Facebook supports rape?

Figure out what it means for yourself, it has no relevance to the debate at this stage. I am not on this thread purely to be interrogated by you over what I said 2 days ago that I then apologised for.

Right so. Rhubarb's list of what all rapists are like:

• Socially dysfunctional
• Cannot perform in any area of life unless they feel powerful and in control
• They dominate women
• Social wankers (?)
• Like to feel powerful
• Usually take advantage of other situations

This is your list of what rapists are like, is that right?

SQ, do you really want to re-argue about that when the discussion has moved on? I guess you do.

If you read my post you will see that it is I who just said that the discussion was talking about rape in general, so no big revelation there. I also said that someone then pointed out that acquaintance rapists do not fit such a definite profile.

You then got upset and I apologised for upsetting you. But you now want to go over it again?

I did NOT say that it was a black and white view I held. I DID say they were all social wankers. If you want to misinterpret what I say and make out that I think that all rapists can be most definitely identified by having SOCIAL WANKER tattooed across his forehead then go ahead.

Personally I think it very bad form to drag up something that someone apologised for - and even asked if you accepted the apology to which you gave no answer - 2 days later.

To answer you, yes I think ALL rapists are selfish. ALL rapists think they have a right to sex - whether that is whilst she is asleep in bed with him, passed out on the floor or struggling for her life.

Do you mean socially inept? That they act out of step with others? What?

You say rapists are social wankers. Surely it's fair enough to ask what that actually means?

When you made those comments the thread was most definitely talking about rape in general.

Those are the comments that upset me as they say that rapists are like this - very black and white and fairly obvious characteristics - and so what if you have been raped by a man who is not like that? What then?

This is where we started and I cannot believe that after all this conversation you are still claiming that all rapists are like x, y and z and that is that.

You are wrong and liable to cause upset to lots of victims. Why? Just because you are not prepared to say that you were wrong / phrased it badly / meant to put a "most" rapists or a "many" or something in?

And what on earth is a social wanker anyway?

Oh I see. The point is shifted, a discussion begins and yet someone brings something up from 2 days ago just to drag it out again.

A social wanker is my own term. My description. Bit like a twunt really. It's an insult I use and has no definition according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Sorry, can I not insult rapists?

Yes I do SQ. I do think that rapists like to dominate and feel that it is their right to have sex, despite what the woman wants.

And actually I believe that the difference between stranger rape and acquaintance rape was strongly made up the thread in reply to my opinions. Because obviously stranger rapes fit a more definite profile than domestic abusers.

Rapists do take advantage of situations, esp opportunistic rapists.

Why are you trying to imply that my arguments are inconsistent? I would leave this thread if only my name wasn't repeatedly mentioned. I will not be mis-quoted or have words put into my mouth.

Someone who masturbates in public?

What is a "social wanker" BTW?

There is a list of characteristics in Lisak and Miller's influential 2002 research paper 'Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists' (VERY well worth reading):

"Among the common characteristics shared by many incarcerated and undetected rapists are high levels of anger at women ... the need to dominate women ... hypermasculinity ... lack of empathy ... and psychopathy and antisocial traits" (see the original paper linked above for citations)

They go on to say that one other common characteristic is repeat offending.

So I don't think it's wrong to say that rapists exhibit certain characteristics, and nor is it wrong to say that these characteristics aren't shared by all men (obviously). What is very worrying is that these characteristics are supported by a culture that tolerates misogyny and that's what Cath E is saying in her article, as I understand it: that rapists rape because they can, because a culture that tolerates misogyny provides that conducive context for rape to happen. Most of those characteristics are not unusual in a misogynistic culture. And it's revealing and extremely worrying that 'hypermasculinity' is listed there, suggesting that one of the characteristics of rapists is some sort of amplified or extreme version of 'ordinary' masculinity. The point about rapists being 'ordinary' men is that characteristics like those listed are not easy to spot in a culture where misogyny is so unremarkable. In the kind of culture feminists have fought and are fighting to bring about, those characteristics would stand out like a sore thumb.

So you still hold these views:

"Rapists do not rape because they can. They rape because they are socially disfunctional (does that sit better?) and cannot perform unless they feel in control and powerful. "

"I didn't just mean in the bedroom SQ - I meant in life. Rapists dominate women and use them to satisfy their own needs. Therefore in life rapists are usually social wankers who like to feel powerful."

"Rapists are social wankers who usually take advantage of other situations. "

Is that right?

"At that point in the thread we were discussing rapists in general until someone mentioned acquaintance rapists and said that you could not profile an acquaintance rapist."

