Would You Stand By A Rapist Husband?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2621567/Woman-stands-rapist-husband-told-victim-doing-didnt-sex-wife.html

I ask our female ABers, would you have as understanding as this woman if your partner/ husband had behaved in such a way?

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// Indeed it can AOG, and there is little doubt that the Mail is underlining its disbelief that a Cambridge gel could stand by a thug like this, plus he is an immigrant, and he's b..... bl....., no I am spluttering too much to type it! ///

/// Ticks all the Mail's boxes though! ///

And you don't think this would happen if the thug happened to be white, a celebrity, a benefit cheater, from whatever country etc, etc?

Black immigrants don't own the sole rights of widespread coverage from the Daily Mail.

The Mail reports on the crimes not just the perpetrator, would you be pleased to see such cases not reported on?

Incidentally Andy you missed out 'ugly' in your descriptions of the drug taking, adulterous, sexual assaulter rapist.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/06/article-2621567-1D9DA01800000578-873_306x423.jpg

[andy-hughes]

AOG - "Black immigrants don't own the sole rights of widespread coverage from the Daily Mail."

Actually, i think they do!

"Incidentally Andy you missed out 'ugly' in your descriptions of the drug taking, adulterous, sexual assaulter rapist."

That's a subjective judgement which I do not feel qualified to make, but thanks for your input - I guess we can go with that.

[anotheoldgit]

ummmm

/// Why do you do this, AOG? ///

/// But it makes him look daft. ///

What raw nerve have I touched on you, because it sounds that I have said something that you don't agree with, please point it out.

Incidentally to be quite correct you can not see me so how can I 'LOOK' daft?

[jim360]

You make yourself look daft by spending time in a serious thread fussing over the semantics of the word "look". Honestly.

[ummmm]

There ya go....!!

You have been debating with sp long enough to know your question regarding murder is ridiculous.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// AOG - "Black immigrants don't own the sole rights of widespread coverage from the Daily Mail." ///

/// Actually, i think they do! ///

You may 'THINK' so, but that does not make what you assume to be correct.

But if it is myself who happens to be wrong, then I would be more than willing to concede.

That said I only hope there isn't a sudden escalation in knife crime etc..

[pixie373]

Aog, sp said "i could"..not necessarily "i would"

[anotheoldgit]

jim360

/// You make yourself look daft by spending time in a serious thread fussing over the semantics of the word "look". Honestly. ///

That should of course be "You leave yourself open to being called daft"

I am myself a regular target for the resident AB semantic investigators, so I thought for a change I myself would get one in, so as to save them all that trouble you know?

But I didn't realise that they were 'DAFT LOOKING' I just thought that they were just insistent on the correct terminology.

Just shows how wrong one can be.

[ummmm]

I'm not one of those people!!!

[anotheoldgit]

ummmm

/// You have been debating with sp long enough to know your question regarding murder is ridiculous. ///

Then perhaps it is sp and not me, who you should be criticising for what he put,
But that's not how it works on AB is it?

[andy-hughes]

AOG - "/// AOG - "Black immigrants don't own the sole rights of widespread coverage from the Daily Mail." ///

/// Actually, i think they do! ///

You may 'THINK' so, but that does not make what you assume to be correct.

But if it is myself who happens to be wrong, then I would be more than willing to concede."

Your defence of your news media of choice is admirable, but as daily readers and analysts of repute, I think we both know that my point is a valid one.

[Zeuhl]

/leave yourself open to being called daft/

you may not realise it, but you can't be 'called daft' aog because on this forum we can't speak to or hear each other.

if you want to discuss semantics perhaps you should consider that, and acknowledge that though we only interact in writing, we use language from other Representation Systems (visual, auditory etc) to express ourselves.

I hope you can SEE my point, HEAR what I'm SAYING and that it MAKES SENSE.

[jim360]

In terms of the original question, it's often the case that people in love bend over backwards to hide from the crimes/ faults of those they do love. Sometimes you don't even need love to be so irrational. Simply being a victim, but able to convince yourself that somehow it was your fault is enough: "I shouldn't have been there at the time", "If I'd spent more time with him then he wouldn't be this way", "I could have done a better job defending myself", etc.

I can sympathise then, to some extent, with this woman's attitude. I don't know what I'd be like in the same or a similar situation. I hope that I never have to find out.

[ummmm]

I can't answer for SP but as far as I'm concerned he's saying that rape is somehow worse than murder. That of course would depend on the murder so not child killers etc. You knew that anyway so I'm wasting my time typing.

[anotheoldgit]

pixie373

/// Aog, sp said "i could"..not necessarily "i would" ///

And I am criticised for making myself look daft for fussing over semantics.

Just to refresh this is what sp put.

*** Here's the thing...could you stand by your partner, if they had been convicted of murder? ***

*** I could. ***

I could, I would, ????

In the context in which it was said, it has exactly the same meaning.

[albaqwerty]

No way could I stand beside a husband/son/nephew or any male relative

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

Provide the proof Andy and then we can debate further.

[pixie373]

No it doesn't! "Could" is possibly, depending on the situation. "would" is definite. Big difference.

[viv38]

Me neither alba.

[anotheoldgit]

ummmm

/// I can't answer for SP but as far as I'm concerned he's saying that rape is somehow worse than murder. That of course would depend on the murder so not child killers etc. You knew that anyway so I'm wasting my time typing. ///

Unlike yourself who seems to be able to read sp's mind, I can only go on what he put, and he didn't categorise which murders, only murders.