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.

You were saying the evidence provided is enough. What evidence? No independent person has seen it or been able to challenge it or offered any context to it. That's what defence lawyers would do, that's why they are essential.

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.

Fair play, we've only heard one side of the story. And in a trial you'd hear two sides obviously. I think that's what you're getting at.

You can't deny it's not looking good for him though. To be dismissing the journalism as some simply some sort of scoop hunting, dirt digging exercise is pretty much on the same wave length as RB himself and his talk of a media conspiracy.

But for one bloke I'd say 4 isn't a small number anyway. I'd say it's a lot.

That's literally exactly what I'm getting at thank you.
And no I agree it doesn't look good.

Journalists are paid to find stories that sell papers, they generally don't do it for the greater good unfortunately, and have done many very dodgy things in the past, so yes i would want to hear the other side before forming an opinion.

And the conspiracy thing I had completely disregarded as nonsense until I saw that the government are getting involved in the cancelling, which is very very odd to say the least.
I actually can't keep up with the responses and have to go, so I'll bow out for now.

As I've said..at least one of the journalists have been exposed for previous wrongful reporting after an investigation, they were sued for this & actually ruined someone's life.
Journalists are ALWAYS just after the scoop, & this has a big fat paypacket attached.

It's also only been 'investigated' & instigated by journalists. It's not anything to do with justice or what happened actually.

And for the record yes I know of someone who sent a man to prison claiming he'd raped her, she said she lied yet it went through court. It happens let's not pretend it doesn't.

And the conspiracy thing I had completely disregarded as nonsense until I saw that the government are getting involved in the cancelling, which is very very odd to say the least.
Oh good grief

Already been posted on this thread and others, and is pretty damning in the case of Nadia especially.

There's enough credible evidence out there to form an opinion, which you seem to take great exception to. We can also see what kind of person he is, and the things he admitted to either in interviews, in texts, or as part of his shows. Some of his behaviour towards women on live TV constitutes sexual harassment. You'd know this if you'd watched the documentary.

Luis Rubiales maintains his innocence and hasn't been convicted by a court, but we literally saw him sexually assault Jenni Hermoso on TV. Are we not allowed form an opinion on that either?

As I've said..at least one of the journalists have been exposed for previous wrongful reporting after an investigation, they were sued for this & actually ruined someone's life.
Journalists are ALWAYS just after the scoop, & this has a big fat paypacket attached.

They are not "just" after the scoop. There are a lot of shite ones granted. Do you actually know any?
*
It's also only been 'investigated' & instigated by journalists. It's not anything to do with justice or what happened actually.*

So far it's only been investigated by journalists. So what? Lots of stuff starts that way. It's not instigated by journalists. It's kind of instigated by RB behaviour.

Of course it's " to do" with what happened.
*
And for the record yes I know of someone who sent a man to prison claiming he'd raped her, she said she lied yet it went through court. It happens let's not pretend it doesn't.*

Yep. and men rape and abuse women. Celebs included let's not pretend it doesn't happen.

Luis Rubiales maintains his innocence and hasn't been convicted by a court, but we literally saw him sexually assault Jenni Hermoso on TV. Are we not allowed form an opinion on that either?

apparently the awful behaviour of men like this doesn’t count unless it’s been to court. That is the only way anyone can ever judge if someone’s behaviour is out of line.

As I've said..at least one of the journalists have been exposed for previous wrongful reporting after an investigation, they were sued for this & actually ruined someone's life.
Journalists are ALWAYS just after the scoop, & this has a big fat pay packet attached.

They are not "just" after the scoop. There are a lot of shite ones granted. Do you actually know any?

It's also only been 'investigated' & instigated by journalists. It's not anything to do with justice or what happened actually.

So far it's only been investigated by journalists. So what? Lots of stuff starts that way. It's not instigated by journalists. It's kind of instigated by RB behaviour.

Of course it's " to do" with what happened.

And for the record yes I know of someone who sent a man to prison claiming he'd raped her, she said she lied yet it went through court. It happens let's not pretend it doesn't.

