Sexual Violence
Oct 25 2006 21:06
Lets try again... resurrection. Don't derail this thread. Read the beginning of this thread to see where the chat was at.
dara wrote:
So...Sexual violence is not properly dealt with in anarchist circles, nor is it treated as an issue to organise around in the same way that racism is. It would be worth discussing potential ways of organising around sexual violence, inside of anarchist circles and also as a wider issue to try and change the dominant apathy towards it.
Any ideas?
Oct 25 2006 21:52
#2
Hi
I think you're out of order. But, ok let's try this...
Quote:
change the dominant apathy towards it
People go absolutely spare if there's the mearest hint of violence (sexual or otherwise) within a one mile radius of their current position.
I'll accept there's a problem, but I doubt it's apathy. Maybe it's due to sexual repression. How do we organise against male sexual repression? (Anybody who raises CW's alleged forced bisexualism will be congratulated for their sense of humour, if they’re not censored for derailing first).
Love
LR
Oct 25 2006 22:24
#3
Quote:
i think it is important to bear the facts of rape in mind, especially the fact that the vast majority are carried out by someone known to the woman. so why is this?one particularly nasty case in ireland was that of the first man to be convicted of raping his wife. his defence was that he thought he had a right to have sex with his wife whenever he wanted.
maybe compare this to the example given (by LW?) earlier of a boss who sexually harassed women in his workplace and eventually raped one.
As far as I can see here, in both cases what comes up is the issue of control, even ownership of women by a man by virtue of a dominant position in an institution, be it a corporation or divinely sanctioned marriage. Perhaps both men read their position as giving them a right to the women involved.
So how do we challenge feelings of ownership? Well, expropriation eventually, but what about the immediate present?
I think workplace harassment gives at least some ideas. The position as employees does give people a latent power, they could (potentially) realise this power in a collective confrontation or something similar. Ultimately the boss relies upon the workers to maintain his position, so they do have the ability to stop his harassment, if they are capable of communicating their problems with each other. In a situation of high struggle, we could expect workers to assault abusive bosses, as in the Red Handkerchiefs tactic in Italy 1970s. Not that I'm fetishising violence, but just to show that it has been used as a tactic to assert workers powers against abuses of the boss.
What about partner and ex-partner sexual assault? I think that's a harder question, since it isolates the victim so much.
In all cases, perhaps what is needed most of all is an end to the imposed silence of victims. Notably, in Ireland, after there had been a few individuals going public about clerical sex abuse, a deluge of such complaints began, so that for a long time, new victims would come forward every week. Perhaps this needs to be done with violence against women, ie. there needs to be a change in the reception that rape victims receive. How can anarchist organisations help this change? Well, sexual assault should be made a visible issue, how exactly this can be accomplished i don't know. If we are talking about effecting a change in the public domain, then the ability of a very small amount of people, with limited access to mass media is quite small. On the other hand, my own particular organisation (WSM) has a feature in our free paper called 'That's Capitalism' which outlines various abuses that the rich and powerful get up to; we talk about racism, police violence and all the other staple fare, but not sexual violence. Then this raises other questions: how do we talk about sexual violence in our propaganda?
By dominant apathy I do not mean the sensationalisation of rape, I mean the lack of belief that it can be changed. ultimately, this is a symptom of our own alienation, and as such, we should look at challenging it through collective empowerment.
Oct 25 2006 22:49
#4
Lazy Riser wrote:
People go absolutely spare if there's the mearest hint of violence (sexual or otherwise) within a one mile radius of their current position.
Do they? What about all the 'hints' of domestic violence that go unnoticed by family and friends? Since we tend to react strongly to violence, one way of dealing with our violent world is to not look to carefully for it.
Oct 26 2006 07:47
#5
i would just say a point that came up amidst the aborted first incarnation of this thread was the irrelevance of inward-looking discussion of 'anarchist circles', so i'm reading that as our social circles in general, whether mates, work, politics or whatever.
Oct 26 2006 08:09
#6
I've been thinking that a little inward thinking is a good thing. It shows that you do have critical faculties. Dunno, maybe your not really trying to sell anything.
Oct 26 2006 08:10
#7
yeah, that's why i included politics in amongst the other social circles we have 
Oct 26 2006 08:23
#8
Quote:
i would just say a point that came up amidst the aborted first incarnation of this thread was the irrelevance of inward-looking discussion of 'anarchist circles', so i'm reading that as our social circles in general, whether mates, work, politics or whatever.
