To not see why people are so annoyed...?

[curiousgeorgie]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2709730/Richard-Dawkins-sparks-outrage-Twitter-debate-saying-date-rape-bad-stranger-rape-worse.html

Sorry for the daily mail link, I know some don't like that.

I think I agree with him and I don't think it takes anything away from victims.... Am I wrong?

And please don't tell rape victims how they feel

MostWicked wasn't doing that. She was telling you how she felt about her experience although there are several posters telling her and me how we ought to feel including telling us we are "in denial" and another saying "People also want to make rape seem less horrible to make it psychologically easier for themselves to deal with it."

Some-one else said "No matter who rapes you the end result is the same. Pain, shame, anger, trust issues, fear of men, fear of unknown situations, panic attacks, grief." and the poster above me asserted "although mentally it must be worse by someone you know and trust" Neither of which applied to me. I am 100% sure that if I had been attacked by a stranger it would be profoundly traumatic.

The common wisdom of mumsnet and the law has decided MostWicked's experience and mine were rape. The common wisdom of MN seems pretty set on telling us how we should feel about it and apparently not reacting in the MN approved way means we are in denial.

Let's park that and assume we are " in denial " (as opposed to having just dealt with it)-is that wrong? Would you prefer she and I did experience the list of reactions above? Is it some sort of betrayal of fellow women not to?

Phaedra you haven't bothered reproducing what I said that in response to. I also don't know why you are speaking on behalf of another poster, nor why you are quoting loads of things I haven't said in an attempt to say I am incorrect

I said "please don't tell rape victims how they feel" in response to this:

"I believe it is an insult to anyone who has suffered an extremely violent rape against a very vulnerable victim, to suggest that this is equally as serious as the non-consensual sex that I described I experienced, which by the definition of the law, is rape."

In this post, she not only asserts that all rape victims have an internal hierarchy of rape - I assume she thinks this because she does but newsflash not everyone thinks the same
And she asserts that people feel insulted when someone who has had an incident lower on her internal hierarchy express a level of distress that she thinks is appropriate to people higher up on her internal hierarchy.

I have simply pointed out that IME IRL and on MN rape victims are generally supportive of each other irrespective of the circumstances as they are, you know, human beings with empathy and additionally because they have a shared experience ie they have been raped. And it is the rape that is the main factor, the violation around which the rest of it sits.

To come on a thread where so many people have shared their stories and say that the, what, "properly raped" must feel insulted by the stories of the, what, "mildly raped" being put "on the same page" ... It's really nasty, and more than that it is not true.

You'd think reading her post that any post on MN of the "my husband did this what should I do" which come up depressingly frequently would be met by cries of "that's nothing listen to what happened to me" "huh call that rape? that's well mild" etc etc

In fact people come on and say oh dear that's awful I'm sorry and give constructive advice (in the main). And the ones who say put up and shut up he didn't do anything wrong are generally not people who have been attacked themselves.

I think that they current approach is the right one.

Seven have you read MostWicked's posts or mine for that matter?

I was quoting the selection of posts telling her and me how we are supposed to feel. It is quite obvious I was not attributing all of them to you and goodness knows how you came to that conclusion given I referred to "several posters".

And why on earth should I not speak up for another poster? That happens all the time.

I agree with her and have said so that I would feel a complete fraud saying what happened to me compares to the horrendous experiences of other women.

You have said how you feel which is of course fine.

She said that others would be insulted. That is not fine.

It is not fine for her to tell other people how to feel. Which is what she has done.

She says there is a "hierarchy" of rape, and that people who have experienced "mild rape" are "insulting" "proper" rape victims if they refer to it as the same crime.

In fact and in law and IRL and on this thread and many like it, there is no distinction. Rape is penetration without consent. That is what it is. No amount of comparing victims, minimising their experiences by referring to "date rape" or "mild" offences, will change that.

