidents did not happen that night however)


I wouldn't class this situation as rape. I certainly don't compare myself to the women who are violently attacked by a stranger, etc. so I can partially see where Nick Ross is coming from.

Sorry for almost hijacking the post. I'm still unsure about what happened to me specifically and this post reminded me of it.

you were raped.

sorry that's far too blunt but what happened was not your fault at all

YoniMatopoeia Sun 26-May-13 13:06:43

I would call what happened tou you rape flipside

sad

He should have ensured that you were consenting. Either verbally, or by your obvious, enthusiastic participation. The fact he did neither makes it rape in my eyes.

LeStewpot Sun 26-May-13 13:09:42

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

I don't think you need to compare yourself to other women though, flip. I don't think people do with other violent crimes - we all find it tragic and appalling when we hear about a horrific murder, but it doesn't make us say 'ah, yes, that really does make what happened to X down the road, whose partner put sleeping pills in X's coffee, not murder'. Does that make sense?

I would have said that if you were half passed out and silent, that man failed his responsibility to see you were consenting. If he 'genuinely' didn't realized that a stunned, silent, half passed out woman might not be consenting, he is guilty there. From what you say, it might be he was a plausible liar and knew perfectly well - but I'm speculating.

I'm really sorry it happened to you. sad

LeStewpot Sun 26-May-13 13:11:47

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Btw, I don't know anything about the law, but would it be better if instead of 'aggravated rape' we had 'rape' as one charge and whatever else it was as another? So someone could be charged with 'rape and GBH', to make it clear that the rape is a crime in its own right with no variation in 'seriousness'? Or would that run the risk of implying rape somehow isn't GBH?

I don't know, just wondering.

I am itching to draw parallels between what he says about women and rape, and the freedoms he's outraged his words on the page don't get, but it would be poor taste.

C999875 Sun 26-May-13 13:15:18

No wonder so any rapes go unreported. xxx

LeStewpot Sun 26-May-13 13:18:43

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

So what is 'aggravated rape'? confused

Forgive me for being ignorant.

MardyBra Sun 26-May-13 13:20:14

He is a fucking arse for all the reasons listed above.

I hope nobody buys your book Nick and that your inflammatory publicity-seeking comments backfire on you big time.

Bowlersarm Sun 26-May-13 13:20:49

I don't find it controversial.

Sorry.

RedHelenB Sun 26-May-13 13:21:36

Hobnob - it is YOUR decision & feelings that count -as you say you were BOTH drunk.

I personally don't think you have to participate enthusiastically to indicate consent or even necessarily to say yes. I do personally however think that if you say no, or are obviously in pain or crying then it is rape. And I do think that is similar to the sort of situation he is writing about.

NumTumDeDum Sun 26-May-13 13:22:28

I can't get over this assumption he makes that it is all about what a woman looks like and how she dresses. Ime it is about power and domination. I have unfortunately been raped several times. The first was by a client who followed me home and forced his way into my flat 'to teach me a lesson'. The second was repeated rape throughout my marriage by a man who knew what I had endured and knew that restraining me in any way would provoke a distressed reaction. The last time he did it was to punish me for filing a petition for divorce. That time he strangled me as well because I fought back for the first time. What I was wearing made no matter to any of these incidents. They were all designed to put me in my place. There were no precautions I could have taken. It wasn't my fault, nor was I contributorily negligent. I abhor these rape fallacies and I am extremely distressed that this has been printed without a contrary view to balance it out.

LeStewpot Sun 26-May-13 13:23:03

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Thank you!

Sorry to sidetrack.

num, that is awful. sad

C999875 Sun 26-May-13 13:25:26

The flipsideofthecoin. If you have been penetrated without your permission then it is rape. I am so sorry for what you have been through. xxxx

YoniMatopoeia Sun 26-May-13 13:28:56

RedHelen - you do NOT have to be crying. You do NOT have to be obviously in pain. You do NOT have to have said no. It is the man's responsibility to ensure that you do consent, in the ways detailed above. Some women's reaction to unwanted sexual attention is to freeze. That is as valid reaction as any other and does NOT imply consent.

NumTumDeDum Sun 26-May-13 13:31:03

Shared a bit more than I intended to there, but necessary to make the point. I wonder what he makes of men dressing provocatively? Someone made the point earlier that men are raped as well (by men). Does he apply his reasoning here as well? Are they asking for it?

LeStewpot Sun 26-May-13 13:31:03

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WorraLiberty Sun 26-May-13 13:32:11

What a fucking arse angry

Bowlersarm Sun 26-May-13 13:32:38

c999875 at what stage is penetration permission given or withdrawn?

I really don't think it is difficult to see that if a person is frozen and passing out, they are probably not in a position to consent.

The thing about saying 'yes' specifically is a bit of a red herring IMO. I expect most if not all of us sometimes have sex when we do not explicitly say to our partners 'yes, darling, tonight, I consent to sex'. My DH can usually work it out from the removal of clothes and the kissing and so on, and the fact I'm not pissed out of my mind so probably know what I'm doing.

OTOH if I were so drunk I were passing out, I would expect any decent person to feel a moment of 'shit, I wonder, does she want to do this? Hmm, she isn't making any move towards it ... could that be a sign?'

They are two very different scenarios, and in the second one, the fact the bloke isn't bothering to try to work out whether he has consent, is inexcusable.

Bit of a personal question isn't it, bowlers?

Doesn't it depend on the individual?

Bowlersarm Sun 26-May-13 13:36:00

Saying 'yes' LRD may be a red herring to you. To most men I would think it wasn't a red herring.

NumTumDeDum Sun 26-May-13 13:36:45

Consent can be withdrawn at any time. Proving it is the difficult bit.

Bowlersarm Sun 26-May-13 13:37:12

Well them LRD how the hell are they supposed to know?

Bowlersarm Sun 26-May-13 13:38:49

Well then that's crap num

NumTumDeDum Sun 26-May-13 13:39:41

The law requires the perpetrator to be sure. If he isn't he should stop. There are two issues here- the woman being clear in her mind it is rape and then the issue of whether she can prove that.

How do you mean bowlers?

You mean you struggle to tell when someone is half passed out and frozen, that they're not consenting? confused

Why?

And why is it 'crap' for someone to withdraw consent? It's normal. 'Ouch, DH, that hurts, could we stop?'. Normal.

C999875 Sun 26-May-13 13:40:30

Bowlarsarm. When a women says No. When she stays "Stop". Or if the women shows no desire to have sex. x

(And no, please don't read into my use of the conditional. I'm quite happy with 'stop now' too, and so are men who aren't rapists, IMO.)

GoshAnneGorilla Sun 26-May-13 13:41:15

Vile, vile misogyny. It is hatespeech against 50% of the population.

It is that, gosh.

It's not exactly flattering to the vast majority of men who aren't rapey twits, too.

TheImpracticalCat Sun 26-May-13 13:49:54

Uh, this might be a bit of a cheeky question, but could someone who has written a complaint about this article make it available for copy and pasting? I want as many voices as possible to be heard on this, but to be honest I am so distressed by the article that my brain is not working coherently enough to write an effective complaint. I would probably just end up with a list of Very Bad Words.

Bowlersarm Sun 26-May-13 13:53:31

Ok. I can see that when both parties are sober then it is more easily answered. But when they are both slaughtered, there has to be a question about it, doesn't it?

limitedperiodonly Sun 26-May-13 13:57:09

bowlersarm Don't panic. Having to explain how the hell they knew the woman was consenting isn't really a worry for a man in the situation flip has described or the majority of men acquitted at trial.

He would have said he believed she was consenting and a jury would probably have believed him in the absence of physical injury or proof that she said no, which is hard because most sex happens when it's just the two of you and you haven't got a tape recorder handy.

Who knows, he might have even believed it himself hmm

In this case flip didn't believe she'd been raped. But it's perfectly possibly for a woman in an acquittal to firmly believe she was. And she would be right too.

Sorry for the experience flip.

Bowlersarm Sun 26-May-13 14:02:00

I know you're (drily) laughing at melimited but thank goodness for that.

