Woman writes a book with her rapist about forgiving him

This makes me uncomfortable. What would she have done if he hadn't taken responsibility. So many rape endurers just have to find peace somehow knowing that their rapist will never take responsibility. It's her journey and if it helped her I'm glad for her but the way it has indirectly turned him in to some ''thought provoking'' public figure makes me uncomfortable. It casts him in the role of a good guy somehow and how can that be. He raped her and never spent a day behind bars.

First, that the words "rape" and "rapist" are so loaded that many men and boys will tell themselves they cannot possibly be rapists even though what they have done/are contemplating is indeed rape.

But what Tom needs to reflect on is why it is basically thought to be so much worse for a man to be considered a rapist than it is for a woman to be raped. The word rape is only loaded when it comes to men. It is a get out a jail free card for them. Rape is so terrible that people shy away from calling men rapists but when it comes to women rape is quite obviously not taken seriously or considered to be so terrible for us that much is done to stop men raping us.

That's fucked up. Maybe earnest Tom should go and talk to men about how they need to stop thinking that rape is an OK thing to do to women whilst simultaneously being the worst thing any poor man could be accused of or admit himself to be. The double standard is outrageous.

I don't feel he deserves praise, but then I don't think he's asking for praise. The book was her idea, not his (if it was his idea I would feel very differently).

I think he - or more accurately they, together - make two very important points.

First, that the words "rape" and "rapist" are so loaded that many men and boys will tell themselves they cannot possibly be rapists even though what they have done/are contemplating is indeed rape. Which is obviously unhelpful and likely to lead to more rape.

Second, that the focus is too much on women - why did this woman get raped - rather than why the man raped her. Since we agree that the true cause of rape is always the man's actions rather than the woman's, then if we are going to reduce rape we do need IMO more examination of why men rape. Not to excuse it but to try to prevent it.

The whole narrative about forgiveness is an unhelpful distraction tbh.

Yes, I don't like the slickness and staginess and media gloss. It's inappropriate.

She can forgive him, but doesn't mean anyone else has to. If nothing else it's a credible datapoint when the topic of rape whilst intoxicated comes up. In fact it does shift how a man can reasonably believe he could ever have consent in these circumstances.

I agree with microferret.

What's the point of him?

If this was about a situation where a man pressured a woman for sex and the two of them wanted to talk about in a sex education way to youngsters then I might get it. But from the sounds of it he brutally raped a practically unconscious 16 year old for 2 hours and left her in pain, presumably injured and traumatized.

This is her personal story and I wish her peace.

The TED talk kept crashing for me so I was saved from watching too much of earnest contrite Tom telling a room mostly full of women that brutally raping women and girls is wrong.

Rehabilitated - sure.
Lauded somehow for his bravery in owning up to what he did?
No. Sorry. Fuck off. (not you, him)

I heard them both speak at a writers festival last week. I was very conflicted about it beforehand and no further forward with understanding it afterwards.

As I understand there is a statute of limitations which meant that by the time Thordis first decided she wanted to deal with what had happened it was already too late to convict even though he admitted he had raped her.

I am massively uncomfortable with them talking about this publicly. She wants to forgive him - fine - but the message that rapists will receive is simply that it's forgiveable?

I don't think I was suggesting "forgive and forget"? I don't think anyone's suggesting that And Thordis and Tom seem to be doing the very opposite of never mentioning it again.

Myabe rehabilitation is the wrong word. I think I was thinking aloud in response to microferret's saying: But this horrendous beard-stroking self-serving sex criminal needs to piss off and hang his head in shame, preferably somewhere none of us ever have to look at his stupid face ever again, forever. - and trying to articulate (badly, clearly) my concern that if that is how we respond - what then? Because that is more than being wary of a man. That is saying that there is no place in society for him at all. So essentially, that he can never atone for what he has done no matter what he says or does. Maybe that is how it should be. I genunely don't know.

What do you mean by "rehabilitation"?
Tom appears to be a functioning member of society, indeed the fact he raped someone at 18 doesn't seem to have caused him many issues in life. I'm not sure what rehabilitation he needs?
Rehabilitation to me doesn't mean "forgive and forget" and pretend it never happened. It doesn't mean it can't be mentioned again.
Yes I think if someone's admitted or been convicted of rape women are well within their rights to be wary of that man because he's a higher risk to them. I don't think that means the man hasn't been "rehabilitated"

So does that mean that rapists can never be rehabilitated? Even if they acknowledge what they've done, show remorse, try to atone? That's a genuine question, not a goady one. Once criminals - any criminal - have committed a crime - any crime - is that the sum of their parts, forever? Is that all they can be defined by and can they never make amends, no matter what?

It's something I have been pondering while reading the book.

I want to have calm, logical progressive feelings about this. I want to say, yes it's a good thing, it's a conversation we need to be having, blah blah blah.

But I can't.

I'm not going to congratulate this arsehole for patting himself on the back and trying to get public sympathy and understanding for treating another human being like shit on his shoe. It's a vanity project on his part. Look at me, aren't I great, I raped someone and I'm going to stand up and look all earnest and beardy and own it and then I shall be absolved.