If you two want to write to Dawkins and lobby to get the law on rape changed so that the definition is no longer that which I posted upthread, but a massive list taking into account every conceivable combination of events, possibly with some kind of scoring system (add 10 for every "proper" victim pointer, subtract 10 for every "she was asking for it" victim pointer") then feel free to do so.

Maybe you could start a petition? Lobby for a change in the law. Dawkins obviously feels the current state of affairs is illogical and so do you two. You are in a minority here on MN but maybe (probably) you will fare better out there with the rest of society. Then "real" rape victims can get taken seriously as they deserve and teh "mild" victims can be told to stop wasting everybody's time, which happily enough is what happens already, if they report it, which usually they don't. Because, you know, mild.

I don't how you're coming to the conclusions in that rant from what I posted. I said nothing about "real victims" that's your terminology. I said nothing about the changing the law.

What happened to me was not a big deal. I was not traumatised by it. You have no right whatsoever to tell me that I cannot read or hear about other woman's experiences and think that for me to say my experience was as bad as theirs is utterly ridiculous. You are still trying to dictate what my personal reaction to what happened to me was.

MostWicked, I read your posts and thought you sounded very defensive and disconnected. I wondered what you might be defending against. Now I know. I'm sorry about what happened to you, but there is an obvious attempt being made to distance yourself, and I don't think you're being suitably objective here.

That is so incredibly rude! I am being told that I am wrong in the way that I have dealt with my experiences! I must be emotionally damaged somehow, but suppressing it? No, I'm not. I had a dreadful experience with my abusive ex, but then I walked away. It got very messy, very ugly and ended up in court. He was convicted of assault and had to pay me compensation. I picked myself up and decided that I had my whole life ahead of me and it was mine to live. I knew that I would never allow myself to be treated like that again. I knew that I would recognise the early warning signs of an abusive partner. I knew that I could manage on my own. It was in the early days of living on my own when I was burgled. I think that is why I coped with it so well, because I was coping on my own, rather than being controlled by someone else, and that was incredibly liberating.

I was young, lacking in confidence, and willing to accept abusive treatment because I thought that was better than being on my own. I am now much older and look back on that experience as a part of my life that changed me for the better, because I came out of it stronger, more confident and far more sure of myself. Getting married to a man who was already very controlling, was stupid of me, but I don't regret it. I made the decisions that I thought were right at the time. I would rather take the positives and learn from the negatives. That experience will always be part of me, it has a place in my past, but it doesn't have a big place. So many more significant things have happened to me since then!

If someone else went through the identical experience and came out emotionally scarred, that wouldn't be wrong, that would be their completely valid experience. There isn't a right and wrong way to respond to traumatic experiences. We are all different.

I personally, don't think it is right, to judge another victim for how they respond to their trauma. You have judged me to be "defensive", "disconnected" and "distanced".

SevenZarkSeven, When I said "I believe it is an insult to anyone who has suffered an extremely violent rape against a very vulnerable victim, to suggest that this is equally as serious as the non-consensual sex that I described I experienced, which by the definition of the law, is rape." I was not talking about how the victim feels about it, I was talking about the seriousness of the offence. The former offence is clearly a more serious attack than the latter, regardless of how the victim felt. This entire thread, I have stressed that this is about comparing the crime, not the victim.

You'd think reading her post that any post on MN of the "my husband did this what should I do" which come up depressingly frequently would be met by cries of "that's nothing listen to what happened to me" "huh call that rape? that's well mild" etc etc
Again, so incredibly rude. I haven't told anyone how they should feel and if I read such a post, I would never be so rude to them, I would encourage them to take the steps they needed to leave an abusive husband and get the support they needed. I would share my experience to help explain that leaving is manageable, and the steps I took to finally make that move, and that life is so much better for having made that decision.

She says there is a "hierarchy" of rape, and that people who have experienced "mild rape" are "insulting" "proper" rape victims if they refer to it as the same crime.
You have grossly misquoted me. I have NEVER referred to "mild rape" or "proper" rape victims and never suggested that it is not the same crime. Every time I have used the word "mild" (and I have only used it a few times as I said I don't think it's the best choice of words) I have clarified that it can only be considered "mild" in comparison to an extremely serious offence where the starting point is still serious.