No, bowlers, there doesn't.

I have had sex while very, very drunk. I have had sex with a very drunk partner. I have not had sex with a very drunk partner who couldn't manage to slur out some kind of 'erm .. like ... should we be doing this? You're sure ... ok then ...'.

Frankly, I think in most people I know, it is more ingrained to check that consent is present when both people are drunk. Which is the way it should be.

Alcohol makes people stupid; it does not, to my mind, make them rapists.

limitedperiodonly Sun 26-May-13 14:07:24

If I was a rapist bowlers I'd be thanking something for the capacity of juries to think the best of my actions, but it wouldn't be goodness.

When I was a lot younger, I went off the rails in a major way. drinking, drugs, sleeping around etc. I ended up dating a guy for a couple of months. I was hanging out with my mates and him and we'd bough a couple of bottles of vodka to share, I remember opening the bottles and drinking and then the next thing I remember is waking up to him having sex with me.

A friend at the time explained I'd been to hospital and I'd got that drunk the an ambulance driver lent them money for a taxi to get home. They'd went back to my boyfriends house and my friend had left me with him whilst she went to have sex with her boyfriend. She reassured me I definitely said yes, but I have NO memory whatsoever of anything that happened that night. I was definitely not able to consent. It's really fucked up my relationships since then and I self-harmed several times. I broke down and told my family once, but lied about what actually happened because I didn't want to go to the police.

That was about 7 years ago. I absolutely regret not going to the police after it happened and I still think about it all the time. Stories like this always make me question whether it was my fault or not, but I know full well I didn't do anything to deserve it.

Bowlersarm Sun 26-May-13 14:10:21

LRD you are going to say no. But what you said last, does that mean that no man, whilst drunk, is a rapist?

confused

The what?

That's a failure of basic logic.

'Alcohol does not make people rapists' means 'alcohol does not make people into rapists'. It doesn't mean 'alcohol prevents men from being rapists' or 'alcohol makes men who were rapists stop raping'.

Why would you imagine my statement had any connection to yours?

limitedperiodonly Sun 26-May-13 14:15:20

craps I let out a laugh at this bit She reassured me I definitely said yes.

Not laughing at you. It just depressingly confirmed my belief that you don't have to be in possession of a penis to support rape.

And before anyone points it out: most people in possession of a penis know not to stick it where it's not wanted.

TheImpracticalCat Sun 26-May-13 14:15:56

A rapist, while drunk, is still a rapist. A man who is not a rapist is not a rapist under any circumstances. HTH.

Bowlersarm Sun 26-May-13 14:18:48

LRD

Was that to me?

What was my statement, and what was yours?

Yeah limited, I don't even know how she even knew I had said yes. I have never ever gotten that drunk that I've lost memory of what happened since then and I drank a LOT after it happened too, I'm talking one of those small bottles of vodka to myself and I weighed around 6 1/2 stone at the time. So it did go through my mind that I may have been spiked, but obviously I can't prove anything.

That's awful craps. So many horrible stories on this thread. sad

bowlers - huh? confused You asked me a question, I don't know what you want me to clarify?

Bowlersarm Sun 26-May-13 14:21:49

LRD it is possible I am a little confused grin

LineRunner Sun 26-May-13 14:22:05

Nick Ross is publicity seeking.

And wrong.

The worst bit, is that my family member told my Mum and Dad what I'd said to her, even though it was a load of crap, I just told them I'd been assaulted by a stranger to get them off my back, my Dad just said, 'You should have told us sooner and we could have done something.' No sorry, no comfort, nothing.

The whole thing is what woke me up and made me take an interest in feminism and women's rights.

Oh, god, that's horrible craps.

Is it at all possible your dad didn't know what to say and was feeling guilty for not being there for you?

Still, obviously very much the wrong thing to say.

GettingStrong Sun 26-May-13 14:25:21

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LRD I think he thought I was lying to be honest, but this was just after I'd downed a bottle of vodka and self-harmed, ending up in hospital. So I expected some sort of sympathy. I sorted myself out after that luckily enough, with my Mum's help.

The worst part for me is not knowing what actually happened, but at the same time I'm lucky that I don't. I don't know how women who are repeatedly raped or suffer worse attacks than me cope. I'm in awe of them.

Bumpotato Sun 26-May-13 14:29:12

Like moxie said upthread, this article I read half and skimmed the rest open-mouthed makes me wonder what Nick himself is hiding and trying to justify.

Bowlersarm Sun 26-May-13 14:30:37

craps so sorry sad(

That's horrible, getting. sad

That reminds me of someone I know - her husband would repetedly get in her face asking 'do you want me to hit you? Are you asking me to hit you? You're asking me to hit you'. Really scary and nasty.

I really hope that juries and the law are beginning to see through this sort of thing and find better ways to help women.

crap, I'm so sorry to read that. Good on your mum.

limitedperiodonly Sun 26-May-13 14:34:26

It doesn't really matter whether your drink has been spiked or whether you have voluntarily or accidently drunk too much craps.

That's one of the red herrings little Nicky Ross zeroes in on. I've no proof but experience tells me that Rohypnol is far less common than alcohol.

The reality is that if you have drunk alcohol, and that could be one glass of wine over the course of a meal, which is very likely on a date or night out, the defence barrister will say your judgement is impaired and introduce the doubt that you didn't know what you were doing, so how the hell could the poor man having sex with you know?

The beauty of a jury system is that ordinary people consider the evidence yet apply their common sense and experience to the story they've heard.

And yet in rape trials jurors suspend that common sense and experience, unless of course, they've never been a woman alone with a man who's had a few drinks or have never been the man in that situation.

Articles like Nick Ross's reinforce that doubt. I am truly at a loss to understand why a seemingly intelligent man would believe that there are legions of women itching to make false claims about rape or fear they might fall victim to one of those deluded harpies.

LRD Did you see the documentary about pedophile rings on Channel 4 the other day? They had rape victims who'd been raped by up to 100 people being interrogated for four months straight by 7 different defense lawyers, repeatedly telling them they're lying and making it up. Frances Andrade killed herself because of the same thing.

The 'system' doesn't care about rape victims. sad

In fact it cares more about protecting people accused of rape than it does those who've been raped.

redhelenb please read the thread i commented it was not an incident i was involved in.

redhelenb please read the thread i commented it was not an incident i was involved in.

Bowlersarm Sun 26-May-13 14:39:57

limited then 'itching to make false claims'

What's that all about?

limitedperiodonly Sun 26-May-13 14:40:01

craps that's terrible. Unfortunately that's sometimes what people who love you say out of impotence.

I come from a family of blamers who I sometimes want to punch until my hand doesn't work any more, but I know love me really.

I hope your dad loves you too.

I didn't. But that's awful.

I don't think the system does care about rape victims. But I wish that would change and I hope it will. Slowly things do change.

Though, mind you, some of that change may be for the worse. One of the most chilling things I heard was some research that suggested young men who've mostly seen hardcore porn don't recognise the noise or facial expressions that show pain, as opposed to sexual attraction. I found that really disturbing but also scarily plausible.

edam Sun 26-May-13 14:40:29

Nick Ross is a tosser. I met him once, when he chaired a panel at some conference. He imagines he's an expert on everything because he's a TV presenter - this panel was on health, not crime, but he was giving it the big 'I am' as if he knew everything about it. I challenged him on something he'd got wrong, but he was so arrogant he just brushed the facts off and insisted he was right.

Massive sense of entitlement, it seems, causes him to identify with rapists.

America has a TV segment called WWYD? Where they use actors to act out situations to see how the public reacts. In one situation they did drunk women being picked up by sober men here and here. Most of the people who stepped in where women, some of which had been sexually assaulted, a fucking POLICE OFFICER didn't even step in.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Sun 26-May-13 14:42:13

I saw that CrapswithBears they had 3 weeks each on the stand and they were only kids. The most hideous thing was they only got cross examined by 7 barristers. They named almost 200 rapists so if all those men had been brought to trial they could have been questioned by almost 200 barristers. It probably would have taken about 2 years. Who could bear it?

