Facebook supports rape?

[MotherPanda]

Have we a thread on this yet?

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/04/facebook-hate-speech-women-rape?newsfeed=true

I am really shocked.

Yes I do SQ. I do think that rapists like to dominate and feel that it is their right to have sex, despite what the woman wants.

And actually I believe that the difference between stranger rape and acquaintance rape was strongly made up the thread in reply to my opinions. Because obviously stranger rapes fit a more definite profile than domestic abusers.

Rapists do take advantage of situations, esp opportunistic rapists.

Why are you trying to imply that my arguments are inconsistent? I would leave this thread if only my name wasn't repeatedly mentioned. I will not be mis-quoted or have words put into my mouth.

Oh I see. The point is shifted, a discussion begins and yet someone brings something up from 2 days ago just to drag it out again.

A social wanker is my own term. My description. Bit like a twunt really. It's an insult I use and has no definition according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Sorry, can I not insult rapists?

When you made those comments the thread was most definitely talking about rape in general.

Those are the comments that upset me as they say that rapists are like this - very black and white and fairly obvious characteristics - and so what if you have been raped by a man who is not like that? What then?

This is where we started and I cannot believe that after all this conversation you are still claiming that all rapists are like x, y and z and that is that.

You are wrong and liable to cause upset to lots of victims. Why? Just because you are not prepared to say that you were wrong / phrased it badly / meant to put a "most" rapists or a "many" or something in?

And what on earth is a social wanker anyway?

You say rapists are social wankers. Surely it's fair enough to ask what that actually means?

Do you mean socially inept? That they act out of step with others? What?

SQ, do you really want to re-argue about that when the discussion has moved on? I guess you do.

If you read my post you will see that it is I who just said that the discussion was talking about rape in general, so no big revelation there. I also said that someone then pointed out that acquaintance rapists do not fit such a definite profile.

You then got upset and I apologised for upsetting you. But you now want to go over it again?

I did NOT say that it was a black and white view I held. I DID say they were all social wankers. If you want to misinterpret what I say and make out that I think that all rapists can be most definitely identified by having SOCIAL WANKER tattooed across his forehead then go ahead.

Personally I think it very bad form to drag up something that someone apologised for - and even asked if you accepted the apology to which you gave no answer - 2 days later.

To answer you, yes I think ALL rapists are selfish. ALL rapists think they have a right to sex - whether that is whilst she is asleep in bed with him, passed out on the floor or struggling for her life.

Right so. Rhubarb's list of what all rapists are like:

• Socially dysfunctional
• Cannot perform in any area of life unless they feel powerful and in control
• They dominate women
• Social wankers (?)
• Like to feel powerful
• Usually take advantage of other situations

This is your list of what rapists are like, is that right?

Figure out what it means for yourself, it has no relevance to the debate at this stage. I am not on this thread purely to be interrogated by you over what I said 2 days ago that I then apologised for.

There are no qualifiers like "most", "many", "in my opinion" etc in your posts BTW. They are black and white.

What do you want me to say SQ? Really?

Once again you like to take what I said out of context. You admit we were talking about general rapists and at that point no-one had mentioned date rape.

All of the above you have taken out of context.

I am not answering someone who refuses to accept an apology and who re-hashes a 2 day old argument.

You apologised to me for upsetting me, after hazarding guesses about my personal life to explain why I might be upset.

You did not apologise for your original posts or acknowledge that they could be taken in a way by victims reading them that might be terribly upsetting.

You have still not adequately explained whether you really stand by what you said, you say that you stand by your posts and yet when asked to confirm what you mean you change the wording.

Incidentally I think that what you have done on this thread constitutes very bad form. Guessing about whether other people have been raped or not and in what circumstances - in order to justify them being upset - rather than considering that actually it's your posts that may have caused upset... That is definitely bad form in my book.

"You admit we were talking about general rapists and at that point no-one had mentioned date rape. "

WHAT?