Yes.
However sexual violence - or violent behaviour generally - should not be tolerated in our communities, and in our workplaces, and indeed - perhaps especially so - in our prefigurative communist groups. At present that latter point has been neglected in my experience, and it can be very difficult to challenge positively due to the somewhat pathetic 'social' nature of many currently existing groups. If communist organisations were treated more as professional associations of revolutionaries focussed around expressed aims rather than wooly social networks of 'activists' then I suspect abusive behaviour would not be so prevalent.
However as with so many other problems that requires building a serious communist movement. A task which is actively undermined by the casual use of couthy phraseology such 'anarchist circles' or the 'anarchist community', which imply groupings of mates and socialites not revolutionary organisations where you collaborate with others not because you necessarily like them (altho of course you might, and it can help to) but because you are working towards shared objectives.
The federations I think and the likes of the IWW have always understood this point. The real problem arises with 'activist' groups and affinity organisations clustered around social networks; these types of organisations are always subject to informal hierarchies, and it's those hierarchies which can provide a buffer from criticism of abusive behaviour.
Oct 26 2006 11:27
#9
There has been lots of work done on sexual assault within activist organisations in parts of the states. I think it has had some success. It involves this combination of supporting the survivor and trying to ensure the perpetrator is held responsible.
there's a bit about it here http://www.theportlandalliance.org/2005/aug/activistsmovement.htm
I think the most important thing we can do as anarchists is to support the survivor, something that is totally lacking in the so-called justice system. After that it becomes incredibly complex but in this one situation that arose here, the survivor felt she had been totally betrayed by the community (sorry Dundee but we were one- not all within a specific organisation). It was an added betrayal on top of being assaulted by someone she trusted and the character assasination she underwent added to her pain.
You dont have to have blind trust in the word of the person making the accusation but a real effort has to be made to make sure he/she is in a place they feel safe and has people they trust to talk to and support them.
There is a collective in Portland called Hysteria (awful name for such a group I think) that deal specifically with sexual violence in activist groups.
Here's a bit about them
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/08/323310.shtml
I dont think having a seperate group to deal with this stuff is the answer, could take responsibility away from the rest of the organisations.
Anyway, it's all food for thought.
Oct 26 2006 12:29
#10
Having read the other thread after posting this I don't want to derail this one. Sexual violence is a terrible thing and it needs to be challenged.
In my area for example there is a problem with women using the canal, because they fear being assaulted; even if the threat of assault is relatively low.
This fear is in part due to the relative isolation of the area, due to the lack of observation and number of 'hiding places' and so forth but more especially it's due to the recent memory of the rape and murder there of a woman out jogging. That event was made more harshly ironic for some, and ensure it received greater notoriety, by the fact that she worked in a local women's centre.
A womens demonstration was held to 'reclaim the canal' - the police fucked about with it awfully. The whole thing was sick. The cops called the BBC to tell them the march along the canal had been cancelled, which the BBC loyally reported. Various threats were made towards the organisers etc. When people came to assemble the cops wouldn't let them march where they had planned, and a helicopter kept buzzing them to intimidate people.
However what it does show is that when the working class show any sign of policing their own neighbourhoods the cops and the state really start to take it seriously. They'd have been terrified march organisers might want to make a habit of this kind of 'reclaiming'.
If we want to have any effect in preventing rape and sexual assaults, and, much more important than that in fact, in giving vulnerable people (be that victims of abuse, fearful women or the frail and elderly) the confidance to feel they can go to places like the canal here then we need to start patrolling our neighbourhoods and policing our organisations and workplaces.
Self-reliance and self-organisation to tackle violent abuse and tackle isolation in our workplaces and communities goes hand in hand with the sort of organising we as libertarian communists need to be doing anyway, if we want to build a revolutionary movement of the working class.
I think the best way of developing the confidance and solidarity of the class (which is how I think the discussion should really be framed) is about developing this level of independent organisation and doing in such a way that it's democratic and accountable to the workplaces and communities it serves, unlike, say, punishment beatings carried out by paramilitaries in Ireland.
The trouble here is always, as ever is the underpants gnomes...
[as a related side issue tho Revol, as much as the last thread was derailed by the whole shouting about it, is right to say 'the anarchist community/anarchist circles' is a crap way of looking at the problem tho; altho I accept that there is a need to police our ranks. I guess tho it's a separate issue merryragster - that I find the idea of anarchists forming 'a community' to reflect inward-looking lifestyle/liberal politics which I don't really want any part of.]
