Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Widdershins · 07-12-2016 01:15PM

ivytwine wrote: »

Nope. Pathologising people's behaviour based on very little is a dangerous, slippery slope. Diagnosis should only be done by a psychiatrist.

I haven't heard of HPD. My main disagreement with LON is that she doesn't allow for nuance, discussion or disagreement.

I can't be done just by taking a comment or two in isolation anyway. There's a diagnostic procedure for everything. I probably shouldn't have mentioned HPD really!

She doesn't because she sees it as giving a platform to a variety of ''-ists''. Handy excuse!

ivytwine · 07-12-2016 01:23PM

Widdershins wrote: »

I can't be done just by taking a comment or two in isolation anyway. There's a diagnostic procedure for everything. I probably shouldn't have mentioned HPD really!

She doesn't because she sees it as giving a platform to a variety of ''-ists''. Handy excuse!

Agree with you there. I'm fed up of being seen as a troll by some because I believe in nuance. I was raised and educated to see shades of grey.

I think what's frightening about pathologising, is that it's a throwback to the times when "difficult" people could be and were put away on the basis of very little. So I don't care for a lot of what is said by LON (because of zero nuance) but she has a right to speak. I firmly do not believe in no-platforming. Even the maddest posts on this thread (there are two that stand out) were scrutinised and rebutted. As it should be.

goose2005 · 07-12-2016 01:36PM

Widdershins wrote: »

On the feminist diagnosing IvyTwine..I hate that behaviour but admit it crossed my mind that LON's articles sound like they're written with HPD, or Histrionic Personality Disorder. I know someone who was officially diagnosed and she reminds me an awful lot of her. Not good form to throw a diagnosis at someone based on very little, though.

Especially as all we know of her is based on her public behaviour, which is only a small part of any person

Widdershins · 07-12-2016 01:39PM

goose2005 wrote: »

Especially as all we know of her is based on her public behaviour, which is only a small part of any person

It was a passing resemblance and it's distinctive behaviour/patterns..I wouldn't actually say ''LON has x disorder'' let alone say it to her face to try to 'win' an argument or shut her down. Which apparently someone did to the other poster.

At the same time, she strikes me through her articles as being a histrionic kind of person. I don't have a problem in saying that any more than I have a problem with people describing her as ''attention seeking'' Whether it's part of a medical condition or not I don't know.

Mortpourvelo · 07-12-2016 01:45PM

There are some folk though who just are so blinkered that nothing will get through to them, let alone be listened to.

The whole Fifty Shades.. nonsense passed me by completely, but a mate's sister (who seemed normal up till that time) said "as a woman you are honour bound to read it."

Told her I thought that was crap.

"Then you must hate feminism".

Still not sure about that non sequiter but what can you do!!

Film was shyte but La Dornan with his shirt off is always a thing of beauty!!!

Widdershins · 07-12-2016 01:55PM

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

There are some folk though who just are so blinkered that nothing will get through to them, let alone be listened to.

The whole Fifty Shades.. nonsense passed me by completely, but a mate's sister (who seemed normal up till that time) said "as a woman you are honour bound to read it."

Told her I thought that was crap.

"Then you must hate feminism".

Still not sure about that non sequiter but what can you do!!

Film was shyte but La Dornan with his shirt off is always a thing of beauty!!!

Tell her to go away and read the story of O, and Venus in Furs. Honour bound to read FSOG! Or anything on the subject! Gawd!

py2006 · 07-12-2016 01:55PM

By refusing to accept that violence against women is not just a problem but an epidemic — we are complicit, writes Louise O’Neill

We all know violence exists, we all know some women have unfortunately experienced it. It is not news to anybody. However it is NOT an 'epidemic' as our friendly feminist friend says.

And yes, I use the word women deliberately, because the statistics show the perpetrators of this abuse are predominantly male. The time wasted arguing over the ethics of #NotAllMen is time we could use to tackle toxic masculinity and misogyny, the tangled roots in which domestic violence begins.

Louise my dear (mansplaining) just because you may not have come across stats on male victims or because the stats you choose to look at are focused on one gender and because your mindset is 'women are victims' does not mean that the 'perpetrators are predominately men'.

I think most articles, stats etc will portray the majority of victims as being female and give some token gesture percentage towards men to shut up all the 'misogynists' who say, "hold on a sec...".

