Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

365 replies

curiousgeorgie · 29/07/2014 23:31

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?

OP posts:
MostWicked · 30/07/2014 17:23

CPS Guidelines including aggravating and mitigating factors

"All non-consensual offences involve the violation of the victim's sexual autonomy and will result in harm. The seriousness of the violation may depend on a number of factors, but the nature of the sexual behaviour will be the primary indicator of the degree of harm caused in the first instance."

Some rapes are worse than others due to the aggravating and mitigating factors. No rapes are excusable.

Cravey · 30/07/2014 17:33

Rape is rape. 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. Is that enough for you. I can tell you from experience that it wouldn't have mattered who raped me. Stranger or someone I knew. The result would have been the same. Idiotic and offensive post I'm afraid.

MostWicked · 30/07/2014 17:33

All cultural judgements are contested, some more hotly than others.
Our judicial system is based on cultural judgements.

The effect on the victim and the seriousness of the crime are two different things. It is perfectly reasonable for a less serious crime to have a more profound effect on one victim, than a more serious crime might have on another. But that might not be relevant when the severity of the crime is judged.

OxfordBags · 30/07/2014 17:34

Rape is completely different from murder, Frontier. Don't be silly.

A person can genuinely kill someone else without meaning to, or wanting to (although that would be manslaughter, I'm guessing). However, if someone does not know if sexual consent has been genuinely given, or does not understand what consent is, then to proceed with sexual activity is to choose to rape. That they probably don't call it rape in their own heads matters not a jot. All rape is deliberate; a man choosing to insert his penis into the vagina of a woman is a deliberate choice. It's not like "Hey, where did this vagina come from?!".

NewtRipley · 30/07/2014 17:36

LineRunner

Yes

Booboostoo · 30/07/2014 17:40

For what it's worth he was not making a point about cultural relativism, he was making a point against absolutism.

Absolutism is the claim that some things are wrong, equally wrong and wrong without any qualification. So the absolutist would thing that stealing for example is always wrong no matter what. The opposing position is that the wrongness of the act is determined by circumstances so that there are gradations (stealing a million is worse than stealing a pound, stealing from the needy is worse than stealing from the rich) and may even think that stealing is permissible under some circumstances ( stealing to feed your child).

NewtRipley · 30/07/2014 17:42

Booboo

It's good to hear from a philosopher.

NewtRipley · 30/07/2014 17:43

I still think he is an arrogant arse.

adeucalione · 30/07/2014 17:47

Dawkins defends himself here

Theherbofdeath · 30/07/2014 17:47

What about paedophilia? What is wrong with him saying that some acts of paedophilia are worse than others? That's already obvious, surely, with some acts receiving far greater punishments than others.
It's a term that covers a whole range of crimes.

OneDreamOnly · 30/07/2014 17:52

Boo if that was the point he was trying to make, using rape as an example was extremely crap.

Your example about stealing does make sense though. Maybe he should have used his example about rape to explain this was a case where absolutism applies. It is ALWAYS wrong.
Or he might need to learn to express his ideas better than he has because quite clearly no one got the right message there.

Frontier · 30/07/2014 17:54

Rape is rape just like murder is murder but they arent all the same. And no murder isn't the same as rape but it is a comparably serious crime. Does you dh specifically ask if you've consented just before insertion; or does he sometimes assume consent is given because of what has gone before?!

I came on this thread because i wanted to hear the argument but there hasn't been much in the way of proper debate; only insults when anyone airs a view that suggests it's possible that all rape isn't the same . If that's wrong explain why - calling me silly doesn't automatically make you right

OrangeMochaFrappucino · 30/07/2014 17:58

He wasn't talking about the rape, he was talking about the rapist. So he wasn't comparing degrees of violence in rape and saying the more violent the attack, the worse it is. He was saying the identity of the perpetrator makes it worse if they're unknown to the victim. So if you want to compare it to murder, he'd be saying it's worse getting murdered by a stranger than someone you known. Or it's worse to be robbed by a stranger than someone you know. It's nonsensical.

NewtRipley · 30/07/2014 18:02

Jelly

Good point

Cravey · 30/07/2014 18:07

Frontier I explained why it's wrong. Well I tried to anyway.

MostWicked · 30/07/2014 18:09

Rape is always wrong. No-one (including RD) has suggested otherwise.
However, the severity of some rapes is worse than others. All rapes are not equal.

