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

[ladyblablah]

So Dawkins (self proclaimed ironic prophet) has decided that date rape is not as bad as a rape with a knife at your throat.

I have a question - what if the date rape includes a knife at the throat - what then - who wins at being the worst?

Is there a rule that date rape doesn't include knives? Do us feminists not know this rule for rapists?

Well, there's another man with whom women should make sure they are never alone. And hope is never on a jury in a case involving consent.

Oh, to have the luxury of the whole concept being pretty much theoretical.

i've said it already, but why oh why in these bullshitty dick-swinging theoretical type discussions is the analogy of rape used so frequently and so lightly? i assume it's because for these men the concept of rape is just that - a conceptual and intellectual problem that doesn't touch them

sorry crotchmaven i've pretty much repeated what you said in your final sentence

"But ‘stranger rape’ is more likely to be reported in the news. As a result, an impression is created that these rapes are ‘more serious’ because they are more newsworthy. These stories fit our narrative of what rape looks like: a man with a knife hiding behind a bush. It’s familiar, and – importantly – it allows us to label the rapist as a freak or monster, someone who is not like anyone we know. It distances us from the fact that most rapists aren’t lone monsters roaming the streets terrorising women. They are husbands, boyfriends, fathers, brothers, colleagues and friends."

I like her response but I feel this bit is incorrect and as a journalist she should know better. Non-stranger rape is frequently not reported as if the reporter/newspaper identify the relationship of the defendant with the victim could compromise the anonymity of the rape victim. Which is against reporting restrictions in the vast majority of cases.

"Mild rape" is a bizarre and unpleasant comment and I agree that "date rape" is aggravated by virtue of the fact that their is an appalling betrayal of trust, however I do believe their is a spectrum in relation to everything in this world.

My rape was hideous. But if my young DD was raped that would be a million times worse. That does not detract from my experience, it is just a acknowledgment of a fact.

the problem is that you're talking about individuals' experiences, so categorising and measuring is impossible except in the broadest terms (and even then...)

so a particular sexual assault may be more traumatic to that individual victim than a particular case of rape to another particular victim due to the nature/circumstances etc. but that's not to minimise either

@Petula exactly!

I honestly don't know if I would find being raped by a partner better or worse than being raped by a stranger. That is why it is an odd, to the point of actually being a wrong, example for Dawkins to use.

Later on he sneered that people 'on Twitter' didn't realise that the scenario was the same as saying stealing a pound is not as bad as stealing someone's life savings, but that neither was something he condoned.

Why on earth didn't he use that example in the first place?!

As I say I agree it was a wrong example. However I think it opened up a broader discussion on the "categorization" of rape.

I realise it is not a popular view but I think there are a whole range of aggravating features that can make one rape worse than another both as related to the victim (age, vulnerability, health) of the victim and to the offending behaviour (length of attack etc - don't really want to go I to details).

The important concept is that in saying that something is worse you are not negating the experiences of those whose experiences fell elsewhere on the spectrum.

He used it because he is a misogynist.

And "LOGIC" is the tool of the patriarchy.

This is because men (and women who follow patriarchy rules) take for granted the parameters of a situation they are 'debating'. When in reality, contesting the parameters of the debate is actually usually the debate itself. In this case, it is actually what is considered 'harm' - HE is deciding what the parameters apparently are from his position not actually from a place of logic or with understanding of any other parameters.

So really, using logic to win an argument only works when you are in a position of privilege and can simply assume that your parameters are the parameters. Those without privilege (i.e. women in this debate) have to fight to get their framework considered, while those using 'logic' are loudly claiming that they have "won" the argument, trying to silence others (please see his shitty apology). And since he sees himself as the KING OF LOGIC, his argument becomes even more flawed and irritating.

This clarifies that there is categorisation of aggravation. As I said previously this is a fairly non-debatable point in UK law. Rape is rape and aggravated rape is aggravated rape. So it is odd that so many old rich white men choose to mull over it as though it is theoretical. It isn't. There are laws that cover this and personally I feel they are fairly adequate and being reviewed all the time to check they remain adequate. Obviously trial/conviction rates are not adequate.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/sentencing/
Starting Points

Single offence of rape by single offender: 5 years custody - victim 16 or over
8 years custody - victim 13 or over but under 16
10 years custody - victim under 13
Rape accompanied by aggravating factor: 8 years custody - victim 16 or over
10 years custody- victim aged 13 or over but under 16
13 years custody - victim under 13
Repeated Rape of same victim by single offender or rape involving multiple victims:
15 years custody