And Yea, lets not waste time listening to #NotAllMen. Sure yea that is a waste of time because afterall, IT IS ALL MEN. Isn't that right?

And even if you admit that a teeny/tiny/looney percentage of men are vicitims (which you actually do) how do you explain that route cause? Also what about same sex couples?????????

The real problem here is the constant framing and re-framing of violence against women as a woman’s issue.

A teacher told me that when showing my documentary on rape culture to a class of transition year girls, that they expressed their disappointment that it seemed ‘anti-men’.

Even at the summit, the audience was predominantly made up of women. Men that I know, good men, have told me they are uncomfortable discussing this issue, as they feel as if they are being branded as abusers just by virtue of their gender.

Yea, but you just go ahead and ignore/dismiss them Louise.

To give a very rudimentary example, studies have shown that men who are unemployed are more likely to abuse their partners and children, that their sense that they are ‘failing’ to provide leads to overwhelming feelings of inadequacy which causes them to lash out in frustration.

Yet, do we assume that the man should be the main breadwinner?

That archaic thinking is a direct product of a patriarchal culture that sees it as the male duty to financially support the household rather than it being a joint responsibility between equal partners.

The patriarchy is hurting us all, quite literally in these cases.

Ahhhhh I seeeee. Not having a job equates to most of us beating up our wives! I should have known sorry. I wasn't working last year for a month, I forget to suggest a shelter for my wife and child.

Oh and btw....WHAT STUDIES???????????????

Mortpourvelo · 07-12-2016 01:59PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Tell her to go away and read the story of O, and Venus in Furs. Honour bound to read FSOG! Or anything on the subject! Gawd!

Venus in Furs is classic!

FSOG is badly written schoolgirl level shyte.

Yeah I caved and read the first one, figuring if millions read it there must be SOMETHING to it.

Nope. Shyte.

neonsofa · 07-12-2016 02:14PM

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Forget about rape as a crime for one sec - a relative was broken into, robbed loads.

Insurance company tried to tell her that as she'd left the bathroom window open - that's why she was robbed.

Were they victim blaming ? Or just applying common sense ???

Considering the majority of rapes are committed by a person the victim knows and trusts (even where drink is involved etc.), i think a more fitting analogy would be if your family member was robbed while away, by the person they had asked and trusted to house sit-a person who they believed would keep the house safe, and look out for them. I don't know what the insurance company's take would be on that scenario, but I know very few people who would say "why did you put yourself in that position, surely you realised you were leaving your house and possessions vulnerable and for the taking", it would be more along the lines of "that person took advantage of your vulnerabilities (being away) and are the only person to blame".

ivytwine · 07-12-2016 02:18PM

neonsofa wrote: »

Considering the majority of rapes are committed by a person the victim knows and trusts (even where drink is involved etc.), i think a more fitting analogy would be if your family member was robbed while away, by the person they had asked and trusted to house sit-a person who they believed would keep the house safe, and look out for them. I don't know what the insurance company's take would be on that scenario, but I know very few people who would say "why did you put yourself in that position, surely you realised you were leaving your house and possessions vulnerable and for the taking", it would be more along the lines of "that person took advantage of your vulnerabilities (being away) and are the only person to blame".

Very very true. This is what needs to be brought to attention more- the stranger down the dark alley is rare.

The_Captain · 07-12-2016 02:27PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Tell her to go away and read the story of O, and Venus in Furs. Honour bound to read FSOG! Or anything on the subject! Gawd!

It's a pretty decent What Not To Do, if nothing else. It's basically a description of an abusive relationship written by a woman who thinks this is what BDSM is

Widdershins · 07-12-2016 02:34PM

The_Captain wrote: »

It's a pretty decent What Not To Do, if nothing else. It's basically a description of an abusive relationship written by a woman who thinks this is what BDSM is

Hm. It does cast dominant men as mentally unhealthy and try to glamourise that. I also see it as a womens' guide on how to be a gormless and superficial twit. She was drawn to him because of his money.

midnight city · 07-12-2016 04:10PM

py2006 wrote: »

By refusing to accept that violence against women is not just a problem but an epidemic — we are complicit, writes Louise O’Neill

We all know violence exists, we all know some women have unfortunately experienced it. It is not news to anybody. However it is NOT an 'epidemic' as our friendly feminist friend says.

