Facebook supports rape?

I don't think the word "ordinary" helps in this context. What is "ordinary" is highly subjective.

Perhaps we could instead frame this as what is "generally socially acceptable." For example:

It is generally socially acceptable to think it is a good thing to be kind to and look after the needs of elderly and disabled people.

It is generally not considered socially acceptable to allow elderly or disabled people to be denied medical treatment if they become ill.

However, there are all sorts of values, moral issues and behaviours that fall somewhere in between. Even where they are not views held by the majority of people, if a significant minority hold them, they may still be tolerated by others - so are "generally socially acceptable."

So, although not eating meat is something practised by a minority of people, it is generally socially acceptable to be a non-meat eater.

Similarly, although seeing victims of rape as somehow responsible for their assaults may be a view held by a minority of people (say 1 in 4 from some of the research cited above,) it is generally socially acceptable to hold that view.

If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have pro-rape sites protected on Facebook, you would see people who wear pro-rape tee shirts or make jokes about rape being roundly challenged for their choices and you would see mass boycotts of tabloid papers that print articles suggesting that women "asked for it," or otherwise were to blame for their attacks.

But, you don't get that!

Thanks - sorry, so what was the point you drew from them?

I'm getting confused as to whether it's the statistics you reject, or my interest in understanding what you mean, or what. I'm probably being slow here.

All the paragraphs Ella, are all the quotes from various posters who tried to make their very valid points early on in the thread.

rhubarb, I am trying to tell you that your point makes no sense if you refuse to tell us what key terms within it mean. I'm not just being picky here.

rhubarb, with respect, what you describe are experiences (or anecdotes). What others have cited were statistics. The stats are pretty shocking IMO, and one anecdote (I could add another myself, I've never been raped and count myself lucky) does not change teh stats.

I look at the stats and I have to accept that a depressingly high proportion of women are raped, and raped by men who they and everyone else thought were ordinary, decent men. It is awful. I'm not about to pretend those women are somehow stupider than me, or less observant than me, and that is why they were raped. I'm not about to pretend I have better abilities to 'spot' a rapist than other women. My experience is simply one shared by 3/4 of women.

I am not about to get hung up on the definition of ordinary because there isn't one, whatever your Venn diagram might say.

The definition of ordinary is not the point I was making. You brought up some stats. The stats were taken from 1,083 adults - not a huge number then? The stats showed that the majority of those questioned did not think that women were to blame for their rapes. The stats questioned the statement made by others that seemed to suggest that actually most people did think that.

It shows that those people are in the minority. Which is good. Not good enough but good. However you now want to say that even though the stats show that those attitudes are in the minority, they are still ordinary. This you can tell from a survey of 1,083 people.

I don't think anyone said that the majority of people have those beliefs Rhubarb but a sizeable minority do and that within that minority, a proportion will be "ordinary people". In fact, I think if this survey had omitted stranger rapes from the equation, a considerable proportion of "ordinary" respondents would
a) Dispute that rape had actually occurred at all and
b) Argue that for it to have happened, the woman must have been naive about men's ability to exercise self-control and in any case, should have fought harder if it wasn't what she wanted to happen.

There are lots of "ordinary" Mumsnetters who won't accept that rape is rape and there are threads to prove it.

I'm sorry, I don't follow?

What are all quotes - all the paragraphs or just the last one?

Lenin - honestly? No. Never.

As I said to you earlier. I have slept in the same bed with men, on the floor of their rooms, been put to bed by men, snuggled up with men, did everything apart from sex with men and not once, not ever have any of them thrown a hissy fit or taken advantage. They were your average man on the street who showed respect.

We all have different experiences which is why experiences are not useful in themselves in a debate. Because they contradict each other.

Rapists are different to the average man in the street. Because they are rapists. If they aren't different in any way then, qed - all men are rapists (who just presumerably haven't quite got around to doing it yet).

even with aquaintence rapists, there is evidence that the offenders (generally) exhibit traits that not easily associated with (sigh) average men in the street.

If rapists rape because they can, and they are not any way different from than the average man in the street, the implication is that the average man in the street who hasn't raped anyone, has not done so because he can't, i.e. because he has never had the opportunity.

"...rapists don't rape because they're somehow evil or perverted or look or act in any way particularly different from the average man in the street" would be much better.

These are all quotes that were made much earlier on in this thread by other posters and I thought it worth repeating them.

As I said before, to me, ordinary isn't synonymous with the majority, and I would think if 1 in 4 people think or do something, it is ordinary. I did say that above, actually.

No I think it is up to you to say what you mean when you say that ordinary people do not believe those things, when in fact 1 in 4 people do.

I think that if 1/4 of all people think something then it is a pretty ordinary viewpoint. In the sense of common, unexceptional, everyday, unremarkable.

