Right you pesky feminists, which sort of rape is *worse* <Dawkins related>

Actually that is a total lie, I work in an office, I do have a degree in Physics though. And also do watch too much sci-fi

We do have a couple of theoretical physicists by trade on FWR so maybe they will see this and give their thoughts.

It is a bit off the topic though, the topic being what an absolute wanker richard dawkins is.

I'm an athiest and a physicist and am fascinated by the concept of parallel universes. I also watch too much sci-fi

People can believe anything they like surely? As long as it doesn't adversely affect anyone else (or themselves? that's an interesting question). Anyway. If there is no proof of something then clearly they can't take the piss out of someone who doesn't believe it.

And that's the point ins't it. In the absence of proof, or a credible well established theory, then no-one can say something does or doesn't exist.

I must admit I'm not that up on the current theories around parallel universes and any mathematical or experimental proofs that might have been performed. Maybe he knows something you don't?

well, my physicist & athiest brother told me recently that he believes in parallel universes (but not god). Struck me as ridiculous, but with his superior intellect he informed me that there was nothing ridiculous about it. Phew. So now I know :-| (not religious either, but i feel for my mum, every time he sneers at faith, and then in the next breath, sneers at anybody who can't get behind a parallel universe!)

I've never thought myself arrogant JM. Occasionally guilty of smuggery, perhaps, questioning, sure, open to changing my mind based on evidence, certainly. But not arrogant.

It does take a special kind of arrogance to be an atheist.

I don't believe in God (and can't bear organised religion), but I don't pretend to have the first clue as to how we're here in the universe, so I'm agnostic.

It says a lot about him.

He doesn't even have the 'God told me to' excuse for being a misogynist, he just is one.

yy Basil read about Dawkins' comments re elevators/creepy man following Rebecca Watson upstairs in hotel in early hours here

I've seen Rebecca Watson's talks on YouTube about how sexist the sceptic/atheist community can be.

Thing is, he's so clever about everything except women isn't he

Like all those civilised, educated, liberal, humane racists in the c18.

Basil - maybe he genuinely believes that his logic removes one pathetic self-justification from rapists and other abusers (that what they do is ok because its not, in some people's estimation the 'worst') - because logically that is what it does. Saying that people who make that excuse need to go away and learn how to think really doesn't seem much like succoring them to me.

Still incredibly stupid to have started this on twitter, and even stupider to forget the basic logic 'when you're in a hole stop digging'.

Dawkins was attempting an experiment about the way language was used, while completely missing the point about the importance of language. It's difficult to think things through when you have your head as far up your arse as he does.

No, they were saying 'date' rape was worse for them, and that it's an entirely subjective, individual experience and as such, his thought process is a thoroughly bad example of logic.

People saying Dawkins never used the phrase mild rape, yes he did!!

mobile.twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/494039058122039296

Maybe it's already been mentioned but a lot of people on this thread seemed to counter that they thought date rape was worse.

Were they not doing the same thing as Dawkins, just coming to a different conclusion? They seemed to pass without comment though.

Nail on head, Basil.

You know what's really depressing about the whole thing? RD knew damn well that the people who would actually read his tweets wrong, are not the feminists. rape survivors and decent people who are challenging him on his tweets, but the knuckle-draggers who are absolutely delighted that a so-called champion of logic and rational debate, appears to have come down on their side vis a vis rape.

RD is an intelligent, educated man. One of the things about being a man, is that you get to spend time with other men without women present, so you learn the truth about how much contempt men as a group have for women; there is always at least one man in every friendship group, who hates women and the others accept him as part of the group. RD is perfectly aware that there are millions of men out there who have the instincts and values of rapists and that those men are the first ones to jump up and promote the interests of rapists because they hate women. He knows they're out there, he knows they'd jump on his tweets as further succour and support for their misogyny and he chose to tweet that anyway. Because he's a fucking horrible misogynist.

Does anyone remember his outrage at the idea that a woman can critique a man's behaviour as creepy, if he propositions her in a lift at 1AM after a conference? He was mocking and dismissive about the fact that women operate in a context where we live with the permanent threat of a 1 in 4 chance of a man sexually assaulting us. As with this row, he brushed off any critique and just dismissed it as illogical.

What is it with misogynists and logic? They come across as incredibly stupid, like they've got this huge blind-spot where all their previous logic just falls apart, because if you refuse to acknowledge actual context, then all your arguments are just meaningless, however beautifully logical they may be.

What on earth are you reading in to what I wrote? I did not have sex with either the woman I described as 'touch me/dont touch me', which disturbed me because it was a cycle she repeated. Nor did I have sex with the woman I guessed was pushing herself into it. She started crying and asked me how I knew.

dad

That is complete bollocks - did you ask on the first shag, or continue raping her for a while until you asked why she pushed herself?
If she is not interested, then stop and have the discussion, no real difficulty.
When you offer soemone cake, you put it on their plate if they diffidently say yes, at no point do you force them to eat - you discuss at the initial resistence why they are not eating, not force it down their throat a few times then ask.

Monty, the idea that a man who is right next to a woman, can hear her voice, her breathing, feel her responses and even her heartbeat can't tell whether that woman is enthusiastic or not boggles me. Men don't go around stuffing cake into people's mouths because they can't tell whether those people want cake or not, do they? Reading someone's signals is not hard at all, we expect people to do it competently all the time. And yet when it comes to sex suddenly men become blind, deaf, insensate and unable to simply ask "are you ok?" Why is that?

Cailindana, I have had sex with women who were enthusiastic about having sex, even pushed one off me who decided to insist on it while she preferred I stay asleep. But I have also been with women who pretended enthusiasm. I became aware of that only with hindsight by dint of experience. The last woman I was with, before I met my wife, I straight up asked her why she was pushing herself to have sex she did not want. She looked at me like I had dropped a bomb on her. None of them were girls, they were older women who fell into some form of trap of providing sex rather than sharing it, on the basis that if they did not do so they would not get what they realy wanted. Not a mercenary action, they traded sex they did not expect to enjoy for the possibility of real intimacy. They wanted the warmth of a man in their bed more than they wanted the warmth of a cock in them. Thats one example of the fallacy of obvious enthusiasm for sex. Others, one woman I was with was like a traffic light, literally 'touch me' 'dont touch me'. Disturbing. Other women who would say things like 'You would be good for me.' or 'You should have tried harder (to have sex with me)'. Argh.

I would like it to be just as clear as you think it is, that's why I was teaching my daughters principles of enthusiastic consent before feminism articulated it as a term. But trying to do that on a personal scale while, on a societal scale, I seem to be fighting against not only men but women avidly consuming billions of Millls & Boon, Shades of Grey and Twilight. Its hard, damn hard. All of that societal crap with its underlying themes of the confliction of desire and the erotisation of consent, with the heroine not knowing what she really wants, with sex as her gift to be surrendered despite herself. None of it helps my daughters, none of it helps sons.

We have standard sentencing for all rape - 5 years for first offence with women over 16.

I've had wine so will keep this short. But it was Dawkins who suggested standard sentencing for all rape (ie life imprisonment) in his response to this - not me, not a pp. just wanted to make that clear.

I am not defending his choice of medium - I think my first post suggested that Twitter was not the right place. I will suggest that you ought to be able to have a discussion about logic on any subject however - people ought to learn this stuff at school.
He is correct that we do have degrees of rape (not in his example) - the sentencing guidelines I linked to earlier states that raping an old women or a child (under 16) demands a greater sentence than a middle age women. Society currently says that being raped at 17 or 40 is better than being raped at 16 or 80. This is worth discussing.