Louise my dear (mansplaining) just because you may not have come across stats on male victims or because the stats you choose to look at are focused on one gender and because your mindset is 'women are victims' does not mean that the 'perpetrators are predominately men'.

I think most articles, stats etc will portray the majority of victims as being female and give some token gesture percentage towards men to shut up all the 'misogynists' who say, "hold on a sec...".

And Yea, lets not waste time listening to #NotAllMen. Sure yea that is a waste of time because afterall, IT IS ALL MEN. Isn't that right?

And even if you admit that a teeny/tiny/looney percentage of men are vicitims (which you actually do) how do you explain that route cause? Also what about same sex couples?????????

Yea, but you just go ahead and ignore/dismiss them Louise.

Ahhhhh I seeeee. Not having a job equates to most of us beating up our wives! I should have known sorry. I wasn't working last year for a month, I forget to suggest a shelter for my wife and child.

Oh and btw....WHAT STUDIES???????????????

Id say Louise was devastated to hear the class of students call the program anti male. Her brainwashing failed, most people are sensible. Louise is a crackpot extremist.

The_Captain · 07-12-2016 04:12PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Hm. It does cast dominant men as mentally unhealthy and try to glamourise that. I also see it as a womens' guide on how to be a gormless and superficial twit. She was drawn to him because of his money.

It all stems from his issues with his overbearing mother, and in the end the love of a good woman frees him from his wicked ways and brings him back to missionary. Poor Ana is wallpaper, just a characterless woman stumbling around having things happen to her. Submissive women of course have no personality, opinions or ability to make their own decisions :rolleyes:

Dr Jakub · 07-12-2016 07:25PM

midnight city wrote: »

Id say Louise was devastated to hear the class of students call the program anti male. Her brainwashing failed, most people are sensible. Louise is a crackpot extremist.

Well you see those girls have 'internalized misogyny'

Widdershins · 07-12-2016 07:28PM

The_Captain wrote: »

It all stems from his issues with his overbearing mother, and in the end the love of a good woman frees him from his wicked ways and brings him back to missionary. Poor Ana is wallpaper, just a characterless woman stumbling around having things happen to her. Submissive women of course have no personality, opinions or ability to make their own decisions :rolleyes:

Yes, it goes like this:
dominant people = damaged and incapable of ordinary relationship
submissives= dependent and weak

py2006 · 07-12-2016 07:29PM

Dr Jakub wrote: »

Well you see those girls have 'internalized misogyny'

If their teacher was male she would no doubt blame their reaction on him and his teaching style

Widdershins · 07-12-2016 07:30PM

Dr Jakub wrote: »

Well you see those girls have 'internalized misogyny'

All the more reason they need her then .. she can correct their thinking!

ivytwine · 07-12-2016 08:35PM

"And yes, I use the word women deliberately, because the statistics show the perpetrators of this abuse are predominantly male. The time wasted arguing over the ethics of #NotAllMen is time we could use to tackle toxic masculinity and misogyny, the tangled roots in which domestic violence begins."

EDIT: in case it's not clear, I'm quoting Louise O'Neill, not agreeing with her!

Or lobbying for stronger custodial sentences and better judicial training, or raising funds for services, or better cross border communication, because my understanding is that a victim in Donegal has to travel to Galway for examination? Or ensuring that someone like Gerald Barry doesn't get out on bail and rape and murder someone, as happened in Galway (he's only one example).

This is what in my opinion Louise O'Neill could focus her considerable determination on. She also doesn't have to, and apologies if she does, but giving a slice of her income from her novels to the RCC would be a good idea.

mzungu · 07-12-2016 08:52PM

ivytwine wrote: »

"And yes, I use the word women deliberately, because the statistics show the perpetrators of this abuse are predominantly male. The time wasted arguing over the ethics of #NotAllMen is time we could use to tackle toxic masculinity and misogyny, the tangled roots in which domestic violence begins."