Huh. Why isn't that surprising, edam?! Very funny that you got to correct him, though.

LeStewpot Sun 26-May-13 15:12:07

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

limitedperiodonly Sun 26-May-13 15:31:34

bowlers surely you've noticed the 'cry rape' rhetoric. It's a Daily Mail stalwart but you don't have to read the Mail to notice it because the myth is widespread. On the rare occasions a woman is prosecuted for making a false claim it's rightly reported, but with far more alacrity than convictions for rape.

It's what makes otherwise sensible men fear that they might have consensual sex and end up in a police station. Some women fear it for their men too.

I detected it in your own post which is why I replied telling you to calm yourself. I might have got it wrong though and you might have no such fears. If that's the case, please accept my apologies.

Alisvolatpropiis Sun 26-May-13 15:44:09

I clicked on the link kind of expecting the outrage over the article to be a bit ott. I was wrong. The man is a complete and utter misguided,misoginistic prick.

Women are safer now than ever? Open mouthed shock that he wrote that and was being serious. Utter fucking moron.

Alisvolatpropiis Sun 26-May-13 15:49:56

I am genuinely incensed. The same things happen to women now as they did 100,500,1000 years ago. The fact there is legislation against these things doesn't stop them happening and doesn't make women safer. It offers after the event justice at best. Not even that if the number of reported vs prosecuted rape statistics are anything to go by.

<off too scream into a pillow>

Darkesteyes Sun 26-May-13 17:24:34

Brilliant blog Le Stewpot.

LeStewpot Sun 26-May-13 17:37:26

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ImagineJL Sun 26-May-13 17:38:52

Going back a few pages where someone said it can be "messy" if a woman has sex when she's drunk and later regrets it, implying that this highlights a grey area when it comes to rape. I have had sex with someone when I was drunk, and then regretted it the following day. I have also been raped. I can assure you the two things felt very very different. No worry about any mix-up there.

LineRunner Sun 26-May-13 17:57:50

Nick Ross can't write, can't think, can't use evidence properly, and it comes across that he would sell his soul to sell a book. His road to hell is paved with cliches.

Criminologically, the man is laughing stock.

TheFlipsideOfTheCoin Sun 26-May-13 19:46:23

I'm a bit late coming back to this thread but wanted to thank people for their kind words a few pages ago.

hackmum Sun 26-May-13 19:57:38

Yes, absolutely excellent, LeStewpot.

Did anybody here the interview a couple of days ago on the Today programme with a woman whose grand-daughter was sexually abused at the age of 6? Three years later when the case finally came to court the defence barrister accused her of being a liar and she was so traumatised the judge stopped the case and let the defendant go (unbelievable, to my mind). Three years on, at the age of 12, the girl is still deeply distressed by the whole business and suffering from what sounded like PTSD.

I just wonder what Ross makes of that, and whether, perhaps, he might consider that he should reserve his anger for that rather than at women for having the nerve to possess a vagina and look attractive.

Oh, and I wonder what he thinks about boys and men being raped by other men? Is it their fault for wearing provocative clothing? For going out late at night and getting drunk? For walking home unaccompanied?

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 20:44:31

If someone with these links to crime and justice type organisations (yes, from Wikipedia):

Ross coined the term Crime Science to promote a practical, multidisciplinary and outcome-focused approach to crime reduction (as distinct from what he claimed was often theory-driven criminology). The Jill Dando Institute which he inspired has grown to have a substantial role in University College London, spawning a new Department of Security and Crime Science[15] and other offshoots including a Forensic Science unit and a secure data lab. Ross is Chairman of the Board of the Institute, a Visiting Professor, and an Honorary Fellow of UCL, as well as an Honorary Fellow of the Academy of Experimental Criminologists. His crime science concept has since been adopted in universities elsewhere notably in New York, Cincinnati and Texas, with formal crime science courses at Loughborough in the UK and at Twente University in the Netherlands. The British Ministry of Defence DSTL has a fast-growing crime science unit and there have been plans to create a crime science department at the University of Manchester. He is a Trustee of Crimestoppers. He was an adviser to Crime Concern and Victim Support.
In 2011 he was tipped as a possible Police and crime commissioner for London.[24]

and still can't get that rape law is :

1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

then what hope do rape victims have with a jury?

His article reads like something that tosser M i k e B uc h a n a n would write.

IfNotNowThenWhen Sun 26-May-13 20:59:24

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

glad that went.

WafflyVersatile Sun 26-May-13 21:45:40

It's relatively uncontroversial until he gets to rape then it's facepalms a go go.

Stab a drunk sleeping on a bench and you are 100% responsible for murder. You wouldn't get a reduced sentence because that drunk tempted you by being an easy target.

Oh, but if you rape a woman who is drunk then she shares the responsibility? Fucks sake.

NumTumDeDum Sun 26-May-13 21:51:18

Oh I didn't see it Hob. What was the gist?

McNewPants2013 Sun 26-May-13 21:58:46

Hope this make sense.

I love drunken sex with my husband, it makes me feel more confident and sexier. So is DH wrong in having sex with me while I am drunk.

McNewPants2013 Sun 26-May-13 21:59:14

Reading this thread has just made me think that is all

IfNotNowThenWhen Sun 26-May-13 22:04:22

Wtf? I basically said what a lot if others had said, about nick Ross protesting too much, and expecting to see him one day soon on BBC news. And there was something about his potential experiences in jail. Probably get deleted again. Don't care much.

McNewPants2013 Sun 26-May-13 22:07:01

I hope he is not going to be on the bbc news on a rape charge, because that would mean some women life has been hell.

NumTumDeDum Sun 26-May-13 22:08:42

McNewPants as long as you are consenting, which you imply you are, then yes he's fine. He has a reasonable belief you are consenting.

IfNotNowThenWhen Sun 26-May-13 22:08:45

No. I dont hope he is either. But I would not be at all surprised.

NumTumDeDum Sun 26-May-13 22:10:34

If however you say no, or your wishes cannot be ascertained because you have passed out or you are withdrawn or distressed then he can no longer have a reasonable belief you are consenting.

McNewPants2013 Sun 26-May-13 22:12:39

He would never do it if I was passed out or asleep.

Darkesteyes Sun 26-May-13 22:16:12
NumTumDeDum Sun 26-May-13 22:17:20

Quite right too.

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 22:18:14

McNewPants, if you are too drunk to consent, then yes there is an issue. But only if you report him to the police, of course. Being a bit tipsy to have a bit of dutch courage is not the same. Although, wouldn't you rather be confident without the booze? (None of by business).

IfNotNowThenWhen - wishing rape on anyone is beyond the pale. Or haven't you grasped this consent thing and the horror when it is ignored?

Darkesteyes Sun 26-May-13 22:21:12

I saw a tweet earlier saying that this is going to be discussed on Five Live after 11pm.

IfNotNowThenWhen Sun 26-May-13 22:25:51

Why yes coalfust, I have managed to " grasp" the idea of consent. I have been the victim of sexual assualt, so its not that complicated for me. It was a flippant fucking comment, about a nasty, victim blaming, attention seeking tosspot, so I can't say I am that repentant really.

McNewPants2013 Sun 26-May-13 22:26:51

Don't really want to bring my sex life into it, that's another thread in relationships lol.

I have previously not thought much of Owen Jones but I am revising my opinion, that article is spot on.

Re. drunk sex ... it's none of my business either, but I'd say drunk sex can be great fun, when you both feel safe and maybe a bit silly, and it's different from confident sober sex. I suppose if someone only ever feels confident when drunk, that's an issue, but off-topic really.

BasilBabyEater Sun 26-May-13 22:31:28

I really like Owen Jones, unlike most other lefty-boys, he's genuinely committed to women's equality IMO.

minnehaha Sun 26-May-13 22:34:14

FFS women - pull yourselves together. This type of shit does no one any favours.

On one hand you say women have no culpability - are we all little dears with no sense of personal responsibility?.....not a very 'feminist' view surely? Is it down to the men to do a Walter Raleigh and lay down their cloak?

