Or Nick Ross and the spectacular rape meltdown as it should be known.
The rape chapter was serialised in the Mail on Sunday along with a few other bits and pieces on crime and punishment the previous week that were less controversial. Some of it I buy into namely the logistics of the whole spiked drinks and drug rape (testing showed just booze in all cases rather than anything else) and most of the domestic violence stuff which gives some much needed equality to the issue, rather than trot out the same line that men are the perpetrators all the time.
(In fact its this along with the Lee Rigby murder that proves humanity is infintely inventive when it comes to being complete cunts to one another.)
This is the offending quote, for those unaware or simply don't care.
"‘Half of all women who have had
penetrative sex unwillingly do not think they were raped and this
proportion rises strongly when the assault involves a boyfriend, or if
the woman is drunk or high on drugs: they led him on, they went too far,
it wasn’t forcible, they didn’t make themselves clear. . . "
Surely rape is rape whether the woman (and its always a woman) was either too drunk, out of it or doesn't make consent clear. I'm hardly the worlds expert on human emotions but if for whatever reason you can't consent then thats rape pure and simple. If you're both too drunk to consent then that is the more interesting scenario on who gives consent, but most cases I'm pretty sure sex where consent is not given or is just dubious to begin with its rape.
(I'd also like to think that feminist professor Sarah Green countering against that was the same Sarah Green who did Going Live back in 1980s but I'm pretty sure she had an extra E at the end of her name).
As for me I'm with Alex from Mansfield on this from the Mail Onlines Comments.
" I don't really agree with him but questions like this need to be asked.
As usual though , reactionary idiots and self appointed moral guardians,
who can't see past a headline, are quick to be offended and stop
reasonable debate on a very serious subject."
The Crazy World of Arthur Brown.
Its been quite a run on crazy sex related tales what with Gay marriage being sort of legalised here (to be honest I don't care, legalise it they're the only ones who care about it these days) and Amanda Platell going on a bent ref hunt in Saturdays mail. Link here if you can stomach it.
Apparently shes appointed herself paedofinder general and written a load of words in how you can find massive amounts of CP stuff by typing in certain phrases and adding the word porn after it (or if we're malicious here typing all grown up in the MailOnline search box). To be honest I'm not going to do that, as A. I already look like a chimney bottler and B. she only used Google for re(search) purposes and for slagging them off (agenda much). If anyone wants to type this into Ask or Bing or any other search engine to see what you get then fine go ahead, leave me out of it, i'm sure its out there and not on some anonymous Tor portal a million miles away from regular users.
A lot of that stuff reading again and again doesn't ring true. That cute pussies tale has a massive ring of urban myth about it, and reminds me of a story about an old man who looking for a crossword clue about oriental donkeys typed Asian Ass into google and got nothing but pron. That is because the only people who call cats, pussies these days are Mrs Slocombe and my mum. Incidentally they must have had safe search off because repeating this with it on gives you nothing but cats in image search.
The other stuff is various discredited studies on the porn viewing habits of a wide spec of children and young adults, that has been widely debunked as being too broad in scope. If you want a balanced view about it and have an open mind on such stuff the Sex Myth by Dr Brooke Magnanti is an excellent read on this and for cheapskates there is a blog as well, which is also worth reading.
In summary don't have nightmares.