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?

Dawkins is not fit to lace Hitch's drinks.

he does not realise that his rejection of "taboo zones" for "rationalists" comes from a position of enormous privilege. he can hypothesise and pontificate and rationalise because he's just playing with words and concepts

but these are real things that happen to real people, and crucially, are perpetrated by real people who will listen to someone like richard dawkins (male, white, educated) and will use it to justify their own behaviour. so it is neither here nor there whether he says "I didn’t care whether we chose to say date rape was worse than dark alley stranger rape, or vice versa" - this matters enormously to sectors of his audience out there, who either aren't aware of his logic games or will use them for their own ends regardless of RD's intentions

his unconscious privilege is a dangerous thing

"stalking a victim, dragging her into the bushes at knife-point, tearing off her clothing and raping her with such force that she suffers internal injury."

That is rape plus other crimes; I thought that was clarified upthread.

It's like mugging a without infliction of injury and a mugging where the victim is also punched in the face: the former criminal will be tried for theft, the latter for theft AND assault.

I don't agree with that, ABland.
How many years do you think a man should get for, shall we call it "pure rape", or "rape only"?
So, husband withdraws 10 seconds after his wife tells him to, on her developing a migraine. That is rape, is it not? Should that get the same punishment as the 6ft 5 man you bump into in the park after dark, who tells you to go into the bushes and then rapes you. You obey him because he is a lot bigger than you and you are scared. Also pure rape, no? Should they therefore get the same punishment?

I see you've moved back from your "rape-plus" scenario.

I consider it extremely unlikely that the woman in the headache case would file a complaint of rape. Don't you?

It's funny, but in his article he seems to think that courts imposing a single mandatory [life] sentence for all rapes would be some sort of bad/logically fallacy thing. I think it would be a fantastic step forward, actually. First sensible thing he's said on the subject.

Wife developing a migraine? Really? That's a standard 1970s joke isn't it

Weird.

Anyway.

Dawkins is a total wanker. He does not understand the law. He obviously hasn't bothered to find out what the law is. He assumes that his assumptions as to what the law says are right, when they are not, and takes it from there. Thus talking a lot of bollocks.

In his "explanation" he has also now managed to give equivalence to male circumcision and FGM.

So the answer is that he is a bog-standard example of male entitlement, with absolutely zero understanding or interest in the fact that there are valid points of view other than his, and also a total lack of awareness that he is actually basing his arguments on an incorrect and incomplete understanding of the law, because there is no room in his existence for the possibility that someone else might know more about something than him. Like, people who have actually experienced it.

What an absolute wanker, seriously.

Good point Lonny.

ABland - that's not the point and you know it. Why not answer the question?
Lonny - a mandatory life sentence for every rape? Really? I'm guessing that the percentage of women murdered after rape would go up a lot if that law were passed.

You have a horrible view of men, theherbofdeath.

Whether or not the woman files a complaint of rape is very much the point. How could it not be?

Assuming that she did, ethelb posted the sentencing guidelines upthread - clearly your "husband" example would not be a sustained attack or involve abduction or detention; your 6ft5 man in bushes would involve the former and probably the latter as aggravating factors, which would impact the guide sentence. I'm fine with that.

I took issue in the first instance with your "carried away" - as, given your "I know, I know" in that post, you expected would happen.

"I'm guessing that the percentage of women murdered after rape would go up a lot if that law were passed"

Christ, I missed that gem.

What point was he using i to illustrate? I don't want to go look and bung up his viewing figures after this....Logic and reason suggest to me that it is bad taste to use rape as an example in discussion for anything lighter than actual rape. Particularly for men I have to say, given the huge gender-skew towards female sufferers.

Torture, assuming you survive it, might be slightly better than being murdered - no doubt there are some traumatized victims who would disagree - but you don't come across that used as an example very often. Just rape. How odd.

I mean this tells us all we need to know about you:

"So, husband withdraws 10 seconds after his wife tells him to, on her developing a migraine."