On t'other it has been argued in the Tia Sharpe case thread that they must have seen the red flags.......so why does a woman out on her own who gets pissed not condemned for ignoring the 'flags'?

julie333 Sun 26-May-13 22:35:02

Nick Ross's wife is Sarah Caplin, co-founder of CHILDLINE with her cousin
Esther Ranzten (Jimmy Savile's pal). Does his book excuse some paedophiles? It's scary stuff.

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 22:37:13

I like Owen Jones too. I think he gets it. I am fascinated as to why so many others don't. We are all supposed to think, these days, that we are all being brought up with the same cultural references, but are continually brought up short with the knowledge that we aren't.

Flippant comments without an obvious sarcastic signpost have no place in rape discussion. How on earth would you think otherwise?

Sunnywithshowers Sun 26-May-13 22:38:04

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

IfNotNowThenWhen Sun 26-May-13 22:40:17

Oh sorry Sheldon. Next time I will signpost my sarcasm adequately.

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 22:40:36

minnehaha, you are thinking that MN is of one mind. MN posters are not. The responsibility for raping (or murdering) someone lays on the perpetrators shoulders.

Not raping is not akin to laying down a cloak. Unless you think that all men are rapists and they are being chivalrous by not penetrating you without your consent?

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 22:41:35

Stop being a tosser. Wishing rape on anyone is grim.

That's good to know, basil - maybe I saw him on a bad day before.

sunny that is horrible. And scary.

FreudiansSlipper Sun 26-May-13 22:43:59

being in a relationship with someone you may see red flags but often abusers are by good at hiding them or justifying their actions

not sure what the red flag is we are meant to be looking for if we happen to drink a little too much and part ways with friends and go home alone I do not think rapists tend to inform you in any way that they are rapists

So as a woman I will always demand that I have full and total consent as to who I have sex with only a rapist would want to ignore that and what condition I am in or where I happen to be is irrelevant

minnehaha Sun 26-May-13 22:44:01

Do I now ask what socioeconomic group you belong to Sunny?

Darkesteyes Sun 26-May-13 22:46:06

Owen has always been commited in this area. On Any Questions last year that king of odious toads Kelvin McKenzie made a nasty comment about working class women and their weight and Owen had a go at him for it.
There have also been other occasions where he has pulled people up for making similar comments.

Sunnywithshowers Sun 26-May-13 22:46:10

ODFO minnehaha.

minnehaha Sun 26-May-13 22:56:13

None of you do any favours to your sex; a sentiment compounded by Sunny's response to me

squoosh Sun 26-May-13 22:57:14

Dry your eyes and run along, there's a dear.

dark - ok, fair enough, I feel I've misjudged him!

gordyslovesheep Sun 26-May-13 23:00:42

I don't think expecting not to be raped makes 'our sex' anything other than reasonable smile

Sunnywithshowers Sun 26-May-13 23:01:04

minnehaha, I get the impression from your posts that you're not a fan of your sex. I'm sure you're big enough to deal with a strong no to a bitchy question.

Darkesteyes Sun 26-May-13 23:05:35

Nick Ross about to try to justify himself on Five Live any minute now and they are actually having a phone in called "Are women partly responsible" jesus wept.

minnehaha Sun 26-May-13 23:06:56

I grew up with a sister who was openly gay and very radical in her views....I think she may have baulked at some of the views here

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 23:07:30

5Live are shocking when it comes to rape issues.

Obviously not very radical, then.

Mind you, when people say 'openly gay' like the default option is the closet, you do get the sense the context might not be entirely unrepressed.

gordyslovesheep Sun 26-May-13 23:09:11

I am sure your sister can speak for herself - but I don't think she speaks for every one - she may have baulked ...proving nothing really smile

CouthyMow Sun 26-May-13 23:09:15

So the fact that I didn't cry, say no, or fight when I was four years old makes it not rape?

BOLLOCKS.

I was too scared to do any of the above because I had been told that I would be stabbed if I did.

Sorry, but it is patently bollocks that it is not rape if you don't say no, cry or fight.

I was raped again when I was 15, by my boyfriend at the time's older brother.

Then again at 19, whilst walking home after a night out.

Then I was repeatedly raped during a relationship during my mid twenties.

On none if these occasions was I ABLE to do anything except freeze.

It will NOT happen to me again.

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 23:09:56

Rape law is :

1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

It's really not very complicated.

Why it necessitates masses of threads is beyond me.

minnehaha Sun 26-May-13 23:10:52

Ok Sunny ???? away why don't you

gordyslovesheep Sun 26-May-13 23:11:34

Couthy you should NEVER have to justify any of that - I hate that anyone makes you feel the need to x I was 4 as well x I know I was not to blame

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 23:11:46

Couthy, I am so sorry they did that to you.

I am a freezer too. I think lots of people are, but they don't know it until they are in a situation where fight, flight or freeze applies.

Darkesteyes Sun 26-May-13 23:14:18

Hello Couthy. Im so sorry to hear all of that NONE of it was your fault NONE of it xx

Sunnywithshowers Sun 26-May-13 23:14:58

I have no idea whether I'm a fighter or a freezer. I hope never to find out.

I'm sorry for all of the stories on here. Rape shouldn't happen to anyone.

IfNotNowThenWhen Sun 26-May-13 23:16:31

A four year old is not able to consent couthy. Of course you couldn't have had any responsibility for that atrocity. sad

negmatthews Sun 26-May-13 23:22:05

Wow Nick Ross, what a cunt.

minnehaha Sun 26-May-13 23:22:38

So the consensus is we can all behave how the hell we like and there will be no consequence

Darkesteyes Sun 26-May-13 23:23:35

He really doesnt fucking get it does he?!!

Sorry, couthy, that is awful. sad

And no, of course it wasn't your responsibility.

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 23:25:01

minnehaha, do you think all men are rapists?

DioneTheDiabolist Sun 26-May-13 23:25:11

Men do not need to watch what they wear / be careful / stay with their friends / not get too drunk in order not to get raped. I should have the same freedom from rape as they do.

The fact am not free to enjoy my night without going through this checklist, in the 21st century is a fucking travesty. The idea that if I were to be raped, it would be partly my fault is a fucking abomination.

What the holy fuck is wrong with people? angry

Darkesteyes Sun 26-May-13 23:26:18

EXACTLY Dione EXACTLY.

McNewPants2013 Sun 26-May-13 23:27:02

I have never been raped, so can not comment factually in what I would do.

How I can imagine is that I would want to stay alive and if I screamed or try to prevent it happening my children would be left without a mother.

A women should not have to explain why she was raped, she was raped. This is something out of her control and the fault remains with the scum bag who had committed such a barbaric crime.

CouthyMow Sun 26-May-13 23:27:11

And yet there are rape apologists on this thread that state that a rapey man is not able to know that you do not consent if you do not either say no, cry, or try to fight him off.

That's bollocks.

Of course it's rape.

Any NON-rapist would ensure they got consent (and that the person they wished to have sex with was able to give consent - i.e. not so pissed that they are passing out) before any penetration occurred, and any NON-rapist would stop if they were asked to, or if there were sounds of pain, or if there were facial expressions showing pain, or if the person they were having sex with was to decide AT ANY POINT that they wanted it to stop.

NON-rapists don't seem to have trouble with that, so my summary is that the only people that could possibly have an issue with that ARE rapists, or rape apologisers at the very least.

xkittyx Sun 26-May-13 23:27:28

To Minnehaha, yes I do rather think I should be able to go about my business in the way of my choosing, or as you put it "behave how the hell I like", without having someone's penis forced into my vagina without my consent.
Hope that clarifies it for you.

CouthyMow Sun 26-May-13 23:30:59

Nick Ross IMO is a rape apologist AT BEST. I shan't put what I fear he might be at worst, as I have no proof other than the odious bullshit he is spouting in this article...

And as for comparing me to a laptop...

Yes, because track suit trousers and a hoody are so revealing that my ex- boyfriend's brother was unable to help himself. confused

Drunkenness, revealing clothing, provocative behaviour don't cause rape, rapists do!

