Richard Dawkins under fire for comments about rape

a reply to: crazyewok

I'm not getting into a religion debate here. So let's leave it out. I am an atheist, and I cringe at the even hint of one.

As for his comments, he was most likely brought into the subject and asked to comment on it, so he did. Nuff said.

And you still attacked him in more than just HIM, I won't point it out, you can go back and look at your own words and eat them. Opinions can be expressed, but when you involve opinions of the bigger subject be ready to defend what you said.

originally posted by: new_here
Taking advantage of someone who is drunk is pretty despicable, don't you think? By this line of thinking, stealing a car from someone who is drunk is not as bad as wresting the car keys away and stealing a car from someone who is sober. In the end, the car is still stolen.

The distinction they are making does not hinge on intoxication, but on the quality and degree of violence involved. If I'm drunk, and someone takes my car without my consent, I'm out a car. If I'm sober, and someone beats me half to death and steals my car, I'm out a car and I have sustained serious injuries. Both are despicable, but one type of theft is clearly worse than the other. Dawkins is saying that sex-without-consent is wrong, but if it is accomplished with additional violence, it is worse.

This distinction is not terribly controversial. The Model Penal Code defines rape as a second degree felony, but grievous bodily injury upgrades it to the first degree. In the UCMJ, sex with a person who happens to be unconscious is sexual assault, but using or threatening force, or rendering someone unconscious, is rape. Some states distinguish different degrees. It's about the dangerousness of the offender and the amount of injury suffered by the victim.

never mind]

originally posted by: VegHead
As a woman who has been sexually assaulted, I have to agree with him here.

I don't feel a need to decide whether I agree with him or not. I know violent rape is no fun (been there) and I wouldn't want to be date-raped either, but if I had to choose, I think I'd choose the latter.

So maybe I do think there is some merit in what he says...

An atheist who thinks rape is ok?

Didnt see that comming ( sarcasm and pum intended)

What a joke of a per...animal

a reply to: Another_Nut

An atheist who thinks rape is ok?

Didnt see that [coming] ( sarcasm and [pun] intended)

What a joke of a per...animal

This is what the OP is bringing to light. Nowhere did Dawkins say rape is OK, yet highschool-like reactionary response is quite common, and absolutely void of rationality and logic. You've basically slandered someone for no reason other than your own biases.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

The God Delusion is one of his later and probably less significant books. He has been famous and respected/Hated for a lot longer than this one book.

Think that he was trying to make a valid point about the effect of level of violence during the crime on the victim. However rape is probably a subject best avoided on twitter!

a reply to: FurvusRexCaeli

Dawkins statements make perfect sense and no one has to be an expert in rape to say these things. Radical feminists are often irrational and latch onto 'anything' just to rip it apart, I personally have no use for them or feminism generally (yes I'm female) but I do have a strong belief belief in equality.

Dawkins is simply saying there are degrees of wrongness and damage done by rape and pedophilia. There is a far difference from an adult who kindly, sweetly grooms a child and patiently 'talks' them into acts over time and an adult who grabs a kid off the street or in their sleep and forces them. Both are rapes, but vary in degrees of wrongness.

Dawkins is absolutely correct in his perspective. There 'is' a thing as relatively mild rape - it is still rape, yes, but comes without the physical battering or even death. Huge difference - and on date rape - it mostly describes the circumstances and not the act. Some date rapes are very violent, others just 'forced'.

All rape is wrong (as Dawkins says) - is just that some is more wrong because of the 'additional' pain (psychological, emotional, physical) depending on the manner it is inflicted, how often and over what period of time.

Geesh - people should be allowed to have perspectives and opinions on any topic they wish. Dawkins was not out of line saying what he said, nor was he incorrect. Thinking in absolute terms mean you are not capable of any gray areas, like degrees of wrongness in rape. Saying some rapes are more violent than others is not the same as saying some rapes are okay because they're not as violent as others. Absolute thinkers will not see the logic in that.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Rape is rape, it doesn't matter how violent or nice the offender plays, the point is the offender had that thought run through his head to fulfill his sexual desires against the will of someone else. There's no nice rape, all rapes are still crimes and this issue should not be sub-categorized.

Dawkins is an over-opinionated doofus. I'm not even religious and I dislike his overall disposition. He just comes across as a dink.

originally posted by: strongfp

I'm not getting into a religion debate here. So let's leave it out. I am an atheist, and I cringe at the even hint of one.

I never mentioned Religion verse atheism. I just insinuated that militant atheists can be as bad as the people they claim to fight.

Im not a fan of organised religion myself and dislike militant groups that try and force there view points or treat those outside as lesser people, be they Christians, Muslims or Atheists.

originally posted by: Xaphan
Dawkins is an over-opinionated doofus. I'm not even religious and I dislike his overall disposition. He just comes across as a dink.

Here here

You dont have to disagree with him to dislike him

a reply to: DarknStormy

Crimes are sub categorised all the time. All rape is a crime however circumstances and intent are still relavent. At no point did Richard Dawkins, Myself or any other poster say there is "nice rape".

I just want to say that I agree with the OP. This happened to me yesterday in a different thread about an Israeli professor giving an analytical statement about stopping a suicide bomber using rape. It's beyond dumb. Some people, as soon as they hear or read the word rape, all reason leaves their head.

a reply to: Cantbebothered

How can you say one does more psychological damage to a woman than the other?? Have you ever been raped? a woman who gets raped at a drunken party is going to be just a damaged as the girl who gets raped in a ditch.

originally posted by: Cantbebothered

originally posted by: new_here

originally posted by: Cantbebothered
the sheeple need to eat less red meat so they can think rationally. Dawkins is not advocating any type of rape is more acceptable than others just that there is a distinction between violently raping someone and raping someone who is drunk. Both are bad but one has more psychological damage done to the woman than the other. SHEESH

Taking advantage of someone who is drunk is pretty despicable, don't you think? By this line of thinking, stealing a car from someone who is drunk is not as bad as wresting the car keys away and stealing a car from someone who is sober. In the end, the car is still stolen.

I think you need to read properly what i wrote again. and if you think stealing car keys leaves the same type of psychological damage to a woman as rape does well.................................

My point was: taking advantage of someone who is drunk vs. sober, is still taking advantage.

And for those defending him by saying lack of physical violence makes it less insidious, I say rape is rape. Rape with violence is two crimes. Physical assault plus sexual assault. That fact does not make the sexual assault of a drunk person any less of a rape.

originally posted by: PageLC14
a reply to: Cantbebothered

How can you say one does more psychological damage to a woman than the other?? Have you ever been raped? a woman who gets raped at a drunken party is going to be just a damaged as the girl who gets raped in a ditch.

By the same token, someone who sits down and plans out a murder is considered worse than someone who kills someone in the moment. Each crime has different prison sentences, but the victim is dead in either case. The outcome and damage to the victim of the crime is the same in both circumstances. So yes, we can look at different sub-types of a certain crime as being worse than others. Physical assault is another example. If you beat someone down with your fists and stomp him while he is down versus with a lead pipe. I'm sure that the victim will be massively injured in either case, but the lead pipe version comes with additional charges for the weapon.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: crazyewok

Just because that was his focus of his studies does not mean is not smart in other fields. The man is nearly 75, he has taken on many projects in his life on human and animal behavior, and I am sure one of them was criminal mentality, including rape, which can fit into evolutionary genetics, in a crude way.

People are far to sensitive now days. They read one thing, and go on a tangent on their blog or somewhere on the internet without thinking that what they just published will be there forever, for the entire world to see. And others with the same views will back them up.

Dawkin's is the type of person to say something and for any logical person it will take a few minutes to digest what he has said, and you will realize it makes sense.
He's just simply implying that 'date rape' is different from brutal rape which involves force, generally including violence. But i am sure if you ask him the question "Do you consider them both rape?" He will answer yes, so what's the problem?

Actually, Dawkins is an arrogant conceited [snip], and if I told him that to his face it would be interesting to see how sensitive he would be about it.

How he even dare pass any kind of judgement around varying degrees of rape completely astonishes me. Actually, some of the posts on here also astonish me - the majority of which I note have a male figure as an avatar which kind of assumes they are male and do not have the first idea what they are talking about.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Heading toward a thought crime society?

We're already there.