I still fancy RB

[WesterChick]

I've watched the documentary.

I still fancy RB.

I identify as a radical feminist.

I'm married with kids.

I think that if you are a heterosexual woman, you are either in denial on what men are or you accept what they are but find them irresistibly sexually attractive and so continue to be with them.

RB is simply what the vast majority of men would be like if they could get away with it.

Therefore - and because he's bloody good looking, funny and intelligent - and sexy - I will continue to fancy the pants off him.

I think women who are being all shocked and descusted at his behaviour need to consider what men are actually like. There's not some massive demarcation between him and other men.

I honestly dont deny that many won't come forward, but a 4 year investigation is a very long period of digging up dirt on someone.
What I really objected to wasn't the fair reporting of women's cases, but the fact they interspersed it with clips from comedy shows and interviews. Behaviour that they literally financially benefited from at the time, they are now using against him to financially benefit from again, even though at the time noone stopped him.
I honestly don't condone his behaviour and I find some of the comedy clips repulsive and sickening, but people paid to see him and it was in the public domain and noone questioned it. It says a lot about the culture of the time.

Here you go.

He can't monetise his content, that is the same as silencing someone. If he makes further content, all he will be doing is drawing people to youtube and making money for the very people that are trying to cancel him.

honestly dont deny that many won't come forward, but a 4 year investigation is a very long period of digging up dirt on someone.

It's not just about "digging up dirt , " that's another airy dismissal. It's about checking and verifying and making sure sources and facts are accurate. RB is famously litigious and journalists taking time to be correct in what they put out is hardly a criticism.

It kind of begs the question, would it better if it was done quickly?

What I really objected to wasn't the fair reporting of women's cases, but the fact they interspersed it with clips from comedy shows and interviews. Behaviour that they literally financially benefited from at the time, they are now using against him to financially benefit from again, even though at the time noone stopped him.

The TV hierarchy have a lot to answer for in all this.

I honestly don't condone his behaviour and I find some of the comedy clips repulsive and sickening, but people paid to see him and it was in the public domain and noone questioned it. It says a lot about the culture of the time.

It really does! It's quite shocking seeing some of the clips.

An allegedly he was just like he appeared on stage. In fairness he didn't hide it.

By requesting all media outlets to stop him monetising his content, it's as close as we can get to banning free speech of those we disagree with, without banning free speech.
I previously assumed it was the broadcaster's/media outlets themselves that wouldn't want to be associated with his content which leads to 'cancelling'.
But actually the government gets involved which is news to me that I've only discovered today and really creeps me out.

And one consequence of the investigation is that people are talking about that culture, which is such an important conversation to have. A reckoning is taking place that goes beyond Brand, but has been sparked by the revelations about him. Here, the media is functioning as it should - shining a light on the widespread, pernicious effect of misogyny and the ways in which it manifests.

But you still arguing that it's a small number of women coming forward compared to women he's had sex with. So again, the graphic which has helpfully been posted - the vast majority of victims do not come forward. Also, the journalists have explained they had testimony from more women which didn't meet the same bar as the four they included. So still more of this supposed 2000 have similar things to say about his behaviour.

I agree with a lot of what you just posted, and very much agree that shining a light is important, but I think reporting should aim to be less biased. I am very opposed to cancel culture, silencing voices and calling someone a rapist and the destruction of someone's career without a fair trial.

I have no idea the source of that graph, but I work in data so am always suspicious of any chart. From what I can see that chart is utterly incorrect, what is the source please?
From what I can see, and studies available online, (of course all vary as stats always do depending on the study) approximately 5 out of 6 rapes go unreported. Other studies show it's closer to 2 thirds that go unreported, wildly different to that graph.

Source of the graph is given along the bottom of the image. You might need to click on it to see it.

The source is at the bottom of the chart. Not got much of an eye for detail have you?

Gullible? Based on your subsequent posts on here, that's a definite case of the pot calling the kettle black.

So what if your friend/ colleague/ acquaintance dated him and didn't have an issue? Do you think rapists rape every single woman they've ever had any sort of relationship with?

If another 100 women were to come forward, you'd say "what about the 1900?" 🙄

Also, to reiterate, it's not about blind belief, there is evidence.

One of the journalists who worked on the story said there were other women who came forward, but there's a very high bar for which allegations get published. So there are more than four, but those four are the ones they feel confident in publishing as there is sufficient evidence to support them.

1999 women not coming forward isn't the same as 1999 women saying he treated them appropriately.