Yep. and men rape and abuse women. Celebs included let's not pretend it doesn't happen

Then you have no idea how rapists, predators and serious sexual offenders operate. You seriously don't. That's fortunate for you.

It's an oddity that the default position is the woman must be lying, whereas the statistics of men who rape far, far outweigh those of women who lie about having been raped.

And that's bearing in mind the de facto legality of a loathesome crime and the fact that so many instances of it go unreported in the first place.

You might want to examine your motives for suggesting this is the case. Whilst you're at it, you could question why social conditioning automatically blames women for male behaviour, including placing full responsibility on them far too often for their own abuse and assault.

No idea where some MN posters are coming from these days. But I can guess.

Do you still fancy RB OP?

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.

What men are?

Ah, they're the borg. Thanks for letting me know.

Anyway he's too effeminate, metrosexual, fey etc. for me.

And his face is kinda child like or feminine.

And as someone said he's got a mouth like a sea creature or something.

Nor do I find whatever east end/essex-y type thing he's got going on with his accent attractive; comical but not attractive.

Don't like his build either. Too thin/skinny/rangy.

He's too rapey for me.

No not really. It's a simple numbers game. Slept with 2000 women, just one accuses him of rape.
Yet the other 1999 don't.
I'd expect there to be more accusations.

If he'd only slept with 10 women I wouldn't take this stance but it's 2000 so I do.
You don't need to educate me on this.

The odds very much suggest he's innocent.

The odds very much suggest he's innocent.

Wow.

You don't need to educate me on this.

Of course not. It would be a waste of good typeface. I can, however, easily point out that you're talking a crock of old bollocks.

You're welcome.

Mother of Jesus...

There were four women in the documentary. We know one more has come forward since. Its not only one woman out of 2000 accusing him of sexual assault, coercion, attempted rape and/or rape. There is detailed testimony in public now for four. The journalists may have had others whose testimony they didn't include. We know rape is a hugely under-reported crime so of the 2000, there would be more who didn't report it - some probably never will, others might speak up now they know there is support and that there are other victims. Who knows how many we might end up with? But it's absolutely wrong to say only one woman has made allegations against him, and even more wrong to assume that for every victim that does report there aren't many who don't. We know most victims don't report.

Feels relevant to the '2000 women' discourse:

Well hard as it is then, and I do appreciate it's hard, if he's harmed anyone else they need to come forward, don't they?
Add more weight to the accusations because where I'm standing that's a very small number out of 2000.

Excellent point, @YearsOfTakingDownOurBanners - it is always, always used against women.

Four women, giving independent accounts of the violence he inflicted on them is extremely compelling.

You're confusing rape and sex. Rapists might have consensual sex with a number of women. Rapists might have previously had consensual sex with women they go on to rape. The number of women he's had consensual sex with isn't really relevant to whether or not he, on other occasions, raped and sexually assaulted women. Sexual violence is an act of dominance, control, degradation and power. Sexually violent men don't exclusively have violent and coerced sex. The point is not that they always or only do it, but that they do it when they want to.

Your argument suggests that men rape if they can't get other sex, or they don like other sex. That not the case.

He could have sex with 5000 women and still decide to rape or assault one. And if he did, he'd still be a rapist.

Someone who shoplifts a lipstick could argue that they've been in a thousand shops and always paid for their goods. But they still might decide to steal one day (and not necessarily out of desperation - rich people steal, remember Winona Ryder? Sometimes it's for the thrill, a compulsion, just because they want to do it).

The rest of his sex life doesn't matter here. Your argument is nonsense.

I truly hope you don't have daughters @Poptones. Or sons for that matter, I dread to think what kind of example you're setting for them.

Add more weight to the accusations because where I'm standing that's a very small number out of 2000.

I think I'm struggling with why 4 accusations says " the numbers suggest he is innocent ".

I reckon there's probably more given what is known about the reporting of these cases but that aside

What do you know about this type of sexual offender that says it would be more? Why should it be? Does he have to be

worse to make it likely?

Is it only a reasonable bet ( and that's what you're doing, if it was over 20 say ? ) I'm struggling with why this isn't bad enough I suppose.

@Poptones