AIBU to think this is a vile, victim blaming, mysoginistic article?

[QueenArseClangers]

I know it's Daily Fail shite but they've really outdone themselves this time:

JM seems to have problems with women and gay men people being free to enjoy fun, consensual sex. If you don't conform to her rules then you can't complain if you are assaulted or die.

. He was very drunk, blind drunk.

so he was raped? too drunk to consent means rape right?
at least it does when a woman is drunk

Note the carefully chosen photographs too, all staid, sensible and dashing 'nice boy' compared with flesh flashing 'hussy' woman!

I literally can't comprehend why women read the Mail - it clearly hates them and tells them regularly how they are getting it all wrong / fucking up their kids / driving their husbands to have an affair etch etc etc... and yet it has a v high female readership

Just about to say the same swig

I don't understand what she didn't consent to tho? Or was she unhappy she bruised? On the face of it it does seem a strange conviction

The woman's statement to court says, quote, "he was very drunk, blind drunk".
Isn't 'blind drunk' classed as beyond the point of being able to give willing consent?
If it was the woman who was " blind drunk" while he was having sex with her, he could quite possibly be looking at a rape charge. Instead, HE is the one with criminal charges brought against him.

What happened to Equal Rights for both sexes?

Jan Moir's one of the nastier Daily Mail types, and that's saying something. BUT! This article does raise an important issue that should be talked about more: Whip-shaped eclairs? How do you bake an eclair that looks like a whip?

It's time that MN had a separate section for discussions about the Mail, so that we don't have to keep finding quotations and links from it in AIBU or Chat.

It would need a suitable name, perhaps "Heap of Stinking Shit"

Disgusting article.

But I do now really fancy an eclair.

"I worry that the mania for feminising the law — for whittling and shaping it to suit the concerns of noisy pressure groups — is resulting in skewing justice too far in the other direction."

That took my breath away a bit. I hadn't noticed a mania for feminising the law until Moir was good enough to point it out. I wonder what other examples she has in mind.

Telegraph:

""She realised he was drunk and kept laughing for no reason and she described herself as tipsy.
"She hugged him, he picked her up, she hit her head on the kitchen door but accepted that was an accident.
"They went to the bedroom and she was happy for sexual activity to happen and lay down on the bed.
"He took a cover off his broken leg and threw it towards her - it hit her on the nose but she believed that was accidental too."
They kissed on the bed, took their clothes off and the prosecutor said the complainant consented to what occurred.
He started to bite her neck which hurt her and she told him to stop - but he continued to bite her.
"It carried on for a long time and she did not recall how many times he bit her," Mrs Jackson said.
He started to pull her hair, she believed he knew he was hurting her, and she became tearful fearing she would be injured.
She accepted that she could have left at any time but was scared that if she did he might have got angry.
It was then alleged that he took hold of her by the neck and was choking her.
"He said he thought she was enjoying it, she was moaning, and also biting him"
The prosecutor
She could not get him off her, said no and began to cough, and he let her go - but laughed as if it was a joke.
The prosecutor said that the woman now wanted to go to sleep but he continued pulling her hair and biting her, but there was no blood.
Upset, she went into the bathroom and cried, he said he did not mean to hurt her and they hugged.
He suggested that they go back to bed to go to sleep but once in bed he bit her to the leg and bum, leaving a mark.
To stop him she wrapped herself in the bed cover and he started to watch a film on his laptop.
When he slept she called a taxi at 4.15am and left 15 minutes later.
She was upset at what had happened and was crying and reported the matter to the police."

I have now read three people on MN who say he should not have been prosecuted for anything and she should be in prison for rape.

It is very hard to get a conviction for a crime of this nature - this went to court and he was found guilty meaning that the police, the CPS, the jury all believed he had a case to answer, for which he was eventually found guilty.

Yet there are people who say well no, that's all beside the point, she raped him and she should be locked up (on the basis that it was by definition rape of her by him and that's the end of it).

Is it any wonder we have such problems here? When even men who have been found guilty have people so keen to say no no he did nothing wrong and even a step further she should be in prison.

I find it a bit boggling and is it any wonder most victims of sexual offences never tell anyone.

link telegraph

His comments

"Arrested and interviewed, he confirmed that they had been in an eight-month relationship but they had not seen each other for six months.
That night he had seven pints at a wedding but was not drunk.
• Painful passion: thousands nursing secret sex injuries
He believed that she consented to what was taking place and told how they had a physical sexual relationship, not an emotional one.
They had rough sex which he said involved biting and pulling hair between the two of them.
He had thrown his leg cover at her and expected her to catch it. He never meant it to hurt her.
They stripped and he bit her on the neck to turn her on, not to hurt her.
He denied biting her hard and said it was more of a nibble.
It was no more rough than normal - he was not out of control, he said.
"He said he thought she was enjoying it, she was moaning, and also biting him," the prosecutor explained.
The defendant showed scratches and bruises he had near his belly.
He agreed that he had pulled her hair and shaken her head from left to right but said he was not trying to hurt her.
She also pulled his hair, he said.
He had one hand on her neck, but did not choke her, and he said he did not recall her coughing.
She had not said anything to him and appeared happy, he claimed.
They hugged in the bathroom where she had been crying and they went back to bed - he agreed that he bit her on the bum saying he was trying to cheer her up.
But shown a photograph of the mark that was left, he said "bloody hell".
He said he did not think he had bitten her hard and had not intended to hurt her.
The defendant claimed that it had been a consentual injury during a sex session but he was convicted by magistrates.
In a victim impact statement, she said that she had since had trouble sleeping, she replayed the events in her mind, and had questioned her own actions, whether she had done something wrong."

So, she started crying because he had hurt her and been too rough and his response was to bite her even harder to 'cheer her up'? Up until that point it could have been argued that he genuinely thought all he did was consensual but biting someone hard enough to leave big dark bruises because she's upset at you having bitten her too hard and choked her...

I thought any sane person would be outraged by the article but all the misogynists(and there seem to be a lot of them, terrifyingly) were out in force in the comments section (as ever, as ever, I know) Every one of them agreeing that we're going to hell in a handcar now that the 'Marxist feminist' agenda was leading to convictions like this. Was all about the poor, POOR confused menz.

Funny when every well-adjusted bloke I spoke to about it was sickened at what happened to that woman

Those would be the same sort of people who for years said that you couldn't rape your wife.