Q Mannivan “rape is a spectrum”

[Helpmaboa]

Has anyone else seen this? I didn’t believe it could be true, even for the Greens, so searched for it, and lo and behold it seems to be an actual interview

A video interview from YouTube last year

There are also comments about “different modes of consent”

Surely this is now too much? If it’s true

https://x.com/joelandland/status/2086060973807255786?s=46&t=9nUj9BEk_qVJghGVBCwIRQ

We have long since dredged the bottom of the barrel with the scummy SNP / Green MSPs. Absolutely nothing they do surprises me these days. These people are gutter life , disgusting gutter life.

Everything for the last God knows how many years has been too much but it's always superseded. Every time you think you've heard it all now they come out with something else. And people still vote for them, still cheer them on, still excuse them. What will it take?

I’ve not heard the full interview here but really hope everyone actually sees the statement in context before jumping in to the ragebait.

From the clip I heard he was talking about people’s reaction to rape being on a spectrum, where they are more likely to be animated/horrified by the image of the ‘monster’ attacker rather than the reality that most offences take place in marriages/relationships and most often don’t get the same sympathy/reaction.

Don’t know where he was going with the point but we all know that’s true, most rapes in relationships don’t even get reported, let alone prosecuted and if they are very rarely get the press attention that a late-night attack in a lane does.

I’m not a fan of the Green Party and really don’t think he should have became an MSP but I don’t like the culture where if any politician speaks about an emotive subject some Trollfanny on Twitter takes a clip out of context to provoke rage and gain engagement.

Do we really want a country where our representatives are scared to open their mouths?

I have watched the whole interview and what they said was nonsensical and not in keeping with someone in government.

They were trying to be clever and deep, but the takeaway is very poor.

And actually, yes. I would like people to be scared to open their mouths rather than pontificate on a subject they shouldn’t

There's already a thread about this man's interview. Most comments are less than complimentary about his mansplaining. www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5564244-q-non-binary-male-mep-says-rape-is-a-spectrum-and-has-been-demonised?reply=154028087

If our MSP’s can’t talk about sexual violence openly then how are we going to improve the issue?

Are you really stating that males cannot have an opinion, or indeed a desire to take action to tackle sexual violence?

Whether you, or I, agree with his politics is irrelevant, he has been elected and is discussing an important issue.

Plus stating that people’s reactions, in fact societies reactions to sexual violence is not on an equilibrium isn’t even debatable, that is just a fact.

Probably a statement an experienced politician wouldn’t make as they know it would be misrepresented, but it is a fact nonetheless.

They are queer.

but they point is, they were talking bollocks and it’s sent a terrible message

You keep saying he’s talking, in your words, ‘bollocks’, but you’ve not supported that argument other than parroting a trolling headline.

I have to be honest and say I couldn't listen to all of it

But he really was talking bollocks

He was talking about how rapists are seen some kind of monster where is actually they just real people

Which we all know

I don't think there's any way to interpret it except it was rubbish and bought nothing real to the conversation and is of no help to victims

he wasn't really discussing an important issue he was just talking some theoretical academic nonsense that he seems to have dreamed up in his head

I think the issue is that posters like the OP that supported this guy have got so far down the woke rabbit hole they cannot take a step back and see how utterly abhorrent this guys comments are. Rape is never a spectrum. And no, the full context doesn’t make what he says any less disgusting. He needs to be deported - now.

I've listened to the interview. More rambling than coherent. There's a bit where he implies any of us could be guilty of rape in the right circumstances. He doesn't speak for me when saying that!
(I could use preferred pronouns out of politeness but given his comments I don't think that's required).

The OP was extremely critical of him, not sure why you would think they supported him?

I have listened to the full interview now, a lot of it is rambling but the bit that has been quoted is completely out of context.

He is talking about people’s perception/reaction about different scenarios where people have an idea of ‘monsters’ in their head who would commit stranger attacks when the culprits are more likely to be people who appear normal and are known to the victim.

Whether you may find this distasteful or not all crimes, including this one, are on a spectrum, that is why judges have a huge amount of variable sentences at their disposal.

A stranger who attacks a lone woman in a public place such as a park/city lane using physical force and threats of violence will be sentenced more harshly than a teenager who continued to have sex with his partner who withdrew consent during the act despite originally being a willing partner.

To be clear both acts are a violation, both acts are rape and both perpetrators deserve punishment for them, but legally there is a world of difference in premeditation, culpability and necessary public protection.

The public/press are also likely to perceive them differently.

I think he did go off course in the interview but he raised a few points that most politicians are too scared to raise, it’s only by having these difficult conversations that we will be able to progress.

Eh? Very much do not support this person

And the remarks were not out of context, I’ve listened to it all as I didn’t believe the headlines could be true, but they were. And the fact that this has now been roundly condemned by such a wide range of people shows why it’s so dangerous to witter shite in an effort to sound deep and intellectual about subjects that are in fact very clear cut

In what way though?

When I listened to it I got the impression he was talking about how people react to different types of crime and about potential for rehabilitation.

I agree some words were clumsy to say the least but I think a lot of the ragebait failed to mention the context.

He is queer.

Not “they are queer”.

Is there a transcript anywhere? I’d like to see what was said for whole interview to get the context. I too think it is fact that rape is on a spectrum. I don’t understand how it can’t be on a spectrum or how that can be conceived of as bollocks or whatever label people want to put on it.

I also think it’s disgusting to call for deportation of a legal immigrant who has made a home here in the UK, is an elected official, and is a contributing, tax paying member of British society merely because their views on a topic don’t match your own.