The rest of your post is just a ridiculous rant about stuff that hasn't even been hinted at here. No-one has suggested a change in the law - I am very supportive of the law the way it stands, because it DOES recognise that some offences are more serious than others. You are the only person who has brought up the ancient and irrelevant cliche about "she was asking for it". The law quite clearly states that the only mitigation that can be considered is if the victim had consensual sex with the man, immediately before the rape, and there was no violence used.

All rape is rape. All rape is horrific. All victims have the right to feel however they feel about it. But some rapes are more serious offences than others. The seriousness of the offence, does not neatly correlate with how the victim does or should feel about it.

Judging crimes is perfectly reasonable.
Judging victims is not.

I am just glad that support groups for those that have suffered rape and sexual abuse do not judge which crime is worse

The just believe

Of course they don't. The support groups are there to support the emotional needs of the victim. The seriousness of the crime is not relevant to that.

Judging the severity of a crime, in no way indicates a lack of belief. I don't understand how you even link those two together!

Because language is important

It's filters through our society

It was not that long ago what is now has the label of date rape would have not been reported from fear of not being believed

Support groups work endlessly to change attitudes in our society

Surely you understand the importance of language

DH obviously knows better you seem to feel these statements have no impact on people and how they feel but sadly they very much do

I do agree that language is important, which is why I gave clear context on the few occasions when I did use the term 'mild'.

'Date rape' I have mixed feelings about. In some ways it describes what it is, in the same way as 'marital rape' describes what it is. The offence is rape, but the circumstances are relevant. The question of consent may be relevant, where in a 'stranger rape' it is not.
Again, this is in terms of the offence, not how the victim feels.

An innocent man, must have the right to claim a defense of consensual sex. Of course that means that some guilty men will also make that claim, but that is the price of innocent until proven guilty. There is no reasonable alternative to that.

Carol Sarler has written an interesting response in The Times:
"The childlike simplicity of “no means no” has sought, successfully, to equate the stranger-in-the-bushes-wielding-knife sexual attack with an unpleasant breakdown of communication between two equally inebriated adults, even though — and I write as a survivor of both — they are so obviously different.
The stranger case involves premeditation, arming oneself and clarity of thought at the moment of attack; none of those applies to the social occasion gone so hideously askew, and if there really are people who refuse to differentiate between the two, we can but pray they never sit in judgment on a killing."

Just because a statement has impact on people, it doesn't make it wrong. Some rapes and some child abuse, is worse than others.

I have read all the thread and contributed.

MostWicked, I do not think you have given 'clear context' at all regarding your use of the word 'mild'. You have been as logically confused as Dawkins by entangling your cultural views with supposed logic.

Date rape involves premeditation and clarity of thought too. Possibly also arming himself.

People keep drawing distinctions between nice, cosy mistaken rape and lunatic hiding behind the bushes rape.

This is what the problem with this debate is.

I totally agree

by claiming date rape is not premeditated in anyway is buying into the attitude of men can not help themselves once aroused may misunderstand what no, stop actually means. Men can as easily stop themselves having sex as a woman can

No does mean no it is that simple what other meaning does it have and really is this what we should be teaching our children not well sometimes lines are blurred

Date rape involves premeditation and clarity of thought too. Possibly also arming himself.
It might, it might not. If the man is claiming consensual sex, then there is no premeditation. If he is armed or uses additional violence, then he cannot claim consensual sex. Premeditation means planning in advance. Of course men are capable of stopping themselves and it is their legal, moral and human duty to do so if the woman withdraws her consent, but there is a difference between planning to rape in advance, and not stopping when told to. Neither are in any way acceptable. Both are crimes, both are serious offences, but in the eyes of the law, premeditation makes a crime more serious.
Not all date rapes are the same. This isn't about claiming that some rapes are not that bad, it's about acknowledging that some are extremely serious

