Facebook supports rape?

Eh? what have the twisluts or wankers done?

pmsl?

who

I don't think she thinks she has anything to apologize for, Custardo. She's barely accepted mine.

so are apologies in the pipeline?

Too often, HoneyMomster. Too bloody often.

Yes uppity, I really think that's the nub - 'it wasn't really rape-rape' how often does that get trotted out, in those words or not. by good decent people.

I think that although a lot of men wouldn't themselves dream of having sex without active, enthusiastic participation of their partner, they would not feel that other men, who are prepared to do so, are rapists.

So although they themselves may not have the entitlement affliction, they don't quarrel with other men's entitlement. They see it as something not for them, even not very top-notch behaviour perhaps, but not "rape-rape", surely?

So that's why these FB hate-speak pages can exist. Because although men may not wnat to exercise their own entitlement to have sex with a less than enthusiastic woman, they are not prepared to take away their brother's entitlement to do so.

We need to start looking at "ordinary" men's attitudes to sex and rape. Because the ordinary attitudes, are what enable rapists, to rape. 6% conviction rate for reported rapes and most rapes not reported at all. That happens in a context and it's that context we need to dismantle.

I have read the whole thread, and at times everyone's opinions on the type of men that rape etc seem to have crossed several times.

It seems to me that rhubarb's point is that most men are respectful of women and wouldn't under any circumstances try to have sex without her full consent. Some men, however, don't have that same respect, and under a given set of circumstances would ignore an initial "no", or assume that if she's naked in his bed she clearly wants it.

This, in my opinion, is the difference between men who would and men who wouldn't, and I think it is connected with the rape culture that's been talked about a lot here, whereby it's fine for men to joke about it etc.

So yes I think there are differences that set apart potential rapists from the majority of men, but those men could be perfectly 'normal' on the surface, and the majority of the time you wouldn't know he was capable of it.

Is it this simple question of whether there's a difference between a 'normal man' and a potential rapist that is the root of this argument? Or have I missed something?

The martial arts thing drives me mad for a host of reasons which are far too numerous to go into here!

I think you only have to look at how the media reported the Julian Assange and Dominique Strauss Kahn case, to see how normal and "ordinary" it is, to defend rapists.

In both cases, although we don't know if these men are guilty, there was an automatic assumption throughout the media, that they couldn't possibly be. Because they're ordinary men. Ordinary men with a history of predatory sexual behaviour, which is perfectly ordinary, apparantly.

I don't really understand how anyone can think in the wake of those 2 cases, that rape is understood and disapproved of in the general public and media.

Rhubarb I didn't deliberately misread what you wrote. All through this thread I have simply read what you have written and reacted.

If you think people are misreading / misunderstanding then maybe you need to work on presenting your posts with more clarity.

Bloody hell chibi

Don't listen to them.

This martial arts thing seems to come up a lot I've noticed

"Lenin, I'm afraid the bloody good debate we had yesterday has been demeaned. "
patronising much?

"It's funny but sometimes I am told that I have changed my views and sometimes I am told that I haven't - both of those things are apparently bad things."
but how can that be so? apparently we are all the same on here?? and surely if we were just ganging up on you we'd get our story straight? personally i was trying to be polite - but since that's not what you're looking for, i found your arguments: repetitive, circular, contradictory, ill-thought-out and spectacularly difficult to understand. that's probably why either way people take your views the common element is bad

"I'm gone"
promise? i think it might be the 8th time you've claimed that you aren't going to return to this thread anymore...

Lenin, I'm afraid the bloody good debate we had yesterday has been demeaned.
It's funny but sometimes I am told that I have changed my views and sometimes I am told that I haven't - both of those things are apparently bad things.

If anyone gives a toss, my opinions are on my blog.

chibi, I'm gone.

i'm exhausted and sad

on a different thread i was told that by being upset about what happened to me i was telling other rape victims how to feel and triviallising what happened to them

on a different thread i was told that if i wanted to avoid rape i needed to be prepared to put the hours in training in a martial art (the implication being that if i didn't...)

on this thread i am told that actually rapists have characteristics but they are simultaneously invisible and observable

i really am sick of living in the world as a woman some times :(

"You see what you want to see. You have proved that."

so do you rhubarb... you said yourself that your argument hasn't changed despite the fact you've been on this thread for 2 days with hundreds of posts made in total, so clearly you aren't interested in what other people have to say.

i'm afraid i'm another one who doesn't get your "ordinary men" criteria - one of my friends is married to a man who seems to be a good husband and father (takes his turn getting up in the night, cooks the dinner, etc, etc), he has a decent job and he likes to garden. he also raped her the first time they had sex. that's not how she described it at the time (we're talking 20 years ago), that's presumably not how either of them sees it but he forced himself into her while they were kissing/groping in a lane at 2am on a Sunday morning after she said she didn't want to. i've always been a bit about what happened but it's only since i've been on this forum that i've felt comfortable (in my head!) calling it rape.

we live in a rape culture, and the very fact that you made all your initial posts reliably informing us of what rapists are like because you once studied forensic psychology and then suddenly said "oh, but date rapists are different" is part of that. rapists aren't all bogeymen such as we see on criminal minds, and actually i would argue that due to the culture we live in not all men who have at some pointed raped a woman are inherently evil or different to "ordinary men".

This quote is not mine:

SQ - I think the point that jamma is making is that 'stranger' rapists (potential and realized) are people who have certain character traits in common that allow them in certain circs carry out their attacks. They are not just random 'men from the street', 'ordinary blokes'. And that 'acquaintance' rapists who as a group are more difficult to profile still have a number of traits in common...

This was Donts response to SQ
Wait, what?

Hang on, I was raped both "generally" and "datily"

Who should I be cross with?

Sooo, it appears I did not first categorise rape.
And Dont really did get that joke first time round and found it hilarious.

Now I know that you merely out to get what you want from this discussion I'm off to do the school run. Have a lovely weekend Lenin, nice discussing it with you as at least you took it seriously.

Course you did Dont, it read like that too. But now you realise that I didn't say it, suddenly it's funny. Whereas if I had of said it, that initial disgust you registered in your post would remain.

You see what you want to see. You have proved that.