Oct 26 2006 12:52
#11
Quote:
that I find the idea of anarchists forming 'a community' to reflect inward-looking lifestyle/liberal politics which I don't really want any part of
Yeah, but in some senses you are allready a community.
I agree that it would be rediculous to try and organize disparate anarchist groups to reflect on their relations with one-another and that alone. Is this what is being suggested? I don't see a problem with anything less weird. Obviously I have no idea if thats big a problem though.
Oct 26 2006 17:05
#12
Yeah I never cease to be amazed by the fact that people say we are no different from the rest of the working class, but we cant look at what we do because it divides us from the working class. How does that work?
I suppose I shouldn't have set up a reading group with a few anarchists to read radical literature, because it's substituting the 'anarchist movment' doing a reading group for an anarchist movement of the working class through which radical literature is read.
I suppose I shouldn't have set up a workplace struggle information group with a few other libertarians, because it's substituting the 'anarchist movment' doing workplace solidarity and info distribution for an anarchist movement of the working class through which workplace solidarity and info distribution is done.
I suppose I shouldn't be involved in publishing Red and Black, a magazine aimed at anarchos and the left with the WSM, because it's substituting the 'anarchist movment', the left and the WSMs theoretical development for an anarchist movement of the working class through which theory is developed.
And I suppose I shouldn't be involved in discussions about sexism and anti-sexism within the anarchist movement, because it's substituting the an anti-sexist 'anarchist movment', for an anarchist movement of the working class through which sexism is attacked and defeated.
Its complete and utter bull.
Oct 26 2006 17:14
#13
well if you thought the reading group was actually a organ of struggle, or if you mistook your Workplace Information group for actual struggle.
No one has questioned the basic point that sexism should be challenged anywhere, and it's pretty much a given in anarchist groups that sexism is not welcome, which is why it baffles me that when we get onto a discussion about how we can tackle sexual violence people fall back onto shit like "putting our own house in order", really? Woah, that's rather profound, i mean next you'll be pointing out that a prerequisite for workplace organising is to make sure no one in your group is running a sweatshop from a lock up garage.
The point is that anarchist/activist groups continually reiterate such obvious points in order to avoid dealing with the harder questions as to the relationship of your own group to wider society, and the fact we focus so much in constantly fixing internal dynamics as a kind of escapism from the rather more fixed relations outside of the organisation.
Oct 26 2006 17:21
#14
revol68 wrote:
which is why it baffles me that when we get onto a discussion about how we can tackle sexual violence people fall back onto shit like "putting our own house in order", really?
you know revol, its difficult to debate with you because no one actually said that, and when you brought it up as a boogey man, you have been told by several people that no one said that, but you still continue to use that as your example.
What should we do to make you, i dont know, perhaps stop lying?
Anyway, for your benefit lets go through it again: no one said that there was a connection between addressing sexism and oppressive behaviour within anarchist movement (which of course
exists) and sexual violence, but because these issues were discussed side by side, it may have confused people like you who are keen on finding a fault, no matter what the cost, and then stick to it till the end.
Please at least promise to us that you dont after maybe a year or so use the same quotation again as a "proof" how everyone else got it wrong except you and LR?
Oct 26 2006 17:29
#15
Quote:
you know revol, its difficult to debate with you because no one actually said that, and when you brought it up as a boogey man, you have been told by several people that no one said that, but you still continue to use that as your example.What should we do to make you, i dont know, perhaps stop lying?
Who said this then?
Quote:
Firstly about the root causes, didnt we already lay out a few ideas on how to combat the root causes of sexual violence, how to combat sexism, hierarchies and so on at workplaces, in culture, in our own behaviour, in our own political groups, meetings and events and so on.
And it was a point that had been made by various other posters before that.
Oct 26 2006 17:32
#16
furthermore i'm aware that many people don't see tackling sexism within anarchist groups as organising against sexual violence, but rather they see it as a means of undoing the shit gender ratio, and i have been arguing that this is a false argument as it is quite clear the reasons lay miles outside the control of tiny little political groups and that as such looking for the causes internally is at heart a denial of the deeper problems in anarchist politics and organisation.
Oct 26 2006 17:33
#17
that was a general assertion of the issues, ok not greatly worded, but should have been clear enough for anyone with two braincells.