CouthyMow Sun 26-May-13 23:32:23

And if I was raped whilst wearing a bikini, would that be my fault got wearing a bikini?

Nope.

Revealing clothes don't cause rape, rapists do.

Darkesteyes Sun 26-May-13 23:33:52

Hmmm Wonder what spin Schofield is going to put on this on This Morning tommorrow. Their record on these issues isnt good either.

gordyslovesheep Sun 26-May-13 23:34:03

Drunkenness, revealing clothing, provocative behaviour don't cause rape, rapists do

exactly - I am fed up of people painting this picture of poor confused men who don;t understand that having sex with someone without consent is a bad thing

FreudiansSlipper Sun 26-May-13 23:34:58

Couthy what has been done to you is just terrible sad

please do no justify how you feel or felt unless it is helping you x

McNewPants2013 Sun 26-May-13 23:42:39

Couthy my dd is almost 4, she would just do what she is told.

Recently she had an hospital appointment and it was very easy to get the drops in her eyes, it cost me a McDonalds and a new book.

I really hope you have or are getting the best of support because no child should ever have to go through what you have.

Sunnywithshowers Sun 26-May-13 23:52:53

((((Couthy))))

CouthyMow Sun 26-May-13 23:56:14

I'm ok. Until I read articles like this that are just, well, eurgh!

Makes me bang my head against a wall that there are genuinely people out there that think like this.

I am in no way the 'victim' that I used to be, and I certainly don't think that ANY of the rapes I have been through were in any way MY fault.

Unless I had a neon sign above my head saying 'Rape me' that I've forgotten about...

Nope, think I would have remembered that.

I think it's far more plausible that the people that raped me were rapists, than that I was somehow inviting them to rape me by virtue of owning a vagina...

CoalDustWoman Sun 26-May-13 23:57:26

I find the whole rape apology thing bizarre, in England particularly. The English are a nation of social nuance, acutely aware of every move, phrase and glance, placing people into reasonable or not, middle or working class (no other, it seems) and observing social graces to a degree that is found bizarre to other countries' people. AIBU is testament to that. But we have to suspend that level of acuity when it comes to men in sexual matters. All of a sudden, they are clueless when it comes to ascertaining whether a woman is consenting to have a penis put inside them.

I call bullshit.

hopkinette Mon 27-May-13 00:02:49

The way I'm reading what he's saying, it's like the ONLY "real" rape - where the victim bears no responsibility - is stranger rape. Taken to its logical conclusion, this implies that simply by getting to know a man in any way, a woman is giving some degree of consent for him to fuck her.

He also seems to want to differentiate between two types of rape: rape that are caused by "temptation" and rapes that aren't. So if you get raped in your own bed in the middle of the night by someone who's broken into your home, the fault lies with the rapist and you're off the hook because you did no tempting. But in pretty much any other situation, it would seem, you're partly to blame by virtue of having paraded yourself about. Two types of rape means two types of rapists: bad ones and not-so-bad ones. I wonder why Nick Ross needs to believe that some rapists are not really bad people.

Darkesteyes Mon 27-May-13 00:03:09

Agree Coal Couldnt help noticing that the five live discussion involved four men and one woman.

Darkesteyes Mon 27-May-13 00:08:31

Lady called Morag on there now is grt

CoalDustWoman Mon 27-May-13 00:11:19

I hope that women under Yewtree have the support to come forward. And that his wife is a Mumsnetter.

Webchat, Webchat, Webchat!

hopkinette - but that's what many people think. More than you would think and in an amount that would scare you, both from a a being alone with them point of view, and in that of having them on a jury in a rape trial.

It's really scary. Should I be thinking that all men are rapists like they do? It confuses me - I'm a feminist and that's what I'm supposed to think, so I am told. But I don't. But the very people who don't like feminists think that all men are rapists. It's a total headfuck.

hopkinette Mon 27-May-13 00:25:15

It is really hard, CoalDustWoman. Really hard. Being told constantly, directly and indirectly, that women who get raped "had it coming" or contributed to their own fate in some way - that some action that is totally innocuous, and which would be meaningless in any other context, can be retroactively interpreted as consent - is utterly mindbending and crazy-making.

I know that a lot of people, probably the majority of people, hold the view that it's the victim's fault; and it's amazing how angry people get when you challenge it or even refer to it. I don't know what the answer is.

CoalDustWoman Mon 27-May-13 00:37:05

I knowsad

I think where I really struggle with this is that I try and put myself in a position where I am doing something to someone for my own gain where they are showing no enthusiasm. Sexually, it's a no-brainer. I can't even really conceive of it. I don't think I am unusually attentive, but perhaps I am. But, for example, the thought of hopping onto a guy's morning wood when they are just laying there asleep and going at it to my own orgasm then rolling off... It is so far away from something that would even enter my head. And if I did, it would be sexual assault. Would anyone even question that it wasn't his fault for not getting up to go and pee and therefore ridding himself of the means for me doing what I did? This is what I don't get about the female "grey area" types. Is this what they are doing?

hopkinette Mon 27-May-13 00:59:57
CoalDustWoman Mon 27-May-13 01:17:14

Great article, depressing comments. As usual.

And another thing that fucks me off about his attitude is that he is saying that, I can protect myself against a rapist by getting a taxi (look how well that turns out for some women, just this weekend), dressing modestly (Can't be raped in jeans in Italy or Australia) or a plethora of other edicts as to how I should behave, but by his reasoning all I am doing is making sure that I am not the victim.

If you follow his logic, another woman will be.

hopkinette Mon 27-May-13 01:17:39

Why are people OBSESSED with the "walking home alone at night" trope WRT rape? The argument being that you're sorta-kinda-a little bit to blame if you get raped while you're walking home alone at night - you know, being visible and alone and all that, a bit like a laptop in a car, just begging to get stolen. Rape isn't regarded as a fair or suitable sentence/punishment for any actual crime, so why the fuck is there this attitude that it's a fair or suitable result of deciding to walk home alone?

Jux Mon 27-May-13 01:39:23

People should be brought up with the belief that the default position is 'no' to sex. Rather like the default position being 'no' to any other crime.

Somehow or other that is not how it is.

So sorry, to those of you who have experienced rape.

GoshAnneGorilla Mon 27-May-13 03:07:34

I don't drink alcohol or go clubbing.

I am Muslim and wear hijab so am very covered by my clothing.

Not for one single second do I believe that any of that makes me "safe" from being raped. Why would a rapist care about a few extra bits of fabric?

I am also sure that if god forbid, any sort of assault did happen to me, I'd still have to face some defence lawyer claiming that I was sexually repressed and secretly wanted it.

Let's be honest, if there was a magical item of clothing that protected us from rape, we'd all be wearing it. But there isn't and clothing is just a distraction from putting blame where it belongs: on the rapist.

That's another thing I despise about these articles, they pretend that women aren't scared of rape, when in fact, we are all raised to be terrified of it and restrict our lives accordingly.

RedHelenB Mon 27-May-13 07:10:51

Hopkinette - male or female you are more vulnerable on your own at night, not just because of rape but mugging, being picked on by some drunken louts etc. Having said that, statistically it IS safe to walk alone at night, there isn't a rapist round every corner.

RedHelenB Mon 27-May-13 07:17:53

Couthy - obviously I am talking about when you willingly invite a man in your room & get into bed with them, there is a grey line. Totally different to your examples. Of course it is rape at 4 even if you were saying yes,

RedHelenB Mon 27-May-13 07:18:41

Oh & I know you weren't saying yes & that no child would, I was speaking hypothetically!

obviously I am talking about when you willingly invite a man in your room & get into bed with them, there is a grey line.

No there isn't. I willingly get into bed with DP every night. Does that entitle him to help himself to my body without consent?

RedHelenB Mon 27-May-13 08:30:27

No but if you were doing the preliminaries as it were then it would seem as though you might be expecting the whole thing if you didn't say "that's enough now."