Studies in the US show that the rate of domestic violence among women in lesbian relationships stands at 43.8%, which is higher than the 35% for women in heterosexual relationships. Link: Click Me

As far as I know, there has been no study done this side of the pond. However, the above does point to there being a hell of a lot more involved in domestic abuse than just throwing out buzzwords du jour like "toxic masculinity". If toxic masculinity is behind domestic violence, then why is abuse so prevalent in lesbian relationships where no men are involved whatsoever?

ivytwine wrote: »

Or lobbying for stronger custodial sentences and better judicial training, or raising funds for services, or better cross border communication, because my understanding is that a victim in Donegal has to travel to Galway for examination? Or ensuring that someone like Gerald Barry doesn't get out on bail and rape and murder someone, as happened in Galway (he's only one example).

This is what in my opinion Louise O'Neill could focus her considerable determination on. She also doesn't have to, and apologies if she does, but giving a slice of her income from her novels to the RCC would be a good idea.

This is one area that definitely needs to be looked at. There are sentences handed down that are woefully inadequate given the severity of the crime.

midnight city · 07-12-2016 08:59PM

mzungu wrote: »

Studies in the US show that the rate of domestic violence among women in lesbian relationships stands at 43.8%, which is higher than the 35% for women in heterosexual relationships. Link: Click Me

As far as I know, there has been no study done this side of the pond. However, the above does point to there being a hell of a lot more involved in domestic abuse than just throwing out buzzwords du jour like "toxic masculinity". If toxic masculinity is behind domestic violence, then why is abuse so prevalent in lesbian relationships where no men are involved whatsoever?

This is one area that needs to be looked at, pronto. There are sentences handed down that are woefully inadequate given the severity of the crime.

I wonder how often are women the first to get violent in a relationship. Women that start slapping or hitting men and the men hit back. We know all about the violent brute that beats up his wife. But we hear little about the violent wife.

The message needs to be instilled in all children from a young age to never hit anybody.

ivytwine · 07-12-2016 09:01PM

mzungu wrote: »

Studies in the US show that the rate of domestic violence among women in lesbian relationships stands at 43.8%, which is higher than the 35% for women in heterosexual relationships. Link: Click Me

As far as I know, there has been no study done this side of the pond. However, the above does point to there being a hell of a lot more involved in domestic abuse than just throwing out buzzwords du jour like "toxic masculinity". If toxic masculinity is behind domestic violence, then why is abuse so prevalent in lesbian relationships where no men are involved whatsoever?

This is one area that definitely needs to be looked at. There are sentences handed down that are woefully inadequate given the severity of the crime.

One thing that maybe causing violence and emotional abuse is societal attitudes to relationships of all stripes. Obsessive behaviour is romanticised, control too, being alone has a certain stigma... added in individual vulnerabilities and it's a bit of a toxic mix. There may be nothing to it, only that certain people are not very nice but the figures are quite high, it suggests a certain tolerance of unhealthy dynamics.

On sentences- yes. For all crime, but on sexual crime some judges seem to be especially out of touch.

Sand · 07-12-2016 09:13PM

midnight city wrote: »

I wonder how often are women the first to get violent in a relationship. Women that start slapping or hitting men and the men hit back. We know all about the violent brute that beats up his wife. But we hear little about the violent wife.

The message needs to be instilled in all children from a young age to never hit anybody.

I've an aunt and uncle like that. Basically John and Mary from Father Ted. Like angels in public, but its well known they drink and fight viciously and violently back home. Each as bad as the other, the only difference is one is bigger. Still together after all these years and despite so many other marriages breaking down, so who knows, maybe they're doing something right.

Probably not though.

ivytwine · 07-12-2016 09:30PM

Sand wrote: »

I've an aunt and uncle like that. Basically John and Mary from Father Ted. Like angels in public, but its well known they drink and fight viciously and violently back home. Each as bad as the other, the only difference is one is bigger. Still together after all these years and despite so many other marriages breaking down, so who knows, maybe they're doing something right.

Probably not though.

I have only known of one physically abusive relationship personally and that was male on female.

I can give you tons of examples of emotionally abusive relationships in my circle. And a significant proportion were female on male.

mzungu · 07-12-2016 10:10PM

midnight city wrote: »

The message needs to be instilled in all children from a young age to never hit anybody.

Yep, I think this would be a good move.

ivytwine wrote: »

One thing that maybe causing violence and emotional abuse is societal attitudes to relationships of all stripes. Obsessive behaviour is romanticised, control too, being alone has a certain stigma ... added in individual vulnerabilities and it's a bit of a toxic mix. There may be nothing to it, only that certain people are not very nice but the figures are quite high, it suggests a certain tolerance of unhealthy dynamics.