Fuck off you rapist. You took a vulnerable child who quite possibly needed medical attention and pushed your dick into her for two hours because you thought it was your right. Then you dumped her and thought nothing of it. And now you want us to clap like sealions and talk about how amazingly brave you are to "own" it? Fuck off, fuck off, fuck off, fuck the fuck off and fuck off some more. Rape is a sick crime, not a new opportunity to gain admiration.

I'm not judging the woman, she's doing what she needs to do to survive. But this horrendous beard-stroking self-serving sex criminal needs to piss off and hang his head in shame, preferably somewhere none of us ever have to look at his stupid face ever again, forever.

I've finished the book. It is a remarkable read and a deeply fascinating insight into the messy, complex nature of humanity. It was a hard read but I'm very glad I read it.

I think we need it. God knows, we need something that opens up new avenues of discussion, given how prevalent sexual violence still is, after all these centuries of humankind walking the earth.

I agree.

Some of our beloved grandfathers were rapists in the war. Just think of that horror. Until men speak, nothing will change.

I was wondering if the very heinousness of the semantics of rape, like murder, is the reason ironically why there are so few rape prosecutions and convictions? If there were another description might it help?

He said in his mind he had not thought of himself as being a rapist. There was research in the USA which found that giving out a questionnaire to young men, but not using the word rape, they found a high proportion who indeed had raped, some several times; and others who had not raped yet but who said they would rape if they thought they would get away with it.

There is a very interesting interview with him in the Evening Standard. He talks about the term "rapist", describing it as a weaponised word. He says that to describe him as a rapist is factually correct but goes on to comment: "The semantics of it — it’s the grandest of sins. No one in their right mind would ever want to call themselves a rapist. I understand that. The discourse around that word almost isolates it. It is reductive to the point where it doesn’t get past the labelling. Being a rapist is unforgiveable — something beyond any kind of redemption or understanding."

I think it is actually a very powerful point to make - and we have seen it happen in the response to his presence in the talk. That as a rapist, he is, it seems, beyond redemption and rehabilitation in the eyes of many. There is nothing he can do to redress the balance.

Do I believe that some crimes are so heinous that the perpetrator is beyond redemption, forgiveness, rehabilitation, even if they are repentant, show remorse, take steps to try to atone for what they have done? That some people are not worth saving? It's an important question - not necessarily linked to Tom Stranger specifically but this case is making me reflect on that question generally.

It's so rare to hear a man holding himself to account for rape in the public sphere, and for that reason I think this project has an enormous power

I absolutely agree with this - and why I think the knee-jerk response to no-platform him was a short-sighted one.

Article here if you're interested.

I was wondering when a thread on this might pop up.

I heard them on women's hour. The interviewer asked him why had he raped the woman. I almost couldn't bear to listen to his answer. But in listening I realised how rare it is to hear the rapist's perspective. It doesn't in anyway minimise what he did, and he was careful not to seek to justify what he did, but I am grateful that at least one man can own This terrible act and speak openly about it.

When rape is reported we often hear about the woman - what she was doing, wearing, drinking, thinking. Rarely do we hear about the perpetrator and what was going through their mind. It was almost as if his world view allowed him to do what he did - the sense of entitlement - where did it come from? Will some men behave differently having heard the rapist say that limp argument out loud and realise how weak it is?

Painful stuff. But a valuable addition, in my view.

"I hope that by doing this I am enabling other men to own this experience" Tom

I thought this was a very powerful point (I may have paraphrased the WH interview but that's the gist of it).
While men continue to be able to maintain the cognitive dissonance that he quite eloquently describes, men will continue to permit themselves and each other to commit rape.
It's so rare to hear a man holding himself to account for rape in the public sphere, and for that reason I think this project has an enormous power.

There was a discussion with the two people involved on Woman's Hour this morning. It is the third item discussed, "South of Forgiveness".

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08hl5kh

TheOnlyLivingBoy i get what you are saying. It does need to be talked about. But i felt really uncomfortable watching the TED talk. It felt uncomfortably slick and staged and just wrong. I know that's only my reaction and feelings so it's interesting to read others views.

Quodlibet: I am half way through the book now and was wondering tbat very thing. He acknowledges that she is absolutely the driving force behind this. I would like to know what he really feels about what this has turned into.

I surprised myself by being angry that the talk was moved from its original WOW slot. I feel that the silencing of Thordis and how she chooses to tell her story is absolutely the wrong message for an event like that to be giving out. And the more I read on this story, the more I think we need it. God knows, we need something that opens up new avenues of discussion, given how prevalent sexual violence still is, after all these centuries of humankind walking the earth.

I have very complicated feelings about this too. I haven't read the whole book but read published extracts from it. I can understand and empathise with both the perspectives put forward and can also see the merit in opening up the conversation in the way that they have.
There's an interesting power dynamic at play now, though - the book and publicity tour have created quite a big media circus which she is in control of - I wonder if he wishes he could get off the merry go round yet?

Iceland? I reckon she's from Stockholm!

I've since read detail too that is much more unpleasant than the first articles I read. And describes a situation more grim than what I picked up from the TED talk.

They were due to talk at the WOW festival this weekend and have been moved to a new slot. The reason given was about reaching a wider audience (or similar). I hope there are good questions asked. I did not feel there was a powerful message from the TED talk. I do not feel what was presented fitted with his terrible actions.