A woman in a consensual sexual relationship with a man, has sex with him then falls asleep. She wakes up to find him having sex with her. He wears a condom and presumes (incorrectly) consent. He is a rapist and she is a victim.
Would anyone seriously suggest that that is equally as bad as a 12 year old girl gang raped anally and vaginally at knifepoint, leaving her pregnant and HIV+?

I think it would be an insult to suggest that both crimes were equal.

JapaneseMargaret · 30/07/2014 18:11

Does you dh specifically ask if you've consented just before insertion; or does he sometimes assume consent is given because of what has gone before?!

The DH doesn't need to assume consent, because he is continually being given consent during the act.

When someone doesn't want to have sex, even with their very own DH, they withdraw consent, and make that known. By not joining in, by pushing away, by saying 'no', and by asking them to stop.

Absofrigginlootly · 30/07/2014 18:13

Haven't rtft so sorry if I'm repeating anyone.....but prof Dawkins is a douchebag. Plain and simple.

His point could have been much more adequately and less controversially made if he had said "jane has long hair. Sue's hair is longer. That does not make jane's hair short. If you don't understand that then you don't understand logical thinking."

Or even... "Stealing 5p is bad. Stealing a car is worse. That does not make stealing 5p ok"

To use rape and peodophila as examples in his point he is showing himself to be a complete arsehole and missing the point that rape/peodophila are not examples that can be applied to the point he was making. You cannot define something like 'mild date rape' (WTF is mild rape anyway??!) and 'violent stranger rape' and say one is worse than the other because each situation will mean different things to the victim (sorry if the word victim offends anyone...I couldn't think of a better terminology).

He used controversial subjects because he wanted the attention from it, he wants to stay 'current'. Either that or he is so utterly uninformed about rape and peodophila that he should get down off his high horse and do some bloody research and apologise for the offence he has caused.

OP I fail to see why you don't get why people are offended by this?!

OxfordBags · 30/07/2014 18:15

Frontier, I also explained why. If you don't like the explanation, ot don't understand it, it doesn't stop it being an explanation. And you talk of being insulted by others, forgetting that you have called me ridiculous, and so on. Hmm

The fact that you would infer that prior consent equals continued consent means that you are not capable of participating in the debate that you purport to be so interested in. You are repeatedly spouting rape myths, seemingly unconsciously and unwittingly.

StillStayingClassySanDiego · 30/07/2014 18:17

I think OP was looking for an attention seeking thread to start or she was pissed, or both!

NewtRipley · 30/07/2014 18:17

I agree. I think he reveals his own attitude to rape.

StillStayingClassySanDiego · 30/07/2014 18:17

That was to Abso

OxfordBags · 30/07/2014 18:20

MostWicked - the experience of being raped in one's sleep by one's partner would not be 'mild', though, would it, to use Dawkins' own terminology? It would still be serious to the victim. Just because it's not as extreme as the example you give, doesn't make it serious.

And why do people need the details of a rape to be extreme or horrific in order to justify it as rape? It's creepy, it's prurient, it's misogynist and it's assbackwards thinking.

Frontier · 30/07/2014 18:27

Maybe so Oxford but if you want to "win" the argument you're going to have to convince people who don't understand - people far less willing to understand than me.

I didn't call you ridiculous, i said arguing that all rape is premeditated is ridiculous

LizzieHexham · 30/07/2014 18:28

I understand where he was coming from. Many of you would consider I had been raped in this situation. I didn't then and I'm not sure I do now.

Late 70s, I'm 18 or 19. The man was someone I had had sex with on several occasions, willingly as he was very good looking and could be quite charming but I was beginning to realise he was also a selfish, arrogant tosser.

He came to my hall of residence late one night, I hadn't asked him and not sure how he got past the door man, possibly got in just before the doors were locked. I didn't want to have sex, but from past experience I knew it would be over very quickly.I didn't want to shout and make a fuss and I was on the pill.

I put it down as an "unfortunate sexual experience" which many of us had in the 70s and confirmation that , yes, he was actually as vile as I had begun to think. I don't think I'd ever heard the term "date rape"

I really don't think it compares with the experience of say the woman in the vicarage rape case or war rape victims. He didn't hurt me, it lasted a couple of minutes at most, there was no risk of pregnancy and this was pre-AIDS. I don't recall being traumatised or much beyond being a bit angry. He was told never to speak to or come anywhere near me again.