RedHelenB Mon 27-May-13 08:37:35

No but if you were doing the preliminaries as it were then it would seem as though you might be expecting the whole thing if you didn't say "that's enough now."

confused

Erm, no. It wouldn't seem that way.

Why would it?

Lazyjaney Mon 27-May-13 08:42:38

He is saying that the DM has twisted his argument, and that the book is fact based, on some of the latest research. Has anyone here read the book?

TBH, I wouldn't put that past the Mail, but I do wonder just how far one can twist an argument?

People have pointed out that some of the things the mail has him stating as facts are either untrue or rather selective. Now surely that is the sort of thing that you can insist the Mail should correct? I think unless he puts a fairly extensive correction out there, it's not excusable.

It also sounds like a ploy to get people to buy the book, which seems a bit daft since, TBH, there are plenty of actual experts on this subject, aren't there?

ZillionChocolate Mon 27-May-13 08:51:27

Hands up then, who's going to buy his book?

limitedperiodonly Mon 27-May-13 09:01:53

While I can sympathise with Nick Ross for the distressing experience of appearing as a rape apologist in the Daily Mail it's not as if he couldn't have expected it to happen.

I hope he's more careful next time he's got a book to flog.

YoniMatopoeia Mon 27-May-13 09:10:43

"He admitted the edited version was fair but claimed his views were not as thoroughly explained as in the full text of the book."

In the guardian he seems to be saying that he wasn't misrepresented.

Oh, right, because what people are really upset about is that he just didn't explain the rape myths enough.

Silly me.

What a twit that man is.

Huh. How it's 'sacrilege' rather than 'heresy'. He does have a hang-up with religious terminology.

<aware this is not the main issue>

CouthyMow Mon 27-May-13 09:51:05

RedHelenB - so does that mean that when one of my Exes decided that it was fine to penetrate me anally whilst I was asleep, repeatedly, that I gave consent to it by sharing a bed with him?

Because I DIDN'T give consent. In fact, I actively made sure he KNEW that he didn't have my consent.

Yet still he continued to do it.

I was unable to do anything about it, as I was asleep (so no way he could have gained my consent), and would wake up to him lying on top of me (I sleep on my front), with his hand over my mouth so that I couldn't say no, or scream, and him having already entered me.

Did I consent to that because I shared a bed with him?

NO I BLOODY DIDN'T!

Rape is rape.

A non-rapist seems to find it easy to know that you ascertain consent BEFORE the act, only rapists seem to find this difficult.

In my mind, there is no way that I gave consent to be anally raped by that ex of mine, despite sharing a bed with him. And he knew it.

He chose to ignore that because he is a rapist, not because it was in any way difficult for him to know that I didn't consent to that particular act, and wouldn't have consented to that particular act.

Non-rapists know how not to rape. Only rapists don't seem to.

Rosa Mon 27-May-13 09:55:00

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22677513

Nick Ross' reply to what was printed...

Is it me, or is he concentrating entirely on women? confused

And then he says that rape victims are the 'real experts'. If he is a rape victim, that is really sad, but if so, why generalize his experiences to women? And if not, how come he's being disagreed with by so many women?

I do know the likely answer to this conundrum, btw.

FreudiansSlipper Mon 27-May-13 09:57:39

I listened to the interview he is very upset that he is being attacked on twitter and feels he has been misrepresented in the mail but he refused to apologise to those he had offended as he had spoken to victims and these were their words hmm

Again flawed research many rape victims feel in some way they are to blame, they can not face what has been done to them so play it down someone how has been involved with victim support would know this unless they have another agenda to push which obviously he has

and apparently he is more of an academic now than a journalist when questioned about victim support distancing themselves from him he was confident they wouldn't once all was explained he came across as a total utter arrogant tosser who really has no idea what he is talking about

IfNotNowThenWhen Mon 27-May-13 10:32:25

good point goshanngorilla. If wearing clothes that cover you up totally, and staying sober protected women from rape, then there would be no rape, ever, in Muslim countries. And I am pretty sure that's not the case.
I had a boyfriend years ago who had been raped as a 14 year old.it didn't occur to me to ask him if his clothes had been too revealing. It had happened at a party, where he willingly drank alchohol and ended up alone in a room with an older man. Again, didn't even cross my mind to say " well, you shouldn't have put yourself in that situation"
It wasn't his fault, and actually, he knew that, partly because men and boys do not get blamed in the same way.

BasilBabyEater Mon 27-May-13 11:31:03

He comes over as a totally arrogant mansplainer doesn't he?

He has said nothing to disown the basic sense of the Mail article. Even if they slightly mis-represented his position (which there's no reason to doubt, they're not exactly know for their integrity), he hasn't actually refuted the main thrust of the article as regards rape - which is that as a society, we are entitled to tell women which rapes they may consider "serious", life-changing, upsetting, needing the intervention of the law and which ones aren't because they don't really count as rape, as decided by him and other rape apologists.

Conveniently for rapists, he decides that the majority of rapes are no big deal: they're the ones which are carried out by the men who know us, with whom we have a pre-existing relationship. Surprise surprise, women complaining about those rapes are still being told that they should probably sort them out without recourse to law (because he hasn't clarified that he didn't mean that). Which implies that he doesn't think those rapes are actually illegal or even rape - he's still allowing that headline to stand without disowning it.

Women are being silenced about the real trauma and suffering men subject them to, because other men subject other women to trauma and suffering men have decided isn't legitimate and therefore must be worse. The basic implication of this POV is that really, the majority of rapes which happen are just normal sex and women should STFU about it and stop being such bloody princesses expecting their bodily integrity to actually mean something when it comes to sex.

Nick Ross is still standing up for rapists, even after the clarifications. Not all of them of course - not the fewer than 10% who attack women they've never met, because he accepts that's not reasonable - but for the 90%+ majority, he's still minimising their behaviour and asserting that it's not something we need to address as a society as far as I can see.

So he still counts as a rape apologist AFAIC.

LineRunner Mon 27-May-13 11:35:58

This might be quite a triggering post so please be aware.

Amanda Platell wrote an article the other day about all the vile child pornography and recorded abuse that is freely available via google, and described in blunt detail a 'How to do it' piece of film showing the rape of a schoolgirl. The tricks of the trade were clear: tell the victims they are secretly enjoying it; tell them they want it; tell them or make them feel in some way that they are to blame; and tell them you are sharing a dirty secret that no-one must know about; and scare them. These tactics are part of the crime. The feelings instilled in the victims are part of the crime.

Personally I think that in turning those victims' feelings - their emotional injuries - into the justification for a massive rape apology, Nick Ross is condoning rapists' crimes.

His whole thesis is bizarre, sickening and bad science.

lljkk Mon 27-May-13 11:50:25

Oh well, what the heck, though I know no one will read this as nuanced in the mass hysteria.

I think it's good NR talked about male victims of domestic violence, they shouldn't be ignored. I don't mind if NR wants to argue that victims have to take some responsibility in some crimes, and that those victims might include rape victims. And I think it's daft to pretend that all such crimes are the same (we usually instinctively know that the crime is extra heinous if the victim is an especially vulnerable type of person).

Where I was shocked by NR was when he said things like, that how women dressed made a difference to personal responsibility. (I guess male rape victims get to dress how they like confused). Using my phone in public isn't an advert for someone to come steal it and then get a lesser punishment from the courts. If I forget to close a window the insurer may refuse to pay out, but I still expect the police to try to catch the burglar and the courts to apply a penalty.

I think under NR's logic then raping a prostitute would be at worst "theft" rather than assault. I had no idea he was so thick. sad

cory Mon 27-May-13 11:59:39

Why does the temptation thing never apply to men who are mugged in dark streets at midnight? Surely putting temptation in the way of any violent crook who may be out and about?

Lazyjaney Mon 27-May-13 12:32:59

Agree with lijkk, there is nuance to this issue, rather than just the polemics all over here, and I suspect he has been misquoted and his words twisted by both the DM and his opponents, for their own ends.

But he could be a lot clearer in his later responses, he really is not helping himself!

Sunnywithshowers Mon 27-May-13 13:02:01
LineRunner Mon 27-May-13 13:19:14

Good link about the laptop.

