Q, non binary male MEP says rape is a spectrum and has been demonised.

So another version of "she was asking for it, dressed like that", I guess.

@Kingdomofsleep ”It's right there when he implies that women can rape too.”

Yes it is. Rather than talk of the violation of
a woman’s body, he attempts to blur the fundamental questions of consent and perpetration with his implication that anyone can be a rapist. Biological sex cannot be erased from rape.

Violence against women and girls IS their priority.

Not reducing violence against women and girls.

Its a feature not a bug.

I think in his view, everyone is on the rapist-victim spectrum, everyone is a bit of both and so we can all jointly shoulder both the blame and the victimhood. I think that sums it all up really, this entire 2020s liberal zeitgeist.

In the meantime, we are like, er, no. We aren't all on the rapist spectrum, Manivannan, speak for yourself.

It should be added, his sympathy is always with the poor rapists who need to be rehabilitated, rather than with the rape victims.

I had to look it up, he's thirty years old!

He also has a case of the Nibletts i.e. addicted to attention especially if it’s for doing/saying something transgressive. Cos those two are all about irritating ‘the Squares’. Very adolescent mindset 🙄

She said worse things arguably, like about rape not always being "scary". I think he took her cues and ran with them.

But she's not an elected representative so she can be as bonkers as she likes.

I think what is just as bad as what he said was the woman nodding agreeing with him

I agree with this. I think that we need to recognise that all of these seemingly bonkers statements and performances by these people are actually a calculated attack on boundaries in the name of a political theory of power structures that, in reality, is a predator's wet dream.

Spag edit

He talks about rape as though it's the kind of crime that anyone can fall into when they may be going through a tough time

Yes it did sound like "hey if rape were a crime we'd all be guilty, right guys? Eh?"

Yuck. As if we needed more reasons not to vote Green

What he said is all in keeping with the general ideology of "queering". This is where categories are blurred with the (either intended or unintended) effect that harmful or dangerous things/people are tolerated more, and harmless or trustworthy things/people are lumped in with them to take a share of the blame.

It's right there when he implies that women can rape too.

He literally says that rape should be contextualised, that there are various forms of consent, that rape has been demonised, and we shouldn't think of rapists as monsters. He didn't say anything about brothers and fathers at this point.

I couldn't watch all 50 minutes of it, but I watched the section where he talks about rape and didn't hear what you wrote. Pehaps you could give a time stamp for that. It sounds like absolute rubbish.

He says that any individual can be a rapist and says "including yourself" to the female interviewer.

His point doesn't appear to be that by demonising rape we are overlooking family members who could be rapists (as though there is nothing demonic about child sexual abuse, which is what that would most likely be). What he is arguing is that demonising rape means we are not allowing for the possiblity of the rehabilitation of rapists. He talks about rape as though it's the kind of crime that anyone can fall into when they may be going through a tough time, like getting into trouble with the police when you're an alienated teenager or stealing if you're poor. Or "she said no but I could tell she really meant yes".

Only a man would come out with such rubbish and be so obtuse as to women's concerns about rape and rapists.

He's not multiple people, he's just one man. There is no 'they'

They said that rape is committed by all kinds of men, noting how often fathers, brothers and other relatives harm women.

Their point was that portraying rapists as aberrant demons helps these ordinary men to quietly carry on abusing undetected. Society needs to recognise that no one looks like a rapist, and there are no clues in their appearance or identity.

I think he really ought to be laying out a full and detailed explanation of his comments. Because a lawmaker using these arguments is quite unsettling.

Is my understanding that rape is purely penetration without consent.

I imagine he sees verbally coercive rape as less rape than physically violent rape. It isn't.

And yes, fucking irritating having a man explain the definition of rape. One wonders why he wants to minimise it. Sorry, 'demonise' it less.

Because yes, as a PP says, the word demonise gave the game away.

It's not that they don't do any due diligence. It's that they specifically choose these people. Creeps flock together for safety in numbers

The interviewer sounds as bonkers. She says rape isn't always "scary" and he just agrees and runs with it.

I miss the good old days when only established media sources had a mouthpiece... what even is "The SubjectiveSpace Podcast"?! Who are these people!

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/comment/q-manivannan-full-comments-even-37528710

There's a transcript here.

I'm struggling to understand why he even raised the subject of rape and rapists in this context.

Here's the relevant section from the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009:

(4) In this Act—

• “penis” includes a surgically constructed penis if it forms part of A, having been created in the course of surgical treatment, and

• “vagina” includes—

(a) the vulva, and

(b) a surgically constructed vagina (together with any surgically constructed vulva), if it forms part of B, having been created in the course of such treatment.

Yes, quite.
Only people with a penis can commit rape, although the penis may be surgically constructed.
I’m quoting the law in Scotland because he’s a member of the Scottish Green Party. (It’s similar in England and Wales although the legislation.gov.uk link I found didn’t mention the surgical construction part)

Does he think that people without a penis are non-persons, or aren’t worthy of consideration?

The section about him claiming a lower-caste background reminds me in a very small way of someone else claiming things about his childhood where the evidence doesn’t seem to support it.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/section/1

But he doesn't care about that. Or anything, except self-publicity, it seems.

It's interesting, having watched the clip from the podcast, how he centres the rapist rather than their victim, and seeks to make the rapist relatable and sympathetic, while the victim is practically erased.

People, like him, talk about trying to get rid of the 'myth of the monster rapist', but what they don't seem to understand what the issue with that myth actually is. It's not that genuinely nice, decent men can – whoops! – accidentally engage in a little light rape, it's that rapists are very good at appearing nice, charming, and normal to others, so they don't appear to be monsters.