Aggravating factors

Abduction or detention
Offender aware that he is suffering from a sexually transmitted infection
More than one offender acting together
Abuse of trust
Offence motivated by prejudice
Sustained attack
Pregnancy or infection results
Offender ejaculated or caused victim to ejaculate
Background of intimidation or coercion
Use of drugs, alcohol or other substance to facilitate the offence

In AG's Reference No 73, 75 and 03 of 2010 R v Michael Anigbugu, Hyung-Woo Pyo and Mark Stuart McGee [2011] EWCA 633 the Court of Appeal considered two cases of women being seriously sexually assaulted at night when asleep in their own homes; and a third of a woman similarly assaulted whilst caring for a fragile elderly man whose home was burgled. Finding that unduly lenient sentences had been imposed in relation to all three defendants, the Court provided useful guidance on sentencing. This included: where rape is committed after or in the course of a burglary in a home, even in the absence of additional features beyond the rape and burglary, the starting point will rarely be less than 12 years imprisonment. They also identified further aggravating features including the taking of photographs of the victim which they described as ''a serious aggravating feature''.

Dawkins is an utter knob. He is so patronising and mansplainy when how could he actually ever know anything about rape.

His comment about its like stealing £1 or life savings is bollocks as well. It's not comparable to rape and you can't put a different value on different "types" of rape.

ethelb I'm not sure I understand your post.

Rape and aggravated rape are not different crimes in UK law (unlike US) it is the same offence but with aggravating features. If you accept that you can have different levels of aggravation (as you can mitigation under UK law) then I'm not sure I see the distinction between a "categorization of aggravation" and a spectrum of offending behavior.

I'm a struggling to see it Catkisser. Sorry.

In my mind, I've started to acknowledge that there are different aspects to giving consent - from wildly enthusiastically obvious to obviously and vigorously not given. Imbetween those there is a sort of weird area where there's almost indifference (clearly only in terms of regular partners for most people) or just getting it over with. As I said, that area only exists for regular partners or, I suppose, one night stand scenarios. That's not to say that I can't see that 'vigorously not given' can't exist within those scenarios too. But given that I find consent is a slightly difficult concept to pin down, that extends to the central issue for me. You might say that some of those men were rapists, but I'm
thinking also about the impact on me. That comes at varying levels too.

I recognise that this doesn't help the battle about myths and so on. But that in itself doesn't answer the central question as it's a consequence and not a fundamental determining factor.

I think this comes down to a fundamental lack of understanding of what rape actually is. Many men seem to see rape as being basically the same as sex. They can't seem to get their heads around the fact that the act of putting a penis where it's not wanted is a an act violence in itself. It's clear Dawkins falls into this group. He sees rape as a bit of sex you don't particularly want (no big deal), and therefore it's the circumstances around the rape that make is bad or "not bad." So if someone you know and like happens to give you bit of sex you don't want, well that's just a bit annoying, but if someone you have never even met sticks his penis in you while using a knife to subdue you well that goes beyond rude to a downright nasty.
There are no degrees of rape. If a man puts a penis into a woman/girl's orifice without (uncoerced) permission, that is rape. Everything else that happens around that event is taken into account in the trial but has nothing to do with the rape itself, as there are no degrees of putting something in somewhere, you either do it or you don't.

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?

I don't understand why these men keep wading into something so sensitive as rape discussion and then try to explain how "they didn't mean it in that way" after they get pulled up on it. It's fundamentally a highly sensitive area and using it in such a blase manner demonstrates not just disrespect and (probably) misogyny, but also a startling lack of awareness on how PR works too.

Monty - I vaguely understand what you mean about consent, but I'm pretty sure the kind of scenarios you're talking about are pretty rare. I have experience of these because my marriage is pretty messed up sexually anyway, not helped by the crap communication between DW and me. However, in all other situations between myself and women it is pretty clear cut and as Cailin says, reading someones signals isn't difficult.

The whole consent-debate on here has been a massive eye opener for me.

monty, but what kind of man wants to have sex with a woman who is displaying "indifference or just getting it over with"?

Kenneth Clark said something similar. I wonder what particular reason might drive these men to say this sort of thing.

That's a very good question Petula I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm not that the answer is always 'rapist' though.

*sure

Monty - Maybe not rapist in the strict legal definition, but certainly selfish and uncaring.

Someone on FWR mentioned once that 'consent' should be replaced by 'enthusiastic consent'. Makes a lot more sense to me.

Keepithidden - so with mere 'consent', an offence is committed ?