Nick Ross on rape - warning you may feel the need to punch a wall

[DuelingFanjo]

sorry it's a daily mail link.

I am full of rage, particularly his comments on aggravated rape. Wtf. Presumably he means that there are situations in which he will not be able to stop himself from raping someone because it is aggravated. This has made me so angry. Please they'll me he no longer works for the BBC. I truly hope he loses his career over this. How the hell are we supposed to educate people who think like this?

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

Sure edam - I agree it is just a normal way to behave.
But I guess I just do feel fortunate that the men I've had relationships with have all had that decent level of respect.
Some of them have been good or even lovely men too.

I agree that it's a sad world when you can't take that basic level of respect for granted.

[limitedperiodonly]

But they are. Someone might partake of a money-making scheme and someone else might be defrauding them, or not, which is the essence of a fraud trial.

Similarly, someone might say they lent someone money out of altruism or for interest, not realising it wouldn't be repaid and the recipient might say it was intended as a gift.

I could go though the others, but you get my drift that most crimes have complicated aspects but people don't see that as an impediment to thrashing them out in court.

[chandellina]

Limited, no one or no one sane would engage in being on the other side of fraud while two people may well engage in sexual activity that unfortunately can result in rape.

[limitedperiodonly]

Fraud victims don't realise they are being used in an illegal activity and participate because they think they have something to gain, which turns out not to be the case. That's how it works.

We may even believe victims of fraud are greedy or foolish, but we still have little difficulty understanding that a crime has been committed against them, much like the theft analogy I gave you.

[limitedperiodonly]

I'm not wishing to equate crimes against the person with crimes against property. Merely to point out that most crimes involve complicated motives and emotions and yet people have little difficulty working out where the blame lies.

[chandellina]

Ok, I get your points and I think the law can find some of those scenarios difficult as well, which was kind of what I was trying to say.

Someone earlier wrote a spoof about how men getting mugged shouldn't be blamed if they were drunk, but actually I think people should always be careful about their capacity to protect themselves from harm. I have a friend who has been mugged three times after falling asleep drunk on the tube - not his fault per se but not great.

[IfNotNowThenWhen]

But chandellina, that is to suppose that men, faced with revealing clothing, or a snog session that the woman decides to put a stop to, do not know when they are required to stop. But they do, they always do. Let's not believe that men are dense and can't gauge what is sex and what is rape. They can. They all can, as can we.

[limitedperiodonly]

No, I probably wouldn't do what your friend did, just as I wouldn't leave my phone on the table in a pub. But if I did, though a jury might think I was foolish, they would have no difficulty convicting the thief.

I don't think all men charged with rape should be convicted. I think people should apply the evidence, rather than their prejudice.

[DuelingFanjo]

I would say that being mugged just isn't the same as having someone force their penis into your vagina but maybe that's just me being weird.

[bumbleymummy]

Limitedperiod, if a jury even thought that it was foolish for you to leave your phone on the table would that be victim blaming? If you accuse someone of stealing your phone but there is no proof that they did and they say that they didn't it would be quite difficult to convict them. They wouldn't just take your word for it.

[CoalDustWoman]

Enthusiastic consent is not a difficult concept. If one goes through life bearing in mind that anything less than enthusiastic consent is to be gained before proceeding, so much trauma would be avoided. Whether on a minor scale like a partner not wanting to clean up after themselves or go to a National Trust place for a Bank Holiday trip and therefore realising that it is not a good fit for you relationship-wise (because if you are forcing someone to do something they don't want, then that's not good) or a major scale like using someone's body for your own gratification.

It's not difficult. Why do people make out like it is?

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

Great point CoalDust - though your second sentence doesn't quite read right, but we know what you mean
However I think it's fair enough to ask someone to tidy up or go on a family outing or say, visit rellies occasionally - but sure you should pay attention to the response you're getting and be prepared to negotiate and talk.

[whiteandyellowiris]

I'm really shocked at his hideous views. I hope I never see him on the BBC ever again

[TolliverGroat]

Yeah, but if you accuse someone of stealing your phone it's clear that they took your phone and their their sole defence was that they thought you wanted them to take it because you'd left it out in plain view and hadn't announced loudly in advance advance ii front of witnesses that they could'nt take it then it would be quite easy to convict them.