I think all of the above do come into play in certain scenarios. As for the bit in bold, I do hope that the stigma becomes a thing of the past. It is unfortunate to hear of people who stay in unhappy relationships because the alternative is singledom.

ivytwine · 07-12-2016 10:30PM

mzungu wrote: »

Yep, I think this would be a good move.

I think all of the above do come into play in certain scenarios. As for the bit in bold, I do hope that the stigma becomes a thing of the past. It is unfortunate to hear of people who stay in unhappy relationships because the alternative is singledom.

It probably won't happen overnight but I think it's lessening. Seems to be worse for women (not that it's not there for men by any means) but I think women are conditioned to panic and base their entire worth on their relationship status.

I could be completely talking out of my hoop but I think society does definitely have a bit of an emphasis that any relationship, even a terrible one, is better than nothing.

mzungu · 07-12-2016 10:58PM

ivytwine wrote: »

It probably won't happen overnight but I think it's lessening. Seems to be worse for women (not that it's not there for men by any means) but I think women are conditioned to panic and base their entire worth on their relationship status.

I would agree. In general, most men would be fairly laissez-faire about the whole marriage thing. To a greater degree, marriage is touted a lot more towards women, especially in their childhood years (kids books that feature stuff like marrying Prince charming etc) and way beyond that into adulthood.

ivytwine wrote: »

I could be completely talking out of my hoop but I think society does definitely have a bit of an emphasis that any relationship, even a terrible one, is better than nothing.

This attitude does prevail quite a bit. It would also be something of a hangover from the holy catholic Ireland days where nobody wanted to be left on the shelf. These would be notions that I hope are (or will be) consigned to past.

Outlaw Pete · 07-12-2016 10:59PM

ivytwine wrote: »

This is what in my opinion Louise O'Neill could focus her considerable determination on. She also doesn't have to, and apologies if she does, but giving a slice of her income from her novels to the RCC would be a good idea.

I agree with your intention and I actually think the days of the NWCI needing the €1/2 million or so they get off the tax payer should be over as they clearly don't represent the views of the majority of Irish women and even if they did, they are an advocacy group that have others sources of income to fund their lobbying. So yeah, would much rather the RCCentres throughout Ireland got that money than they did.

However, they can be as bad as Louise at times, or at least whoever is behind their awareness campaign can be, as here is something they tweeted earlier today and this nonsense will just add confusion to the discussion around sexual consent, not clarify it in anyway.

https://twitter.com/DublinRCC/status/806450738033528832

First of all I would take issue with the wording 'Consent is..' as that implies that if any of the above are not a factor when someone has sex, then they have thereby been raped. Secondly it says 'Consent is verbal' and that is absolute nonsense. Sure, consent can be verbal, but it's not always so and just because a person has not verbally consented to sex, doesn't mean that they haven't consented in other ways, such as body language and with their actions.

Personally I think that consent awareness campaigns should focus on educating people how to read signals that someone might not want to have sex and also how to read signs that someone might be too intoxicated to be making rational decisions, of any kind, not just ones of a sexual nature. I also think, and I know this is controversial, that Camille Paglia has a point when she says that people need to be more aware of the sexual signals they are sending and untimely take an certain amount of responsibility for the sexual situations in which they find themselves.

As I have repeatedly argued throughout my career, sex is a physical interaction, animated by primitive energies and instincts that cannot be reduced to verbal formulas. Neither party in any sexual encounter is totally operating in the rational realm, which is why the Greek god Dionysus was the patron of ecstasy, a hallucinatory state of pleasure-pain. ‘Yes means Yes’ laws are drearily puritanical and literalistic as well as hopelessly totalitarian.

Their increasing popularity simply demonstrates how boring and meaningless sex has become — and why Hollywood movies haven’t produced a scintilla of sexiness since Sharon Stone uncrossed her legs in Basic Instinct. Sex is always a dangerous gamble — as gay men have known and accepted for thousands of years. Nothing in the world will ever be totally safe, even the plushy pads of an infant’s crib, to which feminist ideologues would evidently wish to reduce us all.”

