All rapes are equally serious Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

RAMSEY CAMPBELL » Discussion » All rapes are equally serious « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.5.40.74
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 08:39 am:   

Does anyone agree?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mbfg (Mbfg)
Username: Mbfg

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 212.219.63.204
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 08:58 am:   

Absolutely. There can be NO grading of rape. The forceful violation of a woman is a rape whether it is a drunken misunderstanding or a premeditted abduction and violent assault. How dare some ivory-tower dwelling male politician suggest that some rapes, some forced sex, some brutal and often physically and always psychological wounding attacks on women deserve lss punishment than others.

Regards
Terry
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.24.10.107
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 09:16 am:   

Indeed. Where a rape is accompanied by violence it's defined legally as aggravated rape, not as 'real' rape. The idea that date rape is somehow a lesser crime than rape is utterly wrong and ignorant.

However, in fairness, it must be said that 'statutory' rape (Clarke gave the example of a 17-year-old boy and a 15-year-old girl in a consensual sexual relationship) has to be assessed as an individual case that may not always be a serious crime. I'm aware of at least two cases in my own social circle where a 15-year-old girl was involved in a stable sexual relationship that was accepted by her family, because it was appropriate for her level of maturity. But we really are talking about relationships there, not predatory seduction and not abuse.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.24.10.107
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 09:17 am:   

Sorry, my head's not clear (cold, not hangover) 'at least' is nonsense, I'm aware of two cases.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kate (Kathleen)
Username: Kathleen

Registered: 09-2009
Posted From: 86.142.242.169
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 09:36 am:   

Date rape is no less a crime than rape, certainly. But giving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he was referring to those true grey area cases where signals simply got crossed between initially consensual partners. And let's not ignore the fact that there are equally despicable women out there who will cry rape because they had second thoughts after the fact. I remember a workmate joking once that she'd got drunk and fallen into bed with her ex but that if her current partner found out she could just say it was rape.

It's always a minefield when men discuss rape. Sort of like whites discussing crimes against blacks. There's no way to "win". I can't help but wonder if the controversy would have been the same had a woman made those ill-judged comments.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.58.66
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 09:37 am:   

I think the term 'statutory rape' is hypocrisy gone mad. If a 17-year old can have a relationship with a 15-year old, why not a 22-year old? Or, for that matter, a 29-year old? We have to get rid of this notion that sex is something sick, dangerous or potentially unhealthy unless one is above a certain age. But the Law is the Law (says the Law).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Simon Bestwick (Simon_b)
Username: Simon_b

Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 86.24.209.217
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 09:44 am:   

Joel- agree about the 'statutory' part of it. It's nonsensical to put a consensual relationship on the same level as a coercive assault.

I've always assumed the key word in these matters to be 'consent'- if he/she says 'no', it's rape, if he/she says 'yes', then it isn't. On the other hand, a couple of years ago, IIRC, it was ruled that consent didn't necessarily count if the victim was inebriated. Given the number of encounters that happen involving alcohol, that potentially creates a grey area.

Alcohol (and similar substances) reduce inhibition, which is usually beneficial in certain kinds of social situation. How inebriated does someone have to be before they can no longer be said to give informed consent?

Not defending Clarke's remarks, btw, if he was indeed attempting to present rape as a non-serious offence, but wondering if something like the above may have been what he was driving at? I know he's a Tory, in which case the most disgusting option is the most likely, but I do my best to give folk the benefit of the doubt.

Otherwise- if you have sex with someone against their will, it's rape. There really isn't much grey area in that one.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Paul_finch (Paul_finch)
Username: Paul_finch

Registered: 11-2009
Posted From: 92.5.63.48
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 09:54 am:   

When I was in CID we had a very awkward case when a woman came into the police station and complained that she'd been raped by her husband.

A rape kit was produced, and it was clear that she had had forcible sex, but she was also drunk, and further enquiries revealed that while she had been married to the same guy for about 15 years, there had been occasions when, while under the influence of alcohol, she had complained to the police about him assaulting her - and these had always been withdrawn when she had sobered up.

There had also been complaints about her assaulting him, yet when I spoke to their neighbours, no-one who saw them regularly in public thought they were in a particularly abusive relationship.

The husband was still arrested and brought to the nick, but we were very hesitant to charge him. Back in the 1980s, whether or not a husband had the right to demand sex from his wife was still a legal grey area, so that was a problem. Plus, when you were considering charging someone with rape, given that it could have life-changing consequences for the guy, even if he got acquitted, you had to be absolutely sure.

We thus dithered and in the morning, sure enough, the woman withdrew her complaint. She said that her husband had had sex with her when she didn't really feel like it, but that it hadn't bothered her too much as they'd already been together for so long. She'd only complained about being raped because they'd then rowed through being drunk.