Rhubarb, to be completely frank, you have made what come across as very "absolute" statements in many of your posts, although some of these then contradict. SQ isn't the only person here who is confused and would like for you to clarify what you genuinely believe about rape.

It's not about who apologised to whom, it's not about taking things out of context, it's not about asking people to read back 10 pages and then chiding them for doing so. Seriously, I don't understand what you are saying here.

It is a 2 day argument to those of us lucky enough never to have been raped. It's an ongoing fact of life for everyone else. I'm lucky I have the luxury not to have to think about what a rapist is like all the time. If I had been raped, I probably wouldn't have that luxury.

I WAS TALKING MAINLY ABOUT WHAT I PERCEIVED TO BE STRANGER RAPE AND I WAS NOT DEFINING DATE RAPE, THAT CAME UP LATER AND I CONCEDED THE POINT THAT WAS MADE THAT THOSE CHARACTERISTICS CANNOT BE USED TO DESCRIBE ACQUAINTANCE RAPE.

You know what? Have it. Have the point you want to make.

I knew I had upset you. I apologised. Yes I did wonder whether you were upset because you were a rape victim but did I use that to justify myself? How absurd. That is like taking an apology and merely throwing it back in someone's face. Like Custy said, never apologise, it's a waste of time.

I find the view that ordinary men can all be rapists offensive and shocking.

Yes rapists do have characteristics that are selfish and sexist. You don't believe that so you prefer to call me someone who perpetuates a rape myth?

You have done wonders for your argument, you really have. Well done.

KRITIQ it is very simple. I was offended and shocked by what I perceived others were saying about ordinary men being rapists.

I said that in my mind rapists were evil bastards. Socially dysfunctional. The point I was making is that they could not be further from an ordinary man in my opinion.

Then someone mentioned that actually acquaintance rapists could appear to be the average man in the street. I conceded that point but argued that criminal profiling does seem to show that even domestic abusers fit some kind of profile - that was to argue that rapists are NOT average Joe, but that they are different, because they choose to rape whereas some men do not.

As others have made points I have disagree with some and conceded others as is normal. But once again I am singled out. So fuck this, I'm off to have a glass of wine so feel free to tear me apart as that is what you seem to be best at. So long as you feel better that no-one could actually disagree with you.

Would this be the moment to point out you've totally ignored my apologies?

Shouting at someone because they have objected to the way you characterised their rape is not great, btw.

'I was offended and shocked by what I perceived others were saying about ordinary men being rapists. '

For the final time: No, we said it the other way around. You are reversing the position. This is bad logic. Why is this so hard to understand?!

Have been reading the thread

have i got this right

Rapists share characteristics, but these wouldn't be apparent to a victim, who definitely should not have been expected to identify them as rapists prior to being assaulted

so these imperceptible characteristics that no one could be expected to see, why is it so important to go on about them, reaffirming their existence

We might as well insist all rapists have enlarged pancreases for all the good it does anyone in terms of knowing whether or not they are unlucky enough to be in the company of a rapist

Rhubarb, with respect, I think you have singled yourself out. You used shouty capitals, you've repeatedly taken disagreements with your view as personal attacks. One could be forgiven for wondering if you have said quite provocative and at times insensitive things in the knowledge that others would challenge you, and that you could label those challenges as personal attacks, or "tearing you apart."

I've seen this more times than I've had hot dinners on other discussion boards.

chibi, because I keep being asked to justify their very existence.
Ella - what apologies?
I am not shouting, just making sure you get the point loud and clear so there can be no confusion.

• not to suggest that I have had hot dinners on other discussion boards, although a few fellow boardies have made me virtual coffee before! :0

chibi - I think that's about it, yes!

I think proles's point about how, in a better society that we're working towards, these characteristics would be obvious, is very important too.

Capital letters = shouting. Basic netiquette.

KRI, course I do, I love this, I really do.
Whatever you say dears.