Facebook supports rape?

It was the Budokan one posted at 11:33:04 I was referring to.

racism

The second one is based on forensic criminal profiling. The first is American and I didn't like it as it didn't provide resources, which is why I gave the second link.

The point is to illustrate that criminal profiling is alive and well and rapists have a profile. You might disagree with that and you are entitled to do so, but it's something I do agree with and I think it's important that we continue to profile such criminals so that we can help prevent such crimes in the future.

That does not mean that victims should have sussed out their profile beforehand - that's a ridiculous thought. How often do we go around analysing our friends to see if we can pick out the serial rapist?

Hmm, I am also not sure about this first link Rhubarb. Does not look very scientific to me. Where was this profiling done and by whom? No notes. "RACE: Mostly black (75-90% of rapists in prison are black); crime tends to be intra-racial". Can it be because of institutional rasism rather than the propensity of black men to rape white women?? It does not give any qualifications here though...

I don't think anyone was doubting that criminal profiling exists. It began during the Victorian era in the UK at least. Someone began photographing convicted prisoners. A widely held belief at the time was that criminals shared facial characteristics. You know, "eyes too close together" type of thing or a swarthy complexion. Laughable now I'm sure you'll agree. However, your second link (I think) gives a high likelihood of sexual offenders being black. Based on the very large percentage of black convicted sex offenders in American prisons. Do you really think that these statistics are unproblematic?

The firsrt one. didnt bother with the second one.

The forensic blog one? Yes I did. Awful in what way? Because it is discussed so clinically? Believe it or not this is pretty close to how criminologists think.

Oh, yeah!

Bollocks bemybebe - that is not that you are bollocks! But your rude word for male genitals.

Jesus. Rhubarb that link is awful. really. did you read it??

Trigger warning?

As I said to SQ, I don't mind that you disagree, that is what leads to healthy debates. But I hope I have shown that I was not making it all up as I went along, I was not talking bollocks and that criminal profiling does exist - it is not a part of criminology that is considered outdated or irrelevant.

I respect that you disagree and I respect your opinions on rape and the knowledge that you have. All I wanted was a little respect in return and not to be undermined and insulted.

Calling anybody twunt is not on. Though I do it myself sometimes. Are there any harsh rude words for male genitals? Does not seem to be in English (do correct me if I am wrong), but plenty in my native language. In fact the most highly used very rude swear word is associated with penis... and my culture is SUPER misogynistic.

Oh FFS.

And yes. I disagree. 110%. But explaining why is only going to cause problems.

I'll put a trigger warning on rhubarb's last post, btw.

Another legally termed Profiling Rapists piece here.

But her calling me a twunt is on?

Nice...

What SDTG said. I did not see the other threads. Calling Rhubarb a rape apologist etc is definitely not on.

I agree with her. Imho rapists do have traits in common, disrespect to other human beings and their feeling is probably the most obvious one. I also do not believe it can be "spotted" in advance.

I also agree with those who said that the rape culture conditions certain men to become rapists and then get away with it. But I do not believe that any 'average' man will. I had no chance to look into the links provided earlier by jamma and others but I will.

Hairy - thank you.

Dont, why the hell should I not discuss this on other threads?

You are not challenging anyone's views by the way, you are merely destroying your own argument with over the top accusations and insults.
Sociology - every group of people has common traits. But your argument seems to say that the entire principle of sociology is wrong.

This argument started off about rape as a whole. You are now moving onto acquaintance rape? Drunken rape? Sleep rape? Domestic rape?

I think that domestic rape is the one where the victim is most likely to blame herself just as in domestic abuse and in those cases the perpetrator more often than not does not reveal his true character until it is too late. And statistical wise (yes you can look this up) he is most likely to have committed previous offences that the rape victim has no way of knowing.

Here, some reading for you on criminal profiling. Why not tell them all that they are all rape apologists?

So, that's why you're dragging this up on other threads, rhubarb?

SDTG, telling people that every rapist has traits in common is extremely damaging and dangerous. It leads victims to blaming themselves for their "inability" to spot these traits. THAT is why we're challenging this...

But no. Once again, we're just being the twunts unreasonable ones. For not wanting to see rape myths perpetuated on the Feminist Section.

Rhubarb,

You might find the Sexual Offences Act 2003 an interesting read. A number of changes have been made to the original Act of 1956. For example rape now includes penetration of the mouth.

Oh well there you go.

You know, labelling posters a rape apologist, or saying that they blamed victims of rape is such a lazy argument. It's like saying "you disagree with us so we are going to throw the book at you and tear you apart". It's a shit stance from people who purely want to shut you up so they can carry on agreeing with each other.

No wonder so many people say they are too scared to post on the feminist threads. We should not have to put up with this shit just because we have a different opinion, different ideas and different thoughts. I admit I worded it wrong when I said there was something mentally wrong with rapists and for that I apologised. You have thrown the rape book at me and are now too bloody minded to even contemplate a simple sorry.

You are not worth arguing with. Your debates, when you start to throw insults around, mean nothing. You invalidate your points with accusations. If you represent feminism then I worry about the future of women.

Thank you SDTG. Normally I would just leave it, but this got me so incensed that I am no longer prepared to let these kind of accusations go.
Seems they can dish it but cannot take it.

I have read the whole of this thread, and I agree that Rhubarb deserves an apology for being called a rape apologist, for the allegations that she doesn't believe victims of rape or thinks they are responsible for what happened to them, and for the other crap thrown at her.

I am also utterly perplexed as to why the focus appears to be on Rhubarb and her views (and on destroying her as completely as possible) rather than on condemning the facebook groups that were the subject of the Guardian article.

SGM. UK law has not changed in the 10 years ago (thank you) that I studied it. Rape is rape, always has been and always will be.
Criminals fit profiles. Sorry but I would recommend you read a forensic psychology book and find out more.
There is no crime without a motive.

Yes research has changed that has proved what? That some men say they don't know what rape is?

By saying that young men are hazy on what is rape is giving them an excuse. You disagree, which is fair enough, but I think there is no excuse for ignorance.

Domestic abusers also fit a criminal profile. But I have maintained that this criminal profile is NOT clearly evident. So how can I be blaming victims?
There is also a lot of research going on concerning women who stay in abusive relationships and that research is so agencies can understand behaviour and better provide help.
It's all the fundamental principles of sociology and if you argue against that you are arguing against sociology.

Is that clear enough or am I still a rape apologist for daring to have a different view?