In the subsequent posts it was told to you several times what the issues were, so you would have stopped the jokes about how changing our meeting cultures would lead to less rapes.
Oct 26 2006 17:34
#18
revol, could we leave this shit to this thread:
http://libcom.org/forums/thought/group-dynamics
and stop derailing this thread. It seems like all threads have just descented into revol vs world again 
Oct 26 2006 17:39
#19
revol68 wrote:
The point is that anarchist/activist groups continually reiterate such obvious points in order to avoid dealing with the harder questions as to the relationship of your own group to wider society, and the fact we focus so much in constantly fixing internal dynamics as a kind of escapism from the rather more fixed relations outside of the organisation.
What are you talking about you've been in an organisation for what 3 weeks of the last 3 years. And your organisational commitment and discipline is such that you thought it was acceptable to get pissed the day before the you were supposed to do a stall, sleep in and turn up 7 hours late for an eight hour stall. To be honest revol you are the last person in the world I am going to listen to about "the harder questions as to the relationship of [our] own group[s] to wider society".
Oct 26 2006 17:41
#20
Yuo're right JDMF. From now on on this thread. I'm going to ignore revol's vitriol. However, if he ever puts up anything that has any link to what people are saying and what people are doing and not out of revols fantasy of what anrachist politcs and working class oragansiation involves, then I'll respond.
Oct 26 2006 17:48
#21
georgestapleton wrote:
revol68 wrote:
The point is that anarchist/activist groups continually reiterate such obvious points in order to avoid dealing with the harder questions as to the relationship of your own group to wider society, and the fact we focus so much in constantly fixing internal dynamics as a kind of escapism from the rather more fixed relations outside of the organisation.What are you talking about you've been in an organisation for what 3 weeks of the last 3 years. And your organisational commitment and discipline is such that you thought it was acceptable to get pissed the day before the you were supposed to do a stall, sleep in and turn up 7 hours late for an eight hour stall. To be honest revol you are the last person in the world I am going to listen to about "the harder questions as to the relationship of [our] own group[s] to wider society".
oh cop a look at the ginger fucking Durruti.
maybe it's cause I wasn't taking the anarchist bookfair as anything more than a chance to meet up with some old friends , something everyone in Organise! was well aware of and if they wish to discipline me for failing to do my "revolutionary duty" they are more than welcome to do so.
So tell me what did you do at the bookfair? Oh you sold some magazines and went to a few meetings, bully for you.
And if you wanna start talking shit about organisational discipline you might want to have a word with one of your comrades who acted like an aggressive knobend in the pub and was screaming in peoples faces, fortunately the person he was reproaching for not "doin something" had the good wit to reject violent dynamics and so didn't escalate the situation.
Oct 26 2006 18:12
#22
Nice try with resurrecting the thread rkn. Nevermind.
Oct 26 2006 18:19
#23
Hi
Quote:
I mean the lack of belief that it can be changed
I don’t think it’s a lack of belief, more a question of ambivalence towards it in general. I mean I know plenty of men who are brought to near euphoria by violent or aggressive situations. I was chatting to people at work about this today, and we agree that a significant number of men really like violence and a large enough number are aroused by sexual violence, as a preference choice, to account for the sexual violence that we all know exists.
Quote:
What about all the 'hints' of domestic violence that go unnoticed by family and friends? Since we tend to react strongly to violence, one way of dealing with our violent world is to not look to carefully for it.
Good point. Maybe I’m reading to much into peoples behaviours, but, again chatting today, I get the impression we tend to suspect it’s going on even when sometimes it isn’t. We even wondered if the sort of person most sensitive to the signs is the sort of person most likely to cause them. But when people get kicked in and we can all see the signs the next day, we often suspect but rarely really believe their boyfriend beat them up even if he/she’s been acting depressed lately. At least not enough to ask and offer help.
As to ethical attitudes towards sexual violence, leftists of various hues are quick to incorporate into their list of candidate social issues. The more they dwell on such matters, the worse it all seems to get, not least amongst themselves.
Now excuse me for being vulgar, I’m sure all you philosophy graduates will turn your noses up at this point, but simply asking “What can be done to stop it?” will never the provide answer. Instead we need to ask “What makes it happen?” and then by making changes at the root cause, propose a way forward.
Now, perhaps the problem, being amongst a load of what Cosmo might call “Lads” chatting about sexual politics all day, is that a lot of them find sexual “humiliation” (if not outright violence) a real turn on.
