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?

But yes I agree the media report it differently.
But that is not the debate RD was trying to provoke.

He was basically saying no subject is off limits to him and if people can not accept that they are not as good at thinking as he is.
My contention is that even from a philisophical point of view, where choice of language is an enormous part of the art his choice was poor in a way that he takes refuge in the claim that otgrrs just don't understand his brilliance to hide any flaw in his thinking.

And he did not frame it as a proposition "if ...."

There are so many variables that it's just too simplistic to compare "stranger" assaults with "non stranger" assaults.
Some attacks may well be more traumatic or horrific than others. But the mere mention of the term "date rape" and the opening of this subject by a man (sorry, I don't wish to sound misandrist) makes me want to bludgeon the speaker tbh.

In one part of his "justification"
He says it is about exploring the taboo.
In another he says it is about logical thinking if Y is worse than X etc.

Well which is it?

If the former could have framed both statements as he did one saying x is worse the other y to spark a debate as to whether the rs to the perpetrator is relevant or whether other factors come into play without the smug instruction to learn how to think
Or if the latter he could have actually used an example than can actually be compared to illustrate the nature of the logical argument.

The fact that he conflated the 2 after the fact smacks of back pedalling.

Philosophy is surely about considering what you say and clarity of argument as well as being prepared to reframe your argument if it is shown to be unclear instead of just saying if you don't get what I meant you are thick.

I did not miss the point of his argument. I think it was badly made.

And I think to start grading rape in terms of a scale of how bad it is compared to another form of rape is dangerous territory to be going in to.
It has to be done in order to sentence the offender.

It's almost sort of saying 'Well you shouldn't feel too bad, there are WORSE forms of rape you know'
No it isn't at all. Defining different degrees of rape is judging the crime and the criminal, not the victim.
No-one could ever be expected to be grateful that their experience wasn't worse.

Rape is rape is rape. Sometimes rape is accompanied by other violent or manipulative/threatening acts - we can rank those, perhaps, from zero to attempted murder, but by doing so we are not ranking the rape itself.
Yes, but the rapist wouldn't be charged with a number of individual offences. It would be judged as rape with various aggravating or mitigating factors. That is, in effect what RD said, that violent rape was worse. "Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse."
He also said "Mild date rape is bad. Violent date rape is worse.". The use of the word "mild" is offensive because there is nothing mild about rape, but when you add violence, it makes the overal crime worse.
If you don't agree with that, then surely if you were giving evidence in court, you wouldn't feel it necessary to mention that the rapist used a knife and punched the victim repeatedly, because all rape is the same.

He didn't say that in all circumstances, it is better to be raped by someone you know. He compared two horrible acts and said that one was worse than the other. I have to agree with that. The violence and knife in his comparison, makes one act worse than the other. The stranger/date part are not the key factors, beyond the fact that they set the scene. He did not say that stranger rape is worse than date rape, violent rape is worse.

So essentially, Mostwicked - you are supporting the current status of Scottish Law where a previous sexual relationship, even 7 years previously, is a mitigating factor in sentencing, as the victim "knew" the assailant - no matter the circumstances of the rape.

I will continue to hope that the Law Lords will review this interpretation - in the same way that they reviewed precedents to define "rape as the absence of consent" - although iirc, to my Scottish shame, it took until 2001 for them to do so.

Dawkins is not so naive as to not know that his remarks would get him publicity. And he is more intelligent than to use this shit and knowingly offensive analogy. He a misogynist who has minimized sexual assault in the past and knows what happens when he comes off with this nonsense.

He made this analogy because he is an egotistical man who loves being talked about.

So maybe july was the month for clever ppl talking shit about sexual assaults?

rape is rape, no means no wtf are we still having to justify what an horrendous crime this is and how at all times women should at all times have autonomy over their own body

RH knew this would get him attention and I am very sad so many are agreeing with him

again it opens up the debate what is rape and undermines it. how bad is rape, how was the woman acting, what was drunk, what was she wearing, when can we just accept rape is rape the circumstances around the attack are irrelevant

So essentially prettybird, you either didn't read or didn't understand anything in my post. Where have I given any indication that a previous sexual relationship is a mitigating factor?
The only mitigating factor in English law, is having consensual sex immediately before the rape. That seems reasonable depending on the rest of the context.