‘Rape culture’ is a ridiculous term — mere gassy propaganda, too rankly bloated to critique. Anyone who sees sex so simplistically has very little sense of world history, anthropology or basic psychology. I feel very sorry for women who have been seduced by this hyper-politicized, victim-centered rhetoric, because in clinging to such superficial, inflammatory phrases, they have renounced their own power and agency.”

“The problem with too much current feminism, in my opinion, is that even when it strikes progressive poses, it emanates from an entitled, upper-middle-class point of view. It demands the intrusion and protection of paternalistic authority figures to project a hypothetical utopia that will be magically free from offense and hurt. Its rampant policing of thought and speech is completely reactionary, a gross betrayal of the radical principles of 1960s counterculture, which was inaugurated in the U.S. by the incendiary Free Speech Movement at the University of California at Berkeley.”

“I am continually shocked and dismayed by the nearly Victorian notions promulgated by today’s feminists about the fragility of women and their naïve helplessness in asserting control over their own dating lives. Female undergraduates incapable of negotiating the oafish pleasures and perils of campus fraternity parties are hardly prepared to win leadership positions in business or government in the future.”

“The anti-porn crusader Andrea Dworkin (who died a decade ago) was a rabid fanatic, a self-destructive woman so consumed by her hatred of men that she tottered on the edge of psychosis. Dworkin and her puritanical henchman Catharine MacKinnon (born into wealth and privilege) were extremely powerful in the US for a long time, culminating in the major media’s canonization of MacKinnon in a 1991 New York Times Magazine cover story.

When I burst on the scene after the release of my first book in 1990, I attacked Dworkin and MacKinnon with all guns blazing. I am very proud of the role I played in defending free speech and helping the pro-sex wing of feminism to go public and eventually win its great victory over both Dworkin-MacKinnon and the priggish feminist establishment typified by Steinem. Hence the unthinking backward turn of current feminism toward censorship is appalling and tragic. Young feminists seem to have little sense of the crucial battles that were waged and won a quarter century ago.”

ivytwine · 07-12-2016 11:36PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I agree with your intention and I actually think the days of the NWCI needing the €1/2 million or so they get off the tax payer should be over as they clearly don't represent the views of the majority of Irish women and even if they did, they are an advocacy group that have others sources of income to fund their lobbying. So yeah, would much rather the RCCentres throughout Ireland got that money than they did.

However, they can be as bad as Louise at times, or at least whoever is behind their awareness campaign can be, as here is something they tweeted earlier today and this nonsense will just add confusion to the discussion around sexual consent, not clarify it in anyway.

https://twitter.com/DublinRCC/status/806450738033528832

First of all I would take issue with the wording 'Consent is..' as that implies that if any of the above are not a factor when someone has sex, then they have thereby been raped. Secondly it says 'Consent is verbal' and that is absolute nonsense. Sure, consent can be verbal, but it's not always so and just because a person has not verbally consented to sex, doesn't mean that they haven't consented in other ways, such as body language and with their actions.

Personally I think that consent awareness campaigns should focus on educating people how to read signals that someone might not want to have sex and also how to read signs that someone might be too intoxicated to be making rational decisions, of any kind, not just ones of a sexual nature. I also think, and I know this is controversial, that Camille Paglia has a point when she says that people need to be more aware of the sexual signals they are sending and untimely take an certain amount of responsibility for the sexual situations in which they find themselves.

I agree to a certain extent and I'll bash Twitter again and say that anything that fits on a meme or a tweet will only ever scratch the surface. The RCCs provide an invaluable service so I'd forgive them the odd foray into this type of thing. It'd be interesting to hear the discussions they've had as part of this campaign.

I'm 100% with you on teaching people to read the signs better. This should be discussed at an early age and then the sexual aspect could be brought in as kids hit puberty. Teaching kids to recognise when someone else is outwardly suffering could be invaluable in clarifying consent, but also in preventing bullying etc.

Camille has gone out of fashion unfortunately as she talks a lot of sense. Some third wave feminists are inheritors of Dworkin, but at least she was open about it.

goose2005 · 08-12-2016 11:26AM

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Venus in Furs is classic!

FSOG is badly written schoolgirl level shyte.

Yeah I caved and read the first one, figuring if millions read it there must be SOMETHING to it.

Nope. Shyte.

It's literally a Twilight fanfic with the names changed

Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Comments