I’m inclined to believe, rather like “school bullies”, it’s just the expression of some men’s predisposition to belt stuff they see as weak when they’re in a bad mood or sexually aroused. Having decked someone, you may as well fuck them.
Then there's a point about sexual frustration, but I'll let the dust settle on this one first.
Love
LR
Oct 26 2006 19:02
#24
First of all cheers lazy for putting this back on track.
Lazy Riser wrote:
I don’t think it’s a lack of belief, more a question of ambivalence towards it in general. I mean I know plenty of men who are brought to near euphoria by violent or aggressive situations. I was chatting to people at work about this today, and we agree that a significant number of men really like violence and a large enough number are aroused by sexual violence, as a preference choice, to account for the sexual violence that we all know exists.
I'd be careful about this. I agree that a lot of men like violence. But I'm not sure if thats really a major problem. And I definitely don't think that it necessarily leads to sexual violence. (One of the things that I didn't like in RAG at all, at all, was the list of signs that someone might be a rapist). And a lot are aroused by sexual violence which is fucked up but again I've been aroused by things that I thought really shouldn't arouse me doesn't actually mean anything though.
Quote:
when people get kicked in and we can all see the signs the next day, we often suspect but rarely really believe their boyfriend beat them up even if he/she’s been acting depressed lately. At least not enough to ask and offer help.
Yeah I think this is important. And christ but it is difficult. When I was in school a bloke that I was friends with raped a girl that was also a friend that he was going out with. The fucked up thing was that no body mentioned it. No actually the really really fucked up thing was that the girl's best friend started going out with the same bloke the next year. I only found out about the rape because through trying to find out why two of my friends were best friends wouldn't talk to each other. It was really strange because absolutely no body did anything or even talked about it. So I unfortunately didn't either.
Quote:
As to ethical attitudes towards sexual violence, leftists of various hues are quick to incorporate into their list of candidate social issues. The more they dwell on such matters, the worse it all seems to get, not least amongst themselves.
Not sure what you mean by this so i'll let you flesh it out more before I respond, but just to say that I don't think I agree with what I think you are saying.
Quote:
Now excuse me for being vulgar, I’m sure all you philosophy graduates will turn your noses up at this point, but simply asking “What can be done to stop it?” will never the provide answer. Instead we need to ask “What makes it happen?” and then by making changes at the root cause, propose a way forward.Now, perhaps the problem, being amongst a load of what Cosmo might call “Lads” chatting about sexual politics all day, is that a lot of them find sexual “humiliation” (if not outright violence) a real turn on.
I’m inclined to believe, rather like “school bullies”, it’s just the expression of some men’s predisposition to belt stuff they see as weak when they’re in a bad mood or sexually aroused. Having decked someone, you may as well fuck them.
I think you are kind of right on this one. However I think that it's important not to simply say that 'some men’s predisposition to belt stuff they see as weak when they’re in a bad mood or sexually aroused' makes them rapists. Rape is the only thing that makes someone a rapist. Sexual assault makes someone a person who commits sexual assault, not their predisposition.
So I think when disscussing 'why does this happen' is dangerous ground because it will very often fall back on to imagining an archetypal rapist, a bad man as oppossed to good men. Or if it doesn't it falls make on 'thats the way men are' so men shouldn't be like men, or taking the short cut to the conclusion of this and simply saying men should be less male.
I actually think that asking how can we stop this is a better question. Its like and please forgive me for using this analogy but people in wheel chairs are never assaulted. Why? Not because nobody ever wants to deck a person in a wheel chair but because its simply not acceptable, even if no one ever found out its not acceptable. Likewise how do we prevent sexual assault from happening not by preventing men from ever wanting to have sex with someone regardless of their consent but by making it so socially unacceptable to the degree that even if no one ever found out its not acceptable for people personally to sexually assault people. To use freudian terms, its on the level of the superego that rape is prevented. (Not the id).
Oct 26 2006 19:25
#25
Hi
Quote:
I've been aroused by things that I thought really shouldn't arouse me doesn't actually mean anything though.
It means a lot. Imagine what happens when someone with a explosive personality disorder who can’t think stuff through feels like that and gets angry and depressed about it, wallowing in self hatred. Say he’s intimate with a weaker partner who annoys him on purpose one night. It’s a sexual assault waiting to happen. Sexual Repression, Authoritarian Conditioning and the Irrational in Politics, Reich yaddy dah. You’ve got some other interesting points that I’ll mull over.