When it comes to property offences no one seems to have a problem with the idea that the default position is that a property owner is NOT just giving you permission to help yourself to their stuff. It's only in rape and sexual offences that there appears to be a pervasive attitude that a woman is by default up for groping/sex unless she takes the initiative to make it absolutely and forcefully clear that she isn't.

[BasilBabyEater]

Quite, TG.

There isn't a pervasive assumption that most people who claim their mobile phone was nicked, are pathological liars so immoral that they would actually risk causing innocent person to be unjustly sent to prison.

Whereas people assume that about rape victims all the time

[Darkesteyes]

Fern Britton talks about the time she was raped and the Nick Ross book.
it is a DM link.


www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334474/I-raped-I-21-I-tell-Nick-Ross--unwanted-sex-violation-says-FERN-BRITTON-hits-Crimewatch-founders-book.html

[picklepen]

Hey, I'm with Jacks. I spent 30 years thinking my assault was my fault. It took councelling to realise that it wasn't. I don't think Nick is right in using that as an argument- because I think the victim's attitude is due to the shaming nature of rape. But I can see why he does...

Found the article really hard to read though. I guess every problem has an easy solution the further you are away from it. He would feel differently if someone he knew had been assaulted and he could hear them say "I just feel so stupid... should never have done that... Should have turned back..."
It's the only way to realise that the victim has had her mind F*d at the same time.

[picklepen]

OOps, missed the last pages in the thread...

[squoosh]

From his latest article

'We are supposed to say that all rape amounts to the same thing, that nothing a woman does could make her vulnerable, and it is always the man?s fault.

Has he learnt nothing?? Making oneself vulnerable does not mean blame should be apportioned to the victim you fool.

For example, this email came from a woman who deeply resents ?the madness? and ?the rants? that drown out voices like her own: ?I was raped twice in my teens. Neither were traumatic experiences. I didn?t feel great about myself afterwards but I put myself in situations where there would certainly have been confusion/ambiguity on the man?s part. It was to do with my generally low self-esteem at the time, but that was my problem, and not theirs.?

And once again he Nick Ross proves he is a victim blamer.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

I think that email from the woman raped twice in her teens is very sad.
She says she had low self-esteem at the time. I'm not sure it's so very great now - possibly being raped twice as a teenager didn't improve things for her self-esteem wise. Nick should be ashamed of himself for using such a statement to support his ill thought out and misogynistic arguments.
Just because he can find a woman from the very many who have suffered rape who questions whether her own actions have in any way contributed to her awful experiences doesn't mean he should use them to compile a rape apologist book (if that's the right phrase)

For heavens sake she says "But that was my problem and not theirs"

[limitedperiodonly]

bumbleymummy Yes, it is victim-blaming. All you have to do is decide whether a crime, any crime, has been committed against someone. What you'd do in the victim's shoes is irrelevant.

It's so simple I don't know some people have such difficulty understanding it. Perhaps they're stupid.

[BasilBabyEater]

Rape victims blame themselves.

So Nick Ross uses an e-mail from a rape victim to prove it's all right to blame them and encourage them to blame themselves.

How despicable is he determined to prove he is?

Why has he got such investment in rape apology?

[FreudiansSlipper]

Going out to prove his point oh my how low can he get

Is he trying now to say to be raped is not so bad or once again these grey areas where men have no responsible for their actions as they are so sexually charged up they lose all awareness of other peoples feelings

we as a society really need to rid this notion that men just can not help themselves when it comes to sex, that they have to have it can not function without it or if it is offered they will always take up the offer. I beleive that if we did not have this attitude the sex industry would not be what it is as society accepts that men have these needs sorry gone off on a rant

[bumbleymummy]

"All you have to do is decide whether a crime, any crime, has been committed against someone. "

Well, yes, if something is stolen, if someone is assaulted, it may be quite easy to find evidence and convict someone. What if you don't have evidence beyond one person saying - they stole my /hit me etc and the other person says, "no, I didn't".

My question about the victim blaming was simply because you seemed quite accepting of the idea that someone may think you were foolish for leaving your phone lying around even though that would be considered victim blaming.

As far as some of the other comments about the article go, I certainly haven't read/interpreted them in the same way. Eg, I don't think he's encouraging people to blame themselves.

[DizzyZebra]

Was it him they were talking about on Jimmy cards news thing when one of them said "and if we can't trust the views on feminism of a man who can't enter the USA for fear of being arrested for rape, who can we trust?" Or was that someone else?