Rhubarb, it would really help if you would clarify what you mean by ordinary and how it relates to the majority. You keep using the term 'majority' and it is really confusing me as to what you're trying to say with it, unless you mean it has some bearing on defining what's ordinary.

My point is just the simple one I made about the Venn diagram. But I am mostly at the moment trying to see your side of things, to understand where you are coming from.

I have not defined 'ordinary' and neither has Cath Elliott or anyone else.

The stats show that a majority of the 1,083 adults questioned thought that women were NOT to blame for sexual assaults.

So if you are to say that "ordinary people think women bring rape on themselves" what are you saying exactly? Are you giving me an essay on what you define is ordinary or are you making a clear and coherent point?

'Rapists are ordinary men' - This is a generalisation. We have all accepted that some rapists are not ordinary, but they are the minority of rapists - the ones who make headlines.

'All ordinary men are rapists' - This is not, not at all, the same statement as above. No-one has made this argument on this thread. It does not follow from Cath Elliot's statement.

If you imagine a Venn diagram, the circle of 'rapists' will be mostly inside the circle of 'ordinary men'. But the circle of 'ordinary men' will be much bigger than the circle of 'rapists', so most ordinary men are not rapists, although most rapists are ordinary men.

I hope that helps. I'm trying to be clear, sorry if it is obvious to everyone.

But you said that the stats showed that ordinary people didn't think those things about rape because only a minority thought those things.

I'm sure that's what you said just up there ^ a moment ago

Sorry, Rhubarb, it wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth. I just asked you a question so I could understand better what you were meaning.

I think, honestly, it is pointless to talk about what is 'ordinary' without defining terms. Meaningless.

Your point about 'all ordinary men are not rapists' is not the same as the point that 'rapists are ordinary men'. This is a logical flaw. I did explain it earlier and it has been said before. You're reversing a position that can't be reversed. So your claim is quite different from Uppity's.

"I also think that lacking that moral compass/conscience/respect makes a man not ordinary. Ordinary, to me, involves having that care for others, the understanding that you cannot just take what you want, regardless of the hurt caused to another person."

But loads of ordinary people are horrible. Loads of ordinary people act illegally and immorally to get what they want. Whether it's speeding, getting religion to get into a school, not being entirely honest with their taxes... These are things that ordinary people do, all the time.

Oh look, someone else who seems to think that I have made a statement over what is 'ordinary'.

I give up!

We've got to remember that a lot of rapists do not even think they are rapists.

Ella do not put words into my mouth. I did not answer your question earlier so you cannot now tell me that I think ordinary means majority.

You quoted stats taken from a survery of just over 1,000 adults which shows that the majority of those adults questioned DO NOT think that women are to blame for rape.

Agreed that the stats could and should be better, but I am not about to get into an argument now over what constitutes 'ordinary'.

My original point was to disagree with Elliott saying that nothing distinguishes the ordinary man from a rapist (and she did not define ordinary either so that's left up to us and we each have our own ideas of what ordinary is). Now Uppity appears to be saying that it is a rape myth that all men are seen as rapists.

Which is confusing for me as when I made that point much much earlier in the thread I was told I was perpetuating a rape myth.

Rhubarb on that basis though a person who is a member of the Green Party, or can speak fluent Russian, or likes eating oysters, is not ordinary.

Being ordinary is not the same as being a member of the majority. Otherwise no-one would be ordinary - as everyone can do something / does something that is not something that the majority do. Even jobs. Say most people in the UK work in offices - does that mean that non office workers are not ordinary? Say most people work in the private sector. Does that mean public sector workers are not ordinary? Of course not.

SDTG - but what about men who sincerely believe, as do the people around them, that they are moral people? If they behave in a totally moral way with regard to everything but one act, how would anyone know they are any different from anyone else?

This is why IMO you cannot tell who is a rapist until he rapes someone.

Earlier on the thread, Rhubarb was saying that there is something 'other' about rapists, and was leapt on for this. My gut feeling is that lacking the moral compass, conscience, respect for others that I was talking about in my last post is something 'other' - a pretty big other, ino. Of course, this is not something that can be seen, there's no mark of Cain that says 'this person has no respect for others and will hurt them without a second thought to get what he/she wants'.

I also think that lacking that moral compass/conscience/respect makes a man not ordinary. Ordinary, to me, involves having that care for others, the understanding that you cannot just take what you want, regardless of the hurt caused to another person. Ordinary, to me, isn't perfect, but it has that acknowledgement of the rights of others, and respect for others. As I said in my earlier post, none of my sons, nor my husband, nor any other of the men I know well and love would dream of forcing themselves sexually on another person - but the dses have been known to thump eachother over the xbox controller, or because the other one 'looked grumpy'.