Quote:
Why? Not because nobody ever wants to deck a person in a wheel chair but because its simply not acceptable, even if no one ever found out its not acceptable.
This example as a candidate proof of your theory is vital. The thing is, though, if a sexually violent person was intimate with a disabled individual, then that disabled individual would get belted and fucked regardless of how acceptable it was.
Love
LR
Oct 26 2006 19:37
#26
But as has been pointed out a million and one times most rapes are domestic and happen by people you know, ordinary people. The two blokes I know who raped/were accussed of rape wouldn't be people "with a explosive personality disorder who can’t think stuff through".
The itsy bitsy tiny minority of people who really can't think through need help but probably won't change for years.* I don't think a discussion of rape should revolve around the tiny minority of rapists who have major psychological problems.
*Although this is not neccesarily true though, my sister's friend was going out with a bloke known all over the town I went to school in as a scumbag who'd beat 5/6 people up a week. Then she had a kid with him - veryone freaked out. But honestly over night he became this loving father whose a bit over protective of his kid but is honestly now just a nice decent bloke when he was the biggest scumbag in the town.
Oct 26 2006 20:01
#27
Hi
Quote:
But as has been pointed out a million and one times most rapes are domestic and happen by people you know, ordinary people. The two blokes I know who raped/were accussed of rape wouldn't be people "with a explosive personality disorder who can’t think stuff through".
Hold your horses there. You've missed my point. As you say, most such assaults are domestic. It is precisely the intimacy that provides for the loss of inhibition that normally controls the individual’s compulsions. I didn't mean "personality order" in the diagnosable sense, just somebody who has an explosive temper with people they’re close to.
In my experience, people who cause violence inside their relationships are sweet natured during initial courtship. It is normally an unpleasant surprise for both parties when it emerges and builds.
And to clear up another potential problem, I’m not advocating “help” for perpetrators. That’s not my angle at all.
Love
LR
Oct 26 2006 20:12
#28
Lazy Riser wrote:
In my experience, people who cause violence inside their relationships are sweet natured during initial courtship. It is normally an unpleasant surprise for both parties when it emerges and builds.
I think you've been watching too many soaps and movies.
"What happens when your dream man turns out to be your worst nightmare?" just imagine that in a narrators voice.
I'm also abit weary about this.
Quote:
just somebody who has an explosive temper with people they’re close to.
an explosive temper does not necessarily equate to violence, i lose my temper in relationships and have huge blazing arguments (not always but I can) and it doesn't turn into violence (though i'm sure one of my ex's might describe it as mental torture).
Clearly it's more than just losing your temper, as why not go kick the TV or even the cat (if your JDMF ) it's more important to try and understand how sex becomes an act of violence or punishment (and not in the theatrical or consentual s/m, rough sex sense in which violence actually disguises a respect, trust and intimacy), and in this I think Lazy is correct to point out the role of sexual repression.
Oct 26 2006 20:14
#29
I'd like to add at this point that "sexual violence", especially within relationships, does not necessarily involve physical violence, or physical force. However, ignoring someone saying "no", or persistantly trying and trying and trying to stick your cock where it's not wanted until the other person gives in, putting someone in a position where they cannot say no for whatever reason and forcing sex on them all constitutes sexual violence, and none of these examples need to involve "violence" at all.
Also, if you're dealing with someone who you know could get violent, then sometimes yr best course of action is to put up with forced sex, lest fighting back or kicking up a fuss lands you a smack in the mouth as well as being raped.
I'll get back to the other very good points in this thread when I've had some dinner.
Oct 26 2006 20:15
#30
Okay but I don't even think that most rapists are beat em up types. I mean one of the blokes I knew was a bit macho but shat himself whenever things got hairy. So yeah in retrospect perhaps someone you'd expect. But the other one wasn't. He was into black blocs but on a personal level was and is genuinely lovely. I'm not 100% sure he did do what he's accussed of but its highly likely.
Yeah I get you with the not helping people. Disagree kind of. But people with personality disorders should be helped, thats what I was getting at.
I don't think most rapists have personality disorders.
Nor do I think that rapists need to have explosive tempers to be rapists. And most rapists probably don't.
As you say here:
Quote:
In my experience, people who cause violence inside their relationships are sweet natured during initial courtship. It is normally an unpleasant surprise for both parties when it emerges and builds.
I don't think these people are lying when they are 'sweet natured during initial courtship'.
Admin edit: Don't derail.