I agree that just because victims of crime sometimes berate themselves for becoming victims, doesn't mean that a crime hasn't been committed, or that the crime is somehow a 'lesser' crime.

People who get their cars nicked might regret leaving them parked in road A and not road B - the 'Who knows, maybe that would have made a difference' internal debate - but no-one suggests in such cases that this means that the car thief should face a lesser charge, or no charge at all.

Lots of victims of all sorts of crimes are bothered by self-doubt, blame and guilt, sometimes for reasons like 'all the fuss and trouble I'm causing'. Sometimes they feel embarrassed. I know I felt terrible last time we got burgled because my DD's I-pod got nicked and she was so upset. But surely that makes the culprit more deserving of censure, not less, because of these negative, guilty feelings they cause in their victims?

LeStewpot Mon 27-May-13 14:31:22

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BasilBabyEater Mon 27-May-13 14:44:39

Also, it's not just when we're victims of crime, that human beings blame themselves and wonder if they could have done things differently.

FGS, when women have miscarriages, or their babies are born underweight, or if people get diagnosed with cancer or diabetes or heart disease or whatever, they question whether they could have done something different to prevent whatever event it was, happening.

That's human nature isn't it? To question yourself, to ask what you could have done differently to prevent something happening when something bad happens?

That's why people made sacrifices to imaginary beings in the sky, to try and prevent bad things happening and try and make good things happen. The fact that we're human and question ourselves and try and talk ourselves into believing that we can control things that are outside our control - like a man deciding to rape us - doesn't mean that the rape wasn't real or wasn't rape. In that situation, the person who decides to rape the other person has complete control over whether that rape happens or not; the person who is raped, has no control at all.

It is simply astonishing that a journalist with the level of experience and knowledge Nick Ross has had access to, should have gone in for such rape apologist shite. It really is. And it shows how rape culture is the norm and how urgently education is needed.

LineRunner Mon 27-May-13 14:56:17

Absolutely, Basil.

People can blame themselves for all sorts of things that are done to them when they are their lowest ebb. And they are at that lowest ebb because of what has been done to them. Like, say, being cheated on by a spouse; or being defrauded by a clever online scam.

And there are frequently knobbers who will join in the blaming because, interestingly, they are invested for some reason in victim-blaming and condoning the dreadful behaviour.

DuelingFanjo Mon 27-May-13 14:57:07

Ell fuck me, his publishing company don't know the difference between 'hear' and 'here'.

LineRunner Mon 27-May-13 15:03:22

He likes Erin Pizzey.

McNewPants2013 Mon 27-May-13 15:06:03
DuelingFanjo Mon 27-May-13 15:12:21

Re the use of the word aggravate, he does talk in terms of tempting fate and putting temptation in the paths of men who will then feel aggravated to rape.

juicypair Mon 27-May-13 15:22:04

I got pregnant on Christmas Eve 2001 from a one-night stand with someone I knew to say 'hello' to. I don't think I have ever been so pissed in my entire life; I certainly do not remember agreeing to go back to his house or consenting to sex. The only evidence that I had actually had sex was the copious amount of semen in my jeans (I was still dressed) on Christmas morning.

I was not traumatised, did not suffer and fully expected that I had consented the night before. I wouldn't dream of saying I had been raped. I do remember having spent the whole evening with this bloke chatting in various bars but nothing afterwards. I didn't know it back then but I was an alcoholic and I was forever sleeping around with men I barely knew.

crossparsley Mon 27-May-13 15:48:14

Fantastic post, basil. If Nick Ross could be forced to read just one thing that has been posted on the internet in the last couple of days, I would vote for yours.

I would like him to read a lot more, obv, and very many from this thread.

limitedperiodonly Mon 27-May-13 16:43:47

Do you mcnewpants?

I don't.

There's a South African gadget which, if it really exists, amounts to teeth worn inside your vagina which clamp on a rapist's dick.

I understand the desire to cause pain and humilation to a rapist, but it doesn't stop the idea that women are there to be used or prevent an injured assailant bashing your brains in.

Like women-only compartments on public transport, that are popular in some parts of the world, or not getting pissed, which Nick Ross favours, they are sticking plaster.

Some people abuse other people because they can get away with it because lots of people think it's okay.

Everyone decent person should shout 'no' without recourse to weaselly words or ingenious Heath Robinson inventions.

McNewPants2013 Mon 27-May-13 16:49:09

Women shouldn't have to resort to wearing things to prevent rape, but in many country I can see why women wanting to protect themselves.

Binkybix Mon 27-May-13 16:52:39

I have to say that when I was on a jury for a rape case, I was absolutely shocked by some of the attitudes that came out, not exactly on these lines but similar. The worst offenders were the 3 18 year olds (2 boys, 1 girl). It really made me angry, and concerned that these youngsters were thinking like they were.

StoicButStressed Mon 27-May-13 16:58:15

Am sick as dog today (d&v, thank you for asking...) but CANNOT NOT post on this. Enraged does not even touch the sides of it. My only comments on NR are CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT - STUPID FUCKING BORDERLINE EVIL CUNT.

MY PRACTICAL/'TO ACTION' COMMENTS - as THIS IS REPELLENT (& DANGEROUS) BEYOND BELIEF - are these:

(Hope all is clear, am kinda weak c/o D&V but have done best. Apols for anything missed etc etc, but really hope helps you x)

ALL contact details are gathered and below, so it really will not you a minute or two to simply register your voice. Ditto a draft letter (ready to simply cut/paste and send) to help ANYONE who wants to register their disgust and distaste at Mr Ross getting further work from the BBC. NB: Please note his previous BBC co-presenter on Crimewatch's personal comment on it/him via Twitter (below in .3)

1: Formally complain to BBC with whom I believe he is still in reciept of employment/gigs.

Personally, I would send to BOTH of the below -as the Press Office will act more quickly than the complaints department AND are entwined with the PR team, who will be aiming to minimise this and ergo may more quickly on denouncing NR's 'comments'.

BBC PRESS OFFICE; open until 11pm tonight.

BBC COMPLAINTS CENTRE

Would SUGGEST, (but is obviously a personal choice and the below written solely as seems to broadly summarise the collective view, and therefore written solely for ease/time limits of those who may WANT to write) write as following:

i: CLEARLY head your complaint 'NICK ROSS/RAPE'

ii: If able, voice your own views/experiences/WHY & HOW he IS so VERY wrong;

iii: Finish with:

'I am therefore politely but clearly requesting that Nick Ross be removed from any BBC productions (whichever outlet) forthwith. I am one of many who not only find his rape apologist views deeply offensive; but also deeply offended that via my licence fee to you - IF he remains in any receipt of your employ (whether 'self-employed' or otherwise) - then I will be DIRECTLY funding the payments to someone in a position that de facto carries a duty of care via his former employ by you vis 'Crime'; yet whose written views (presumably to attempt to sell copies of his forthcoming book, itself solely built on the fact that he has a 'link' to crime via his then employ BY THE BBC as Co-Presenter of 'Crimewatch') are damaging; misguided (to put it politely); & offensive beyond belief.

Further, it seems Mr Ross is now claiming it was the Sub who wrote Header who is responsible for 'misrepresentation' of what Mr Ross actually 'meant'. Manifestly this is untrue. A Sub may WELL have written the header - but Mr Ross wrote the article and all within it.

This is all the worse for the fact it has occurred whilst Operation Yewtree is still continuing, and which - whilst final enquiry outcome yet to be announced - it is utterly clear that previous presenters used the plausibility of their postions at the BBC to aid their own repugnant actions: E.G. Stuart Hall has admitted he had a 'room' at the BBC - separate to any production rooms, or hair & make up, or his own dressing room - that was specifically used to commit acts of abuse.

Whilst I accept all you can now do is apologise for the past and any possible failings of the BBC vis ANY matters pertaining to abuse &/or impact of sexual abuse/sexual violence; manifestly this is right here and right now, ergo you CAN and must act on this as a matter of urgency as many people are being hugely damaged by this RIGHT NOW.