To make it clear, aggravating factors make some rapes a more serious offence, and the victims deserve to have that acknowledged, without taking anything away from other victims whose rape had no aggravating factors.

mostwicked has just spoken the most amount of sense I have seen on any of the threads regarding this.

again it opens up the debate what is rape and undermines it. how bad is rape, how was the woman acting, what was drunk, what was she wearing, when can we just accept rape is rape the circumstances around the attack are irrelevant

How have you derived that from the suggestion that rape with additional violence is worse than rape without additional violence?
No one has mentioned anything about how the woman was dressed or was she drunk. None of that is mitigation.

because as I said in my post rape is rape

there does not need to be an argument as to what is worse that act of rape is horrendous. when a women reports being raped what has happened around the incident is questioned we need to move away from this

who would not acknowledge that being violently beaten or stabbed is terrible but yet many seem to be able to decide for others that being raped in certain circumstances is more horrific than others. that is not taking away other violent acts that may have occurred at the time but it does bring into question for some is it really that bad because it would have been much worse if the victim had been beaten too which is an utter bullshit attitude to take

again, what mostwicked said. It's not about dimisnishing rape. Rape is rape. It's taking other factors into account, like levels of violence, which are horrific with or without rape and should be acknowledged for the damage they incur aswell.

mostwicked - my reading of your posts was that they were remarkably similar to the justification of the Scottish Appeal Court, which had gone against the Trial Judge who had made reference to the breach of trust which made the crime worse.

So, before I put words into your mouth, do you disagree with the current status of Scottish Criminal law which does make the existence of a previous relationship a mitigating factor in sentencing?

prettybird are you willfully misreading mostwicked's posts? she's already answered that question.

Thank you theendof

many seem to be able to decide for others that being raped in certain circumstances is more horrific than others
Yes, there are some circumstances that make some rapes more horrific than others.
A woman raped in front of her children, is more horrific.
A rape causing pregnancy is more horrific.
A rape videoed and published is more horrific.

A court will take into consideration, all the factors that make a rape worse.
The starting point is that all rapes are equal, then the aggravating factors make some rapes even worse.
In no way does that suggest that some rapes aren't so bad. I really don't understand how some people have concluded that.

Really prettybird please indicate where I have indicated that a previous sexual relationship is a mitigating factor? I have no idea what the Scottish law is that you are talking about but it sounds shit.

The only mitigating factor that I agree with is the couple having had consensual sex immediately prior to the rape, but even that will still depend on other aggravating factors. For instance pulling out a knife would eliminate any mitigation in those circumstances.

Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think

do we really need this debate when so many women struggle with reporting rape because of fear of not being believed

the courts deal with the circumstances around what has happened what does not again need to be questioned is how bad it is for the victim as it must of course have a bigger impact on her life if ...... accept rape is horrendous end of

The problem with trying to create a hierarchy of rape (apart from the morally obvious), is that every single case is different. Even if a serial rapist has the same M.O., it's going to be unique. All this 'rape causing pregnancy is worse', 'rape by a stranger is worse' stuff, from various people just takes the issue into ridiculous realms of philosophising forever about innumerous possibilities of the content of the sexual assault, the effects on the victim and so on. All this does is take the issue into the realm of treating it like an intellectual theory, thus diminishing the crime, distancing oneself from the humanity of the victims, and missing the fucking point spectacularly.

Everyone's judgement is subjective - MostWicked, you might think the examples you've given make a rape 'worse', but others might see things differently. Many victims might see things differently. This is where the theorising becomes inane. Would it be worse to have your rape filmed, or to be sodomised by a bottle? Would it be worse to get pregnant from rape or to be made infertile and internally disfigured from a severely vicious rape? It's offensive. The ONLY person who can pronounce on the severity of a rape is the person who has been raped, commenting on their individual experience(s).

What is the need people have with wanting to diminish experiences? All the ranking of rape does is feed into the already-dominant misogynist myths about sexual assault, and unfortunately adds weight to the notion that many rapes aren't 'real' rapes or 'bad' rapes. People also want to make rape seem less horrible to make it psychologically easier for themselves to deal with it.