It's also possible to treat 2 women identically and each of them to feel differently about it. It doesn't make the one that goes to the police or makes an accusation a liar or wrong to do so

The vast majority of women I know, who have been treated in a way that they (not me, although I don't disagree) feel warrant criminal charges did not feel up to doing it. I saw and heard enough to be 100% certain of guilt in two of those incidents.

I don't know if RB is guilty. However I am not convinced that a man who strips to his underwear or embraces a women tightly, oblivious to her obvious discomfort, has a good grasp of what consent means. Obviously neither of those acts are, necessarily criminal nor are they evidence of guilt on their own, it just makes me doubt. Other incidents from the documentary have the same effect.

This is why it upsets me to see people quick to dismiss or excuse what's happened. The media absolutely have questions to answer, what they allowed to be on TV has encouraged and normalised a lot of abuse and violence, we'll never see or hear the stories of those women

You need to raise your bar and meet better men.
They are NOT all ASPIRING Russel Brands. And they certainly don't want to be him.
Good grief, do you socialise in a sewer?

She could have gone to a crisis centre because she wanted to get tested, we don't know exactly what therapy she had after, or the details of that.

Yes, she might have just gone there because she heard the coffee was good. Jesus wept. For someone posting so voluminously on this topic, you've not actually read the allegations, have you.

I've always found him creepy and disgusting

I think attraction is attraction, lots of people are attracted to people others aren’t. You find RB handsome and whatever else you said. Plenty of others always found him scraggy looking with an annoying voice, a pretentious air masking relative stupidity, unfunny, horrible dress sense and weasel-y little features with a grubby aura WAY before all of these accusations came to light, and would never have touched him with a barge pole.

Im one of those and am a heterosexual woman who has a penchant for odd men, so is that my biology?

It’s insane to claim that women are biologically attracted to men whatever they do. I’ve had sexual attractions to more than one man that quickly faded when they proved themselves to be a fucking idiot.

Just like I disagree vehemently with the idea that all PIV is rape (taking away agency) I also vehemently disagree with the idea that biology causes attraction to someone who is a predator or at the least a slimy overly promiscuous addicted fuckwit. You do yourself and women (and men!) down with this idea.

That's just unnecessarily rude. I was looking at it on my phone and don't have my glasses so no I didnt notice the tiny detail at the bottom.
Regardless, a quick Google shows this graph has been widely criticized, was exaggerated with manipulated stats and is out of date.
Look, the message is the same, the majority of rapes go unreported, most women don't come forward, fine everyone knows that, noone is debating that.
I'm not going to rehash everything I've already said, it doesn't change the fact there were a small number of people, and we haven't heard the other side. I'll withhold judgement for a trial.

Yes I have, I've watched the programme, I've read the allegations. The text messages weren't conclusive. I said she might have gone there to get tested for STDs. Maybe she got really drunk and felt taken advantage of. She used the term taken advantage of in her text. As I said again and again and again, we don't really know, as we only have snippets.

Ok so would you advocate for trials without defense lawyers?
If the CPS have enough evidence, then they can prosecute without defense. It would save a lot of money on legal aid. Evidence is evidence right?

If not why not?

The Times have said they have seen her medical records from the Rape Crisis Centre where she went for treatment the following day, and they support her claims.

You are bending over backwards in a really unattractive way to diminish the reports of the women who have so far come forward. "Maybe this, maybe that..." It's offensive.

It's not offensive, it's called debate, and if you don't like it feel free to skip over my posts.
I have said there is a question over whether he is guilty because he hasn't been tried in court and hasn't been able to defend himself against the allegations, I haven't said they are categorically lying, just that the evidence isnt conclusive, and hasn't yet been challenged.
Feel free to start a thread where everyone can only post if they agree with you.

What on earth are you talking about?

I can fully understand why someone would give short shrift to a rape apologist. Crying about rudeness when you're tieing yourself in knots to defend an abuser is something.

You know what I'm talking about and if you don't there's no point taking about it with you.

How childish.

Debate this:

"Nadia, meanwhile, had told a close friend what had happened and she took her to the Rape Treatment Center (RTC) at UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center that same day.

She has shared a full copy of her treatment records, which state that she provided her underwear and other samples as evidence, which were frozen. An officer from the Los Angeles Police Department was alerted by the centre, according to the notes, but she chose not to make a police report — saying to the centre she “didn’t think my words would mean anything up against his”. The notes also state that “she was worried that, if her assailant’s name is somehow released, then her name will be dragged through the dirt”.

Nadia had therapy at the clinic for the following five months. During her therapy sessions, records show that Nadia was contemplating criminal or civil proceedings before ultimately deciding against it. "

You're insinuating that I think defense lawyers should be done away with, which is odd considering I never said anything of the sort.

You're just spouting nonsense at this point.