MostWicked, I do not think you have given 'clear context' at all regarding your use of the word 'mild'
I have searched through the whole thread and checked every single occasion when I have used the term "mild"
A few examples of what I have said:
"there is no mild rape"
"I did not suggest that that rape was "mild""
"The use of the word "mild" is offensive because there is nothing mild about rape"
"common assault is mild in comparison to GBH"
""Mild" can only be used as a comparator on a scale, when it is accepted that the starting point of that scale, is bad/unacceptable/horrible."
If you think I have cherry picked, then please go and find any example where I have said that any kind of rape is mild, or even supported the use of the word.

They are both premeditated whether one second, one hour or one day.

Still involve lack of consent and penetration.

By that definition, every crime is premeditated.
Legally, there is a big difference between deciding several hours in advance to rape someone and deciding when already in bed with a woman, not to stop.

Eh? How does that work?

There's a difference only in that force may be used at the beginning of a rape.

I don't understand this idea that rape carried out by someone known to the victim is date rape can't be premeditated. Similarly, presumably, a man might go out without the explicit intent of raping someone and then find himself in a situation where he can, and do it.

There seem to be done kind of stereotypes around what different "types" of rape involve and I don't understand why. Is it so that people can sit in judgement more easily? And say stranger rape = violent and premeditated so bad, date rape = non violent and just a bit of a misunderstanding so mild?

What if a man you know breaks into your house and rapes you? Is that bad or mild? What if she's had a drink does that make a difference?

And so on.

This is all so that people can talk about "grey areas" isn't it really.

I don't understand this idea that rape carried out by someone known to the victim is date rape can't be premeditated. Similarly, presumably, a man might go out without the explicit intent of raping someone and then find himself in a situation where he can, and do it.

There seem to be done kind of stereotypes around what different "types" of rape involve and I don't understand why. Is it so that people can sit in judgement more easily? And say stranger rape = violent and premeditated so bad, date rape = non violent and just a bit of a misunderstanding so mild?

What if a man you know breaks into your house and rapes you? Is that bad or mild? What if she's had a drink does that make a difference?

And so on.

This is all so that people can talk about "grey areas" isn't it really.

grey areas = excusing the poor misguided man

Not taking into account that it requires a huge amount of trust and faith from a woman to allow such intimacy.

Perhaps men can learn to respect that instead of abusing it.

Legal definition of premeditated:
"Premeditation differs essentially from will, which constitutes the crime, because it supposes besides an actual will, a deliberation and a continued persistence which indicate more perversity."

Premeditated makes a crime more serious in the eyes of the law. Not being premeditated does not excuse or make the criminal any less responsible for their crime. They still committed the offence and are equally responsible for it, but it wasn't planned in advance.

seven you are arguing against points that no one has made.

I am wondering what extremely serious rape is

I thought all rape/sexual assault/abuse was extremely serious

I also do not believe that a man suddenly becomes a rapist because a situation has lead him to rape. At some point he has made a conscious decision to rape it's highly unlikely his attitude towards women have changed within a few minutes

There seem to be done kind of stereotypes around what different "types" of rape involve and I don't understand why. Is it so that people can sit in judgement more easily?

What is so difficult about understanding there are differences ? Are you seriously telling me that me that 2 minutes of fumbling from someone whom I had slept with willingly on several occasions,which didn't hurt (and frankly it was less of a bother just to get on with it rather than screaming the halls of residence down with all the fuss that would have entailed) leaving me angry at myself more than anything for ever having fancied him is as horrific, as say being 10 years old and being sold on a regular basis by your parents for sex? I don't.

Do you think if these were both before a court the punishment should be the same?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that for me I could not possibly think I suffered in the same way as the (unfortunately not theoretical) 10 year old unless I were an egocentric of the highest order?

As for the judging comment I'm not clear whom or to what you are referring.