Dawkins, A f**ing Atheist Christian, likes the church but does not believe in god, and here he is rating *****philia and using the term "mild *****philia" That's all I need to know thanks.
Books! Reading! Educated people! Where's me stakes and petrol.. According to Astro I hate educated people, so you're first on the pyre
You have daughters, would you be any less violently disposed which ever tool a rapist used to do such a thing to a loved one? or a ****? I wouldn't. There would be no "ahh it was not as bad" from me as I flayed their skin off
I don't know what this Dawkings guy is yapping about. We have hell dug in circles and circles for that very reason. Sodomy gets you to fith circle, while if you buttf*ck a whole nation gets you lodged right into Satan's throat in the very ninth circle of hell. God had worked it all out well before any of us were even born and methinks Satan's getting ready to spit out Brutus and get this Dawkings guy in there.
I hope the politicians/lawyers/judges who made the laws about murder and manslaughter were killed in every possible way before they dared to voice an opinion
I think you'll find Dawkins has had some experience of molestation. He was 'inappropriately touched' by a priest as a child, however, apparently, all the kids his age were used to the priest and he never went further than 'wandering hands'. When he first broached this topic he used his own example of *****philia when compared to those who have actually raped kids. Luckily, I have experienced neither, but I can see the legitimacy of his position. Once again Dawkins, like all of us, is not condoning the actions of the the priest in his story but merely noting the differences in the cases. For me it's very much like comparing a case of Common Assault to GBH. Both are assault, technically, but I know what I'd prefer to endure, if I had to: I'd rather be pushed than hospitalised!
Sweet Jesus Sisu! You've repeated my own argument in several of your posts on this thread but in such a "know it all" vitriolic way and respond to others in such an abusive manner I found myself wanting to disagree with you! You just out dawkinsed Dawkins....I'm just waiting for "you guys just don't get it."
Frank is there a rule about posting my argument in different ways, and when you feel someone is not getting the point doesn't one "rephrase it". I thought this thread was about Dawkins not me Whether I like the prick or not is not the issue, he is simplifying something not so simple, he is taking what are millions of different cases and boiling it down to date rape, violent rape, with no thought to the victims. yes these are the words of someone who has kind parted with reality on the subject. For all the talk of me hating for different opinions, which is bollocks, here you are going at me, and not my argument, this is exactly what you claimed of me, you f**ing eejit
This is a good point. It's a volatile subject, and there are going to be widely differing opinions, but if we take entrenched positions and just hurl abuse at each other we get nowhere. I think Dawkins point (about the ability to reason and not reduce everything to black and white) is perfectly valid and is open to debate. However his method of delivery, and the provocative nature of his metaphor, does little to help get the point across. Those taking a different view but using the same methods are similarly obscuring the issue.
Sweet jesus, every rape case requires hospital. WTF is wrong with you. The fact he was "touched" makes his comments even more pathetic. The fact he dealt with it better than others is neither here nor there. We're all different, others could have their lives altered by it, it is down to the individual and that does not make it less or more. Also, "worse" as a word means very little, it is totally relative to the circumstances and individuals. Slapping this is "worse than that" on it, generally, makes no sense.
I think I agree with Sir Red here. There certainly would be a lot more terror involved in a random stranger coming at me with a knife- and raping me forcibly- than passing out from some pill and being taken advantage of. Even the whole "I was too drunk to consent" is better than the knife attack. Presumably- even though in hindsight you'd rather it not occurred- there was no act of terror, fear, being hurt... and at the time you may have enjoyed it. There again- coming at you with a knife and threatening bodily harm if you don't comply to rape is perhaps 2 crimes not one. 1) Threatening Bodily Harm (and or assault and battery if you go ahead with it). 2) Rape As opposed to just rape in the case of drugs or alcohol. Either way I'd be insanely angry- but I think if there was violence used- and/or threatened that would be even worse. I'm sure for the rapee, violent or not- it is an extremely humiliating and debasing scenario regardless of how it happens. Really the only person who would be 100% qualified to answer if one is worse than the other is someone who has been a victim to multiple kinds of attacks. I've known two women who have been raped, and talked to me personally about it. One was a girl I dated in University... she was several years older than me and had been married. Her husband had raped her numerous times... (this was several years before she met me... she got married right after High School to this guy... High School pregnancy girl). She was seriously traumatized by it- it was obvious it had a very strong mental impact on her years later. They used to physically fight- each time she would fight him as hard as she could- and leave him pretty scratched up and bloody... but he would always overpower her. When I was dating her- simple acts like putting an arm around her when she wasn't expecting it would freak her out. I once left flowers on her doorstep- just because, to brighten her day... she got freaked out thought and accused me of stalking her... because I left her flowers! The rapes had completely messed up her life- she was very mentally scarred and paranoid... it's a horrible thing I wouldn't wish on anyone. I know another girl who stayed at her boyfriends house one night but refused to have sex with him. She woke up with him forcing his way inside her. She said she told him no- but didn't/couldn't fight back because he was stronger. She was angry as hell with him- and immediately afterwards left... but for her the mental scars are much less. Unlike my ex girlfriend... she could have a relationship still- it hadn't scarred her that badly. Rape is a horrible- horrible thing, and it obviously affects different people to different extremes. Definitely the scenario of the rape will affect people differently too. I'd imagine getting ambushed and raped in a dark alleyway would leave you permanently scared of strangers and secluded spaces. Getting raped by a spouse would leave you paranoid of intimacy.
If a woman is drunk and let's her guard down... that is considered rape if the following day she decides she wished it never happened. You certainly wouldn't get hospitalised for having drunken sex.
