Pynchme: my reference to the sisterhood was a generic phrase written to cover the general principle of what I was saying. I don't resile from it. ANY of us who follow set principles/philosophies/rules-tend to look at only one side. Fractelle (sorry kiddo, got to do this)-Fractelle's complaint was received somewhat differently to yours;-she was referred to as 'difficult'. I suspect I know why. I do not know for sure and thus will not elaborate.
Difficult!!?....have you seen some of the behaviours and comments on OLO??
...boys will be boys....
______________________________

Crap: YOU know why I put up Einfeld as an example, I know why I put up etc., Simple. To cut through a small part of the NF obsession that you so clearly have...;so cut the ----!! (Btw: I suspect that we've seen your picture too;-or a facsimile of it!). Concentrate on developing that brain cell..(Nice to see you being a little subdued though. Received some encouragement to do that eh?).
_______________________

Septic: who?
_______________________

Nina it occurs to me that if you thought that the photos, crap put up were of you, then it follows that I was referring to YOU as a slag!!

Holy mackerel!

Antiseptic – First off, let me sort this: “it is unworthy of you to ty to use such a stupid statement to discredit me.”

It is not my purpose to discredit you.

To try to do so if I felt you had a point worth considering is a tactic employed by politicians, not debaters. I am not a politician.

To do so if I felt your point not worth consideration would be redundant: I would merely continue the silence on this matter I have reserved until now.

In respect of my self-worth I am unsure if such a tactic would be “unworthy” of me. But in respect of the rules of engagement it would most certainly be unworthy – hence I had no intention of so doing.

Having, I hope, clarified that, I am extremely frustrated with your post which seems not to have responded in any way to mine. In fact it seems tangentially opposed to it.

There is certainly no need whatsoever to “repeat [myself] again”. Your misapprehension regarding Pynchme “trying to equate sex with anal rape” is precisely what I was addressing and what prompted me to respond – I spent fully two-thirds of my 350 words pointing this out. You neither responded, commented on, nor acknowledged I had addressed this, but reiterated the same misapprehension as if I had not spoken.

Of course there’s no correlation between sex and anal rape. If we can all start off from that page, we can maybe move on to the fact that there’s no correlation either between “snogging that’s goes too far” and rape. Or ” a drunken shag that one regrets in the morning” and rape.

Before we all go charging off in yet another direction, accusing and/or defending attitudes towards the victims of false claims, lets make sure we are all on the same page to start off with. An answer to Pynchme’s question (and mine) would have been a good place to start

Ginx

Yep. sorry. I realised after I posted what you were talking about (and that it wasn't about me!) and I felt a little ashamed to have been so self-centered (though there has been so much discussion on this thread about photos of me... my mind just jumped to that conclusion... particularly bc it was in reference to roscop.)

I have to say that we will need to agree to disagree in regards to the comments about that 'slag' though. In some cultures showing your hair or your naked ankles makes you a skank. In England during the Victorian era, table legs had to be covered so as not to excite the passions of men. Who knew that tables could be 'slutty'?

The point is that 'Skankyness' is a culturally contrived, arbitrary construct that differs from one place to the next, and from one era to the next. What is for certain is that terms like skank and slut are used to control and demean women and to alienate them from their own sexual power.

Also being a feminist is not about following something blindly. As Pynchme has outlined, there is no feminist 'manifesto'. There is a great deal of debate and argument within the ranks of feminism and so being a feminist is not about signing up to some base line of thinking. It's more about being willing to participate in a particular set of debates and being willing to acknowledge that while all feminists seek gender equality and the elimination of gender discrimination, we have different views of how to arrive at this goal.

Well that's my definition at least. No doubt other feminists would contest it. And that's the beauty of feminism; we accept diversity of views.

Ginx: I am mortified and really quite angry to know of that injustice. It does sound very "boys' club" to me. I hope Fractelle posts again; I enjoy her posts so much.

Romany: Thanks for seeing through Antiseptic's usual red herrings, lies and misconstruances. He knows full well that I'm asking specifically about male rape and the main reason initially was to try and elicit a modicum of empathy with victims of rape - a dismal failure it seems.

However, I really would like to see if many of the announcements these men here make to discount the experiences of female victims apply where male victims are concerned.

The first set out, as you saw, (inspired by Roscop's carry on about women in jeans) was how male victims of rape should dress to avoid issuing an invitation to rape.

The next one will be stats. :)

Have to dash to work: bb later.

ninaf, I take your point about your comments and you're absolutely right about the consequences to the falsely-accused.

Romany:"it seems tangentially opposed to it."

As I understand the post of yours you refer to, it was all about "rape is bad, I've been raped and I should know". Well, I haven't been raped, but nor have I been violent and I have seen first-hand what happens when non-violent behaviours are characterised as violent and then used to justify incredibly painful, costly and embarrassing actions against the one accused.

I have the greatest of sympathy for those of either gender who have been genuinely raped, as anyone who has read my posts here will know, but I have nothing but contempt for the constant efforts of some people to make things what they are not.

ninaf:"sexual power"

That's what it's all about, isn't it? Women have always had the sexual power and mating games have evolved around their use of it. Could it be that rape, inasmuch as it's about power, may be as much about the subversion of the female's power as about the assertion of the male's? In that context, the broadening of definitions of rape are all about increasing women's sexual power, by making men more and more into supplicants for sexual "favours".

pynchme,

What is it you actually want?

As Antiseptic said...

'Not a single woman here has expressed any concern about the possible damage to the victims of those false claims, nor about the misdirection of resources that these false claims entail.'

So does that reveal a pro false accusation mentality of the female posters?

It's a pretty quick way of silencing any discussion to say that anyone who disagrees with you is pro-rape.

I have never 'automatically discounted' any victims' experiences. Please provide a quote.

Regardless, your 'experience' is actually the problem in these debates. Someone who works with rape victims is too close to the problem and sees a rapist around every corner. It would be impossible to have an open mind when you deal with rape victims every day.

Look at how quickly you are ready to shout rapist. Your perspective is skewed. How about standing back and realising others aren't surrounded by an environment of rape victims, and realise to help your cause, it may be useful to accept that all NGOs, regardless of their good cause, will inflate figures for effect, rather than say anyone who doesn't believe your figures is pro-rape. The figures are unnecessary, as 1 woman raped is bad enough