bastard behind the eyes wrote:
I have to take issue here. I'm not saying he is weird per se but he is just creepy. I have it on the highest authority. I had to question her about it today. So there you go, maybe not totally weird but definitely creepy
Point of interest: are you of legal training (i.e. had to question someone about it). I presume that the person you had to question is the "highest authority" - in what sense or by which/whose definition?
[Please note that I ask these questions out of interest and in the most neutral way. I don't want to turn these boards into a wiki-leaky slanging match.]
Also, the creepy and/or weird portrayal are held by people both independent and dependent of, with no reference or with reference to, the details Swedish case. That is, when the Swedish case is brought into the frame, the response is: "Well, he is/appears creepy/weird so I'm not surprised." In short: he is creepy, therefore he would rape; he raped, which confirms his creepiness.
So I'm just saying, his weirdness is no more than the weirdness of an average geek (which I state, of course, independent of the "creepiness" that surrounds him now following the Swedish case). In any case, by connecting creepiness with the Swedish case, the subtext is that it is only creepy men who rape (I understand that, by definition, those who rape are creeps in a different sense. But what I'm trying to say is that men who appear normal can and do also rape.)
(Am I making sense yet? Hungover, late night last night, etc.)