Oh, and can people PLEASE stop comparing rape and abuse to theft, and whatever. A vagina is not a fucking car stereo

Not all known rapists are date rapists. They may be married to family members, or be a friend's dad. In many cases like this the victim through fear of not being believed and wanting to protect her loved ones may minimize it and not report it for decades. And having her rapist at all the key events in her family's lives/ living next door.

Is this not as horrific as stranger rape?

Oxford I introduced the analogy of theft. I do not accept that what for me was, as I described it "an unfortunate sexual experience" of brief duration with a former boyfriend,is comparable to a brutal extended rape.

I am not saying that because I want to " make rape seem less horrible to make it psychologically easier for me to deal with it" . There was little to deal with other than being annoyed that I'd ever found him attractive.

You are contradicting yourself in that you state "The ONLY person who can pronounce on the severity of a rape is the person who has been raped, commenting on their individual" experience(s)." but suggest that there is a "need to diminish experiences"

We all hear of terrible cases and for me frankly to say what happened to me was equally bad would be seeking to diminish other women's terrible experiences.

Yy mostwicked

I was one of the 400 women on that other thread. I walked away from this thread yesterday but it's annoying me so much I had to come back and comment. I was going to read all the posts, but I had to stop when I got to this one:

In a date rape, I would feel furious and degraded but assuming that "the date" had never previously been violent then I would not be worrying about being murdered and a certain element of terror would be removed.

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what rape is and how it actually affects the people who live through it. As does the original post. I'm going to take a deep breath, try to explain, and then walk away.

The FBI considers rape to be the second most serious crime after murder. It is the most personally violent crime and your brain and body will interpret the situation as life-threatening. You will freeze, because fight and flight are not available and because a natural response to trauma is to shut down, whatever juries like to think.

The fact you are unable to prevent this event will shatter your ability to feel safe in the world. Your life will never be the same again, whatever happens next. I find it farcical that anyone believes they would be capable of logical thought, or that they have the right to start ranking types of rape.

When someone has shoved themselves into your vagina without permission, it's really annoying when other people want to pontificate about how traumatised you are allowed to be. I am hiding this thread now.

The stealing example is from Dawkin's comments as well and makes his point much better than the rape one. By using the rape example he was not only being needlessly controversial and upsetting people but he was also failing to make his point. Communicating ideas clearly is fundamental to philosophical discourse, the whole discipline is about the exchange of ideas, arguments, reasons. By using such a poor example he has derailed his original point about absolutism so he has failed even in that.

And yes I agree with a lot of posters he does appear to be a douche bag...although that is not a very good philosophical argument against him :)

Not sure I made my point very clearly. Your brain interprets rape as a life-threatening trauma because your body cannot escape from it. Everyone theorising that they wouldn't be in fear of their lives is wrong. Whether or not you are consciously aware of it, you will experience rape as life-threatening.

It has taken me a long time to even begin to acknowledge the fact and the effects of various traumas in my life, including rape. Rape by a boyfriend, repeated rape by my ex fiancé. I refuse to preface the word rape with another word that implies it is less serious to be betrayed by someone you trust.

I belong to an online support group for survivors. If you read about PTSD symptoms etc you will be unable to differentiate between the people who were raped by strangers and the people who knew their attackers.

As for those insisting some things are obviously 'worse'. I do not think you should be trying to rank them in that way because it's all so horrifically bad.

Recently I finally reached a point where I could acknowledge that what happened to me was awful. Then I read the story of another survivor who experienced stranger rape. The rapist abducted her off the street. I freaked out thinking I did not have the right to feel traumatised. That is why debates like this are really problematic. Real people are affected by them.

Some of you would say: that does sound worse. But let me ask you this. If your child was killed, would it be worse if they were strangled or hit by a drunk driver? Would you tell a woman who has a still birth that this was less serious than a woman whose child is killed by a car?

You wouldn't have the nerve because it is all unfathomably bad.

My counsellor says if someone cut off his leg and my hand, nobody could know who was in more pain, and nobody could experience and compare that pain.

Every rape is different, every rape is bad. People do not like to think it could happen to them so the image of stranger rape is reassuring as then you could prevent it just by being careful enough, by being lucky enough...

As for the girl who was abducted. We both have panic attacks. We have both attempted suicide. Was my experience less serious? I used to believe this, purely as a way to protect myself. But rape is rape. And if you are fortunate not to have been through it, and wish to form an opinion, you should do some proper research.