Sigh. It's about extremes and taking responsibility for your own bad decisions, you know, both of you. You're right to an extent, if I said no anal and you do it anyway, that's rape. You are missing my points however that
1. if you go meeting a guy for anal sex and he does anal sex, you can't turn around afterwards and say it's rape.
2.t some point the whole "right to rescind consent" becomes... ridiculous. Like the women who call rape after they get the sex they signed up for, citing poor performance, or change their minds after it's in progress and proceed to call what's already happened rape. I cannot support that blatant abuse of reason and protection. (As in, abuse of protection).
3. When you go meet a guy known for doing stuff beyond the script for sex, who has a public history of being disturbingly pushy in bed, and get naked for him and let him fuck you, you cannot actually be surprised when he does what he usually does and goes off script, can you? You cannot reasonably expect him to treat you as a special snowflake and not do what he usually does just because he said so. The scorpion and the frog. They are both to blame for the scorpion stinging the frog. The frog should not have believed the scorpion just on his word and should have taken steps to prevent the scorpion from harming him even if he wanted to believe in the good of the scorpion.
To further elaborate, if the girl had met the guy under a fake profile (of the guy) rather than his usual one with all the disturbing stuff he publicly espouses and all the public rape drama per his previous partners and people in the public online community (I will concede that his reputation in "rt" community may be privileged information the girl was not privy to if she did not know the same people), and did not reasonably know of his reputation, then there is no expectation for her to have been able to know that the risks. On the other hand, if she went into a room with him got naked and let him near her knowing his reputation as above, there's no reasonable and responsible way she can say she didn't know that's the kind of encounter she's most likely in for. It further needs to be questioned whether she'd actually decided to met him because of the reputation, being attracted to the idea. It's funny we can't go to a restaurant to order something we thought we were interested in and decide not to pay for it when we change our minds about wanting it after it has been served, but expect exactly that in this argument.
On this case in the given coverage it is unclear which of these cases is what'd happened since the papers are more interested in making a sensation of his Fet, and it doesn't matter because it's not about her at this point in this (this forum) discussion. It isn't about victim shaming or blaming so much as it is about not letting victim protection absolve people of personal responsibility in bad choices. The abuse of victim culture.
Greta, I remember the guy you're talking about. It may interest you to know the guy's a coward. There were other similar "public events" where despite not being actually banned, he never actually showed up. He would later say that he cancelled due to threats,but hackers claim he never actually made any plans to show up to any of them (no tickets and hotels booked or browsed etc) and attendance at the gatherings he'd organized for his supporters were embarrassingly small-- apparently their members have an aversion to leaving their basement hideouts. There is a roster of names and addresses of these guys,courtesy of the hackers. It's also interesting that when one of the cities in his "grand tour"decided to charge him for inciting violence, he put out a video claiming it's all a hoax to launch his viral marketing company and he doesn't actually believe in the stuff he was saying... so, not the most reliable guy on any side of the law. I stopped following the story after the video though.
< Message edited by Alecta -- 10/28/2016 8:33:02 AM >