Did you scream for BoJo to be deported back to where he was born in NY when he was saying of the elderly dying in care homes from Covid in the thousands “Let the bodies pile high”? Why’s that? Is that not actually a disgusting callous thing to say? And did not BoJo make decisions that directly caused a lot of innocent people to die?

But no, deport the brown guy born in India because he is a he and has no right to parrot what most of we women already know to be true about rape. Nevermind that male rape is a thing, it’s not like he can’t ever be a victim of rape himself.

All rapists are monsters.

And men can fuck off with mansplaining about rape, of all subjects. They don’t get to decide what it is and isn’t and it most definitely isn’t a fucking spectrum.

Why is Scotland enabling these arseholes? WTF is going on in Scotland?

I will explain, why, I, as a rape survivor and a woman, view rape as a spectrum.
Then perhaps anyone who says rape isn’t a spectrum could share why they have an opposing opinion? Maybe we actually agree, maybe we agree to disagree but no one needs to be deported for having either opinion.

Why I agree Rape is a Spectrum

My first encounter with rape was being raped for four years by a priest as a child from ages 10-14. He stopped when my period started and went after my little sister who I managed to protect.

My second encounter with rape was my fresher year at Uni when my drink was spiked and I was gang raped & sodomised while barely conscious by an athletics team.

My third encounter with rape I didn’t even know was rape until I was being questioned by the police regarding my abusive ex for beating me up. That was when I learned that feeling forced to have sex to keep the peace/avoid an angry partner is rape by coercion. The years of sex I thought I had consented to, was all rape.

Now all of these were rape, but I hand on heart can say they were all different on a spectrum of really obviously rape to not so obviously rape. The other spectrum they were on were in terms of physical injury from needing corrective surgery under GA bad to healing physically through regular first aid to zero physical damage. Another spectrum is of course the type of psychological damage each did to me not saying any is worse that the other but the impacts were not the same- years of torture as a child, versus one night I barely remember but ended up in hospital, versus a relationship where sex was the least of my worries staying alive was. Finally, the way society views a paedophile raping a child for four years vs coercive rape is very very different. The first, ended up defrocked by the church and in prison for a very long time, the second the police & Uni brushed it under as a regret not rape issue and they got off Scot free maybe the fact they were up for championship had something to do with it, and the third, got a court ordered psychologist and didn’t see a day in jail.

I would like to see a transcript to know what the interview actually said, but from what I gather the idea that rape is on a spectrum is not at all controversial. Many of us have direct experience to be able to appreciate that way of describing rape on its many forms. A spectrum is a good analogy in my mind because there is no ranking of lesser rape to worse rape, it is all equal, but at the same time it recognises that not all rape is the same. It happens in different ways and has different impacts on us.

From other posters I read another item discussed was the idea of the stranger monster attacker at night in the street and how that is the common image we think of by ´rapist’ that’s pretty true it’s why we get afraid alone on the streets at night, or even working late and going into a car park at night. It’s also true that this common image we visualise is also the least likely way to be raped. We are far more likely to be raped by a man who seems like a normal, decent, good guy. The priest, the wholesome athletics team, your own partner who for over a decade was decent & loving and then decided not to be.

I don’t see any issue with an elected official doing an interview on rape, as a survivor, I think more MSPs & MPs should be discussing it and raising the political will to act strongly against rape because we all know the system is broken. Rape is almost de facto legal because it’s hardly ever reported, prosecuted or ends in a conviction.

..and herein lies your issue, ‘mansplaining’, half our society are male, we should be encouraging men, especially legislators/politicians to speak about and campaign for change on this subject.

I’m legally trained, from a completely dispassionate point of view I have intended you that all crimes are on a spectrum measured by factors such as premeditation, vulnerability of the victim, ongoing risk to the public and specific circumstances of the crime.

The PP has also, bravely, shared her story as to why she believes different types of assault have different effects and are also perceived very differently by the public.

By you stating there is not a spectrum and she is wrong means you are the only one who is ‘mansplaining’ here (despite presumptively not being a man).

Try to listen to others, your opinion is valid, but it’s not the only valid one.

@NullaEffugium At no point did I call for deportation?

This has nothing to do with anything other than a person in power talking pure shite and giving the impression that there is a sliding scale of rape and indeed consent. Obviously there are different narratives in all crimes, but the views expressed are what women have spent years fighting against

nothing to do with being queer, or “brown” 🙈

just watch the interview, no need for a transcript

I agree with @roseyposey sadly the Scottish parliament does seem to be a magnet for the hard of thinking

Think your beliefs regarding the Scottish Parliament are showing through more than any actual valid criticism of what was said.

Also at the risk of being pedantic, I don’t think he was in ‘power’ when any of this was said.

You seem to casually label others to be stupid, but you haven’t actually provided any substance or evidence to your argument apart from opinion, soundbites and parroting.

@Meeplemakeglasgow you obviously have an agenda. Boring

People like you are the problem with political discussion and discourse in general in this country.

You are manipulated by headlines designed to provoke rage, then amplify them by throwing baseless accusations around.

Worst of all though, you also throw insults such as ‘stupid’ or ‘hard of thinking’ around when clearly you either have no desire, or indeed capacity, to indulge in critical thinking.

Then laughably, when others have taken time out their day to try and expand your knowledge, you label them boring.

To steal a Lloyd-George quote, you are like a cushion who bears the imprint of the last person who sat on you.

for the last time: I specifically said that I sought out and listened to the entire interview rather than believe a headline