And many of us believe that if you do NOT; that if you make a CHOICE not to; then it will aggrevate what is already a clear view of the BBC as complicit in acts; deeds; or words which in any way have previously facilitated; then & since potentially propogated; or now - via silence if THAT is what the Corporation choses - condoning both sexual violence of any kind via support for someone who DOES remain a 'face' of the BBC and who has now (and this is in reality the very minimum of what Mr Ross has acutally done) very clearly dismissed and diminished the traumas of all victims of rape. The latter something the Corporation WILL now unequivoally be complicit in doing if it does not act upon this matter via a very clear statement both condemning those views per se, and also very clearly disassociatiating itself from holding and with due speed.^

May I please request a formal acknoweldgement to this mail within 24 hours, and then a further mail confirming what action you are taking regarding Mr Ross & his further engagment at the BBC within the next 7 days.

Kind regards,
MY NAME.

2: Formally complain to his 'agent' - who in this case, unbelievably, IS clearly his wife (clearly he is 'past it' enough now to not even have a proper agent - hence poss his chasing the £££ via lame/vile book & de facto PR for 'book' driven piece in DM).

[Separately, perhaps his wife/agent may explain under what circumstances she would view someone else forcing their penis into her as 'rape'?]

Contact details below:
[NB: Dear MNHQ - ALL of these are freely available online and on/via his own website, so NO confidentiality broken by placing here]

Sarah Caplin
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7243 1325
Mobile: +44 (0)7770 746 471
Fax: +44 (0)20 7792 9200
Email: sarahcaplin@email.com
Address: Sarah Caplin
PO Box 999
London W2 4XT

3: His twitter account is Nick Ross - @nickrosscom

If ON Twitter, suggest a friendly tweet? With RapeIsRapeBlameThe Rapist hashtag (well done whoever posted that above)

FYI - his fromer Crimewatch Presenter Colleage (& former police officer???) Jaquie Hames tweeted: that she 'could not believe this was the same man she had worked with for 17 years on 'Crimewatch'

Further FYI (& this makes me want to vom even more than am already doing today), the vile little twat has HIMSELF 3hrs ago tweeted THIS:

Just got emails via office. Thank you to the rape victims who have emailed support.

Really? REALLY Nick? How many rape victims have e-mailed 'support' - precisely HOW MANY?

As I'm really not liking your (ab)using victims of rape for your own backfilling attempts at damage limitation here - so I'd LOVE to know how many' rape victims mailed YOU support as claimed?

AND also, how many - when so many victims WILL be re-traumatised today c/o YOU telling them it was 'their fault' and comparing them to 'a laptop left on a backseat' (so the number is probably lower than the ACTUAL number of us who ARE all appalled) contacts you have had via e-mail/twitter/DM Press Office/BBC Press Office that are NOT of 'support'. As you appear to have left that, slightly relelvant, number wholly out?

StoicButStressed Mon 27-May-13 17:06:27

www.nickross.com/broadcasting/overview/

LINK BETWEEN HIS 'BOOK' AND POSITION AT BBC IS UBER CLEAR ON ABOVE PAGE/N.R.'s own website.

I.E. ON HIS OWN SITE. SO BBC CANNOT/WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SAY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM.

limitedperiodonly Mon 27-May-13 17:07:15

Well, mcnewpants they could have a big gun to protect them, or a big man or failing that, they could stay in.

Alternatively, we could live in a society that says don't hurt people just because you can. But if you do, we won't blame your victim and we will severely punish you.

I continue to have this hope for Britain.

Maybe one day this radical idea might gain momentum in my country and spread to the rest of the world.

limitedperiodonly Mon 27-May-13 17:26:45

And it doesn't protect you. Anyone being assaulted, not necessarily raped women, don't fight back because they're scared of a bigger hiding if they do.

California's 'three strikes and you're out' law was wildly popular until it was realised that if you were looking at life in prison you might as well just kill your victim rather than leaving them alive to give evidence.

YoniMatopoeia Mon 27-May-13 18:39:10

This whole thing about reducing vulnerability . Reducing risk

It made me think about what has happened with car theft (and I in NO WAY equate crime against property with the violent act of rape - but bear with me)

Manufacturers started to make their cars harder to steal. They fitted complicated alarm and imobiliser systems. This meant that the cars that thieves wanted to steal they couldn't steal in the old way, by meddling with wiring.

Did this stop car theft?

NO

It means that now the thieves go after the keys in order to steal the car. The steal them from the house of the owner. They take the car on a cold morning when it is being left to run outside a house. They pretend to take a car for a test drive, and when you go to swap seats, they make off in the car. Or they use threats of violence at petrol stations and traffic lights to make people get out of the car so they can drive it away.

The problem is not with those pesky car owners flaunting their unprotected cars. When you protect the car, when you reduce its vulnerability, it just means that they will go after another car, or use a different technique.

The problem is the car thieves, not the vulnerability of the cars.

The problems is the rapists, not the vulnerability of the women.

hackmum Mon 27-May-13 18:52:21

Stoic: "My only comments on NR are CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT - STUPID FUCKING BORDERLINE EVIL CUNT."

I couldn't have put it better myself.

DioneTheDiabolist Mon 27-May-13 19:03:24

My 99yo neighbour was the victim of a distraction robbery today.sad. A well dressed man called, claiming to be from the Water Service and she let him into the house. Her carer arrived and he scarpered.

She is feeling frightened, vulnerable and stupid. She blames herself. It doesn't mean that she is now an expert on burglary and it doesn't mean she bears any responsibility for the crime perpetrated against her.angry

Latara Mon 27-May-13 19:07:49

One of my Pakistani male doctor friends believes women should cover up totally to protect themselves from men - many of his female friends actually do wear burkhas for that reason, or full face veils.

I explained to him that a in a situation where a rapist is present they will know that the burkha-wearer is a woman and attack anyway if given the opportunity.
His answer is that women should be escorted like his female friends are. He cannot understand in what situation a women would be unescorted.

But that is in my friend's culture and upbringing, he lives in Northern Pakistan and in my view it's sad that women there are oppressed by men.

Nick Ross is from the UK, not Northern Pakistan.

Yet what is so different in the UK?

Rapists escape justice on a regular basis in the UK.

Women who are rape victims are blamed for wearing the 'wrong' outfit, for being unescorted, for their behaviour or just for being a woman.

Would Nick Ross like us to be oppressed in the UK too? Does he miss the point, as does my friend, that a rapist will attack despite all precautions?

Personally i am routinely unescorted, i do 'cover up' (it's cold!!) but my outfits can reveal my figure as do most Western clothes.
Perhaps 'living alone' means i'm being provocative. After all, i leave my laptop on view in the kitchen - when i'm typing on it!!! FFS!!

Jux Mon 27-May-13 19:16:44

Help! I'm on the iPad and I want to copy Stoic's post but can't. Anyone know how to do it?

DuelingFanjo Mon 27-May-13 19:47:04

GREAT post Stoic.
Jux, on mine you press our finger on the screen and it should bring up an option to select and copy text.

hackmum Mon 27-May-13 20:00:31

What's especially irritating is that the smug git presents all this stuff as new and original, whereas I've head the same tired old crap about women being at blame since the 1970s when I was a kid. What would be original would be if someone actually tried to get more cases to court, and more convictions.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Mon 27-May-13 20:06:59

Latara, your friend may be from Pakistan, but he's plainly educated. So where he's from is not excuse for being, and I'm sorry for my intemperate language, a sexist gobshite.
Please tell us where he practices - I don't want anyone with views like that getting near treating me, or my family.

BasilBabyEater Mon 27-May-13 20:09:27

I think your friend is telling you he's a rapist Latara.

He plainly thinks all men are (otherwise women wouldn't need to be covered and escorted) and he's a man.

He's telling you what he is.

KittensoftPuppydog Mon 27-May-13 20:29:37

In the light of all the child sex abuse stories recently, it makes me wonder what nick Ross and his like would say that these children have done wrong to become targets. It can't be the abusers fault, obviously.