Are there different degrees of rape? Nine times out of ten I'd say no, but it's not an easy question.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 10:32 am:   

One might just as well ask are all murders equally serious. Or are some of them merely unlawful killings?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.51
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 11:18 am:   

I remember a case of attempted "rape" that appeared in he papers once where a woman took a work colleague back home with her after an office party, both drunk, she undressed in front of him and got into bed, then shouted that he was trying to rape her when he read the situation as an invite for consensual sex and got into bed with her...

Personally, if a woman undresses in front of me in her bedroom I'd take it as a pretty clear signal. If I'd been in his situation I would have been accused. Of course her name was protected by the courts but for the duration of the trial his name was in most of the papers.

The case was thrown out by the judge. But it serves as a clear example of how far SOME women (please note I'm not trying to say all women will do this, I'm just pointing at the extreme end of the spectrum) will go and still cry rape.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Simon Bestwick (Simon_b)
Username: Simon_b

Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 86.24.209.217
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 11:25 am:   

Perhaps she thought she was on friendly enough terms with the guy that she could undress for bed around him, once he'd walked her home, and he wouldn't take it as an invite? Of course if they were both drunk, neither might be exercising their best judgement....

At worst, the guy misread the situation, so it sounds like the right verdict was given. And I have to admit I think men accused of rape should receive anonymity as well.

That said, I think it's usually held that the number of rape cases that go unreported- to say nothing of the genuine cases that are reported- is rather higher than the bogus cases.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 11:33 am:   

Each case of reported rape or murder or any violent crime has to be judged on its own individual circumstances. Of course there are gradations of severity in all such crimes. To say otherwise is to deny the obvious.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus)
Username: Rhysaurus

Registered: 01-2010
Posted From: 212.219.233.223
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 11:41 am:   

Very few things can be generalised. Of course some rapes are more serious than others (and some murders and wars are more serious than others, etc) but it's bad form to say so.

Every occasion (of rape, murder or war) really needs to be treated on an individual basis; unfortunately there simply isn't the time, money or energy to do that. Hence laws.

But if it's only the law (and the threat of imprisonment) that's stopping an individual from committing rape (or murder or whatever) then there's surely something wrong with that individual's personal code of honour. It's not the law that needs to be fixed: the concept of honour needs to be re-established instead. Unfortunately "honour" has become something of a joke in modern society.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 11:45 am:   

As we've discussed before, I share your committment to the concept of honour/chivalry, Rhys.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 11:56 am:   

To take the situation in Ireland this week, as an example, I think it was an honourable thing indeed for the Queen to honour fallen Irish freedom fighters as a legitimate enemy by the laying of that wreath and took her speaking of the Irish language last night as an acknowledgement of our National identity and right to self-determination. By such acts of honour is the past put to bed. It is my opinion that the tiny minority of diehard Republican extremists who are trying to drag us all back to the bad old days are only bringing dishonour on their own heads.

Weapons have been laid down... let a new dawn of friendship, trust and co-operation between our Nations begin. See what honour is capable of even in this jaded day and age.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus)
Username: Rhysaurus

Registered: 01-2010
Posted From: 212.219.233.223
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 11:59 am:   

Thanks Stevie.

I'm amazed that Ken Clarke's comments have created such a storm. Let's consider two quick cases: (a) Bruce Chatwin was raped in Brazil, (b) Samuel Delany was raped in Greece. Both shrugged off their experiences. I'm not saying it didn't effect them negatively at all but Chatwin joked about it afterwards and Delany wrote a (blackly) humorous account of what happened to him ("Eau de Cologne on an unwashed cock is my very least favourite smell in the world.")

Can either of those cases seriously be given an equal footing with (for example) the violent gang-rape of a 14 year old girl, etc, etc?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.132.93.209
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 12:36 pm:   

It's too difficult. Murder results in death, but sometimes the killer is certainly remorseful, others gloat. I'd say while both murders resulted in death one is more tragic than terrible.
I hope that makes some kind of sense.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.132.93.209
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 12:37 pm:   

I think some are worse than others, but that all are still not good things.
As Tarantino says, there are degrees to evil.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.156.35
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 01:59 pm:   

Let's not forget Kenneth Clarke's real sins:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article560360.ece

"we are looking at ways that we can make the production process less reliant on child labour."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.47
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 04:00 pm:   

An interesting side note to this debate, springing from Joel's point about the 15 year old girl in a relationship with a 17 year old boy - if you reverse the roles in that, when you read in the papers about female teachers etc sleeping with their underage male pupