Amos wrote "I find the title of this thread very irritating. I wish it would be at least rephrased as a qu8estion. As an assertion, it raises me hackles, it does."

Amos I can only apologise but I took the title from the BBC article which itself irritated the heck out of me. Not the article but some of the views expressed. I posted it more or less verbatim to create discussion and revulsion at the very idea. I think it has more impact the way it is written.

I did say I was devastated by the article. I went through some ideas as to my own opinions and there was no way I could get near to ever thinking a rape victim played a part to it.

Categorically I do not agree with the title... but it serves a purpose of making people want to look at the thread and express their views and, hopefully, their total support for rape victims without judgement. I think overally the thread has been very positive, though I do and did apologise for anyone who it has touched upon or opened for that was not its intention wounds.

The original article shocked me as much as have some of the comments here because they have come from women. You could almost expect the men to be crying out about being tempted and women not playing fair. For the men to be defensive in some ways. So far not one has and I am encouraged greatly by that. Which proves the point really

Only a guy who could rape would likely be affronted by being accused of doing it. Decent men, while maybe having made mistakes and misread signals from maybe confused signallers, have still respected her and stopped or stayed clear. The idea that men have no self control, if they have an erection, is fallacious and this thread wholeheartedly supports that statement.

Women may give ff false/bad/wrong signals. It is difficult for many men to be able to wend their way through that... but they do and they should be commended. That said, most men are not rapists so it makes sense they take no as no. I just was not ready for the female accusers of the article and some of the suggested possible causes here.

If the title offends I am sorry. Nevertheless the thread has been mostly very positively against the title's assertion and that is extremely pleasing :-)

I hope this explains my stance a little better

mp

{Is this small change acceptable?]