Yes because women often "tell" their husbands to stop having sex with them halfway through and give no reason and then report them for rape because they take 10 seconds to take it out

Similarly women often develop migraines instantaneously during sex and when their husband takes 10 seconds to take it out on being told to do so, consider themselves to have been raped.

Yes because obviously women don't actually enjoy sex, are totally unreasonable, and use any opportunity to report any man they are intimate with for rape, presumably because they are all vindictive and a bit mad.

Nice posts.

If a man were literally seconds away from orgasm, his wife said stop and he physically wasn't able to stop, no one would accuse him of rape - it was just bad timing.
However, in your example you said a man could get "carried away" while on the verge of having sex. That is total and utter bullshit. Under no circumstances is it ever acceptable for a man on the verge of having sex to continue to put his penis into a woman after she has asked him to stop. If he genuinely cannot control his own bodily movements once he is turned on then he is a serious danger and should be permanently locked up.

In reality of course, the vast majority of rapes go unreported. Why is that? Because women (and men) know that if they have been raped by someone they know, it will not be taken seriously, so what's the point. Because it's MILD RAPE, to use Dawkin's delightful phrasing.

He is not saying anything mind-bendingly new is he. He's saying what society and many in positions of power including the police think. That if someone you know rapes you then so what. A "proper" rape is a stranger attacking a nun. With lots of extra violence for good measure.

Women know this, they know what people think, and they keep their mouths shut about what's done to them.

It's a shitty state of affairs.

This all comes hot on the heels of the NHS posters which tell women they were asking for it if they had had a drink.

FFS.

cailin quite right.

Men tell themselves they just got "carried away" to justify to themselves why they raped someone.

Lonny - a mandatory life sentence for every rape? Really? I'm guessing that the percentage of women murdered after rape would go up a lot if that law were passed.

I completely disagree with your argument theherb because I don't believe men have some absolute uncontrollable urge to rape. I don't believe they are at the mercy of their urges. I actually think better of them than that.

Therefore if the sentences for all rapes were higher, rape would reduce because men would know 'I'm likely going to prison for this.' They would NOT think 'oh I just have to go and do a rape, better kill her too.'

(apols for triggering language)

YY lonny

Also we are continually told that rape is a crime second only to murder in severity.

So why the aghast reaction to the suggestion it attract a life sentence?

Because of course it isn't actually considered to be a crime second only to murder in severity. What people are talking about when they say that is "proper" rape. And if the rapist is someone you know who got "carried away" and actually he seems like a nice chap and he's got a job and everything then the punishment should be nothing whatsoever.

If you've just raped someone, and you know that if you get caught you will get life imprisonment, surely you're more likely to want the one witness to your crime out of the way?

When you're arguing something on the basis of logic, it's normal practice to use clear-cut examples to illustrate your point. And it's a bit silly to say that all incidents of rape justify life imprisonment, except for those that probably wouldn't be reported to the police anyway.

I suspect that the reason there are so many rapes is because men know that they will never be prosecuted in the first place, not because the current punishment level is too low. If a man considering rape knew that he would definitely be caught and prosecuted successfully, he wouldn't do it unless he WAS unable to control himself.

Confession: I haven't read all through the thread. Many years ago I experienced what would probably be called date rape. I had drunk a bit too much, felt ill and didn't want to embark on sex with this man whom I had previously fancied. I said I really didn't want sex and he said 'fine we'll just share the bed' (was away from home, no other real option).

Anyway as you might guess he came on to me anyway and I sort of tolerated it because I felt I'd given out willing signals earlier. I was hugely relieved when he fell asleep andade excuse to leave early in the morning.

Technically it was rape. But at no moment did I fear for my life or well-being. If a knife had been involved I think the trauma would have stayed with me for life, as it is it really wasn't a big deal.

I know I will get flamed for this. But if you call that rape, then there are degrees and I am eternally glad my younger self didn't experience anything worse.

You assume that all men who rape are capable of murder.

You assume that all men who rape see what they have done as rape.

You have a poor view of men, and a poor understanding of human behaviour. Or maybe just a weak grasp on the complexities of this subject.

If you read the thread Cooroo you will see that the law already accounts for the difference in the two situations you describe.