But Barbara Amiel has strong opinions over at the Daily Telegraph.
Any woman crying rape under such factual circumstances would have had to show feeble-mindedness to warrant society’s protection. Going voluntarily up to a stranger’s room for intercourse or its preliminaries, and expecting a man to behave as a light switch that can be turned off at will, may be technically her right, but it is both biologically and logically mad.
Notice, Barbara is saying that if the girl is reporting events accurately, then she was 'mad' to expect protection from rape in such circumstances.
Is there any woman reading this who has not gone voluntarily to someone's room for sexual intercourse? (Maybe not to a stranger's room, but I would guess to someone's room who you don't know that well, perhaps early in a relationship). Are you then 'logically mad' not to expect five other guys to turn up and fuck you against your will?
Is there any women reading this who hasn't ever decided to abbreviate a sexual encounter? Men can always cope with that can't they? I wouldn't call it 'behaving like a light switch' but 'behaving like a sentient being'. Of course action can be 'turned off at will' - that's what 'will' means. Why don't men complain about this kind of characterisation, which paints them as more degraded than animals?
From crooked timber (there are some nutty responses there too).