But all rapes are committed by rapists in general. The conversation at that point was not talking exclusively about stranger rapists. It was talking about rapists in general ie all of them. Most people are raped by someone they know. So I don't understand what you are saying now?

This is a bit of a tangent, but this discussion is reminding me of a rl discussion probably 15 years ago about violence against women.

I think it was sparked by an article (absolutely no idea where) that suggested that not all men have to beat their wives or rape to benefit from the actions of those who do.

Some men choose to use emotional, physical and sexual abuse to control women, to get them to do what they want and not do what they don't want them to do.

And, because this action isn't roundly condemned in society, it contributes to a wider "climate" in which even those women who aren't abused may be fearful of violence from men. As a result, they may behave in ways they think will help them avoid violence (e.g. deferring to men, being passive and servile, putting themselves down, not speaking out, submitting to sex when they don't want it, etc.)

So, even men who don't choose to be violent can still gain control over women as an indirect result of that wider culture of fear of violence amongst women.

It is only when they refuse to comply with that culture, stop colluding by staying silent and speak out against violence against women that they actually throw off the male privilege and stop benefiting from violence against women.

Isn't there a similar thread here related to Mr Average Joe who doesn't see himself as a rapist, has no attributes that distinguish him as a rapist, probably would never consider forcing a woman to have sex, but who tolerates the words and behaviours of other men who do?

No SQ, I still think that rapists like to feel dominant over women and I have said that in my last post. That they feel they have a right to sex and view women as the lesser sex.

At that point in the thread we were discussing rapists in general until someone mentioned acquaintance rapists and said that you could not profile an acquaintance rapist.

To which I replied that every group of people has characteristics in common according to sociological principles. And acquaintance rapists are a group of people along with domestic abusers.

I think I get it that you disagree. But my argument has not changed.

Wow that is great that people are withdrawing advertising

AFAIK the 'all men are rapists' thing which is often quoted as an example of 'what feminists believe' comes from something a character says in Marilyn French's novel The Women's Room. Obviously it's not what feminists believe though: that's an anti-feminist myth.

But Rhubarb this is what you said:

"Rapists do not rape because they can. They rape because they are socially disfunctional (does that sit better?) and cannot perform unless they feel in control and powerful. "

"I didn't just mean in the bedroom SQ - I meant in life. Rapists dominate women and use them to satisfy their own needs. Therefore in life rapists are usually social wankers who like to feel powerful."

"Rapists are social wankers who usually take advantage of other situations. "

These are very specific character traits that should be fairly easy to spot. It seems a it different to what you are saying now - have you changed your mind?

SD - I think that idea is a misquotation from Dworkin, who said it wasn't what she had said at all.

I've never met anyone who thinks that (and don't want to!).

Rhubarb said, "We are not talking about other parts of the world, we are taking about the UK and in the UK it is no longer socially acceptable to be racist or homophobic."

I seriously beg to disagree. I have been in far too many social settings to count where racist and homophobic statements, remarks or jokes were made and not challenged by others present. That doesn't mean all the people present agreed with the statements, but they didn't feel strongly enough to say or do anything about it. If others remain silent, the speaker may take silence as an indication of agreement with their views. Therefore, the silence demonstrates that those views "are" socially acceptable, or at least not so unacceptable that folks are prepared to overtly challenge these.

As Prolesworth says, our culture, yes right here in 21st century UK, is very tolerant of misogyny and in one could say it is institutionalised. Not challenging or questioning the views of many people (whether in the majority or not) that women are at least in part to blame for being sexually assaulted is a function of that misogyny.

I didn't misunderstand, rhubarb, I just disagreed.

SQ here

No Proles, implied on here.

And Ella, you misunderstand the points we were trying to make. A rapist might not appear to be any different from ordinary men just as child abusers cannot be spotted or murderers. They don't have horns and a tail. The point we were making, and why I pasted the quotes as they said it much better than I, was that there may be characterists that all rapists shared that are obviously not seen by others.

I think we can all agree that a rapist - even a date rapist - is likely to feel a sense of entitlement, is likely to view women as lessers and is likely to be selfish. These are the things I was talking about. So that yes, rapists appear ordinary but they have characteristics that differ because not every man is prone to rape and some men even campaign against it, work with rape victims and dedicate their lives to stopping sex slavery and so on. So it appeared to myself and other posters that tainting men with the same brush was not fair and that is what Elliott appeared to be doing with that sentence.

"Many people are shocked and horrified at Facebook, many large companies have withdrawn their ads, that should stand as an example that the views held within those groups are not considered 'ordinary'."

Is there a link for that? How fantastic I would love to read about it.