Frank Furedi- Spiked online

[enthusiasmcurbed]

I've just been reading this and was wondering what you're thoughts about this are? I know that the Spiked contributors mainly take a, mostly deliberately, provocative view of current affairs and opinions but I can't help thinking this is just to be 'different'.

www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/12246/

I think he's wrong.

He is also wrong to say that it is a new thing that sex is a risky activity for women. Gosh, it used to be even more risky and still is across the globe. First of all resulting pregnancy often kills women and secondly it was risky if you weren't married and then were stoned to death or even simply got pregnant by it. Then we have STDs etc. If he wants to suggest sex is a non risky activity he can but he's wrong. Of course half of the appeal of it for many teenagers and others is the risky elements of it.

If he thinks the message if being put out that sex is risky then he'll probably find more not fewer teenagers want to do it.

He seems to have taken objection to a poster about male rape and I suspect he doesn't believe the sexual abuse statistics. He just doesn't know what he is talking about.

Bit about the article, not just for the constant use of "moral crusaders" to describe those who campaign against rape, but because the author is married to Ann Furedi, head of BPAS. Haven't spoken to her for nigh on 20 years, but I can't imagine the article reflects her views on the issue, no way.

He's talking out of his arse.

If he wants to have a go at 'moral entrepreneurs' he might more usefully direct his energy to the ones in the Daily Mail who make out there is an epidemic of women falsely claiming to have been raped.

Ah that hoary old chestnut, 'real' rape as opposed to made up rape. Fuck the fuck off Frank

I just started to write a post saying how awful that article is and then realised I can't be bothered. I got as far as the part where he started talking about the case where the two boys were convicted of attempted rape (I think it was or sexual assault) on the 8yo girl where he was saying that these boys were convicted despite the fact she had made it up and gave up. That is simply not true and anyone who seeks to accuse an 8yo girl of lying when others have been convicted of a lengthy terrifying assault... Well there's no point even bothering to think about anything they say.

If he has said it shouldn't have been tried in an adult court then I'd have agreed with him, said it could have been handled another way. But that's not his argument, his argument is that 8 year old girls are LIARS and boys are sent to prison on their sayso when they haven't done anything wrong.

The man is a total arsehole.

If I were married to him, I think I'd be serving him with divorce papers.

Patti, I've got an image of cornflakes flying across the breakfast table. Okay, I don't expect life partners to hold the same views and values 100%, but blimey!

Article is tosh by the way, for all the reasons already given.

'Through presenting a caricatured idea of sexual violence, it also trivialises the horrors of real rape. '

No, what the 'moral crusaders' are trying to do is the opposite - to remove the caricatured idea of sexual violence (the stranger in the alley) with the reality, by speaking out about actual experiences of rape. (Or is it ok if you're talking about personal experience? Are you only a moral crusader if you're not?)

also:
'For moral crusaders it is very important to elevate ?what we do not know? above what we do.'

he ought to like this campaign then, since it's all about making the not known, known.

It also reads as if he doesn't want to believe rape is as prevalent as the research (not just the MN survey) suggests so he is explaining it away by claiming things are being defined as rape which aren't really. In which case, what would his preferred definition of rape be? Is it not rape if there wasn't any physical violence because the rapist had a knife and the victim froze in fear?

Yep, and not a great poster boy.

He is indeed one of those. They're a mutual backscratching society who pop up all over the place.

Bunch of misogynists.

That's great that Mumsnet are getting up his nose though.

Unlike his bunch, this is real grass roots politics.

Brendan O'Neil on Women's Hour

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1042408-Discussion-on-Women-s-Hour-about-harrassment-on-the/AllOnOnePage#21363240

The do seem to have an anti-feminist pro misogyny bent.

grass roots exactly Nyac.

The hashtag thing is amazing. It's the small sexual assaults thread gone international.

I'm glad that you all agree, you know when you read something so outrageous, you doubt yourself for a second? That second passed, thank fuck.

Just about everyone who writes for spiked is connected to the old RCP, their ideas on Radical Feminism are hilarious, quite frankly ( no pun intended )!

They are great entryists though, it has to be said. Little bastards turn up everywhere.

He thinks Mumsnet is an advocacy group.

Is he claiming that everybody who responded to the survey is lying, or is completely unrepresentative of UK women?

It's a very stupid article.

Oh christ, Brendan fucking O'Neil. I remember listening to that (on a rare WFH day in those days) and swearing at the radio massively. It was at that moment I started following Vicky Simister on twitter :)

Yet pressure ? unwanted or wanted ? is integral to every attempt to strike up a sexual relationship. Such relationships never occur spontaneously; they always involve someone taking the first step and putting the other person under pressure to respond.

Well maybe that's how you get your sexual partners Frank, but it's not how I get mine. Strangely I find sex much more enjoyable when it is crystal clear that both partners are gagging for it and no needs to pressurise anyone into responding.

And for women sex has always been a risky activity, involving pregnancy, a doubled risk of STIs, a greater likelihood of internal injury. Contraception has reduced that but not eliminated it.

I think I must be thick because I don't really understand his argument. Is he trying to say it's only rape if violence is used/threatened? Generally pressuring a woman to have sex against her wishes isn't rape? If that's the case then the man is an arse in my not so humble opinion. If a woman doesn't want to have sex and he goes ahead anyway, it's rape, not consensual sex.

Sunshine that was the quote that made me . He thinks sexual relations require pressure. Some women need a bit of pressure to get them to consent. Righty ho. So what does that make him then?

Spiked do seem to just take whatever contrarian position will wind up liberal guardian readers the most. I try to ignore them.

I do thinkbtgeir take on MMR was good and I think the Dr bloke (Mike?) is the least obnoxious of the cult group.... But just goes to show just because you agree on one thing you dont have to agree on everything.

It's a stoopid article. He is right about one thing - the mumsnet 80% figure is meaningless.

Liberal guardian readers love the idea that women lie about rape and that the feminists are just making it all up. They're attacking women, not liberals. They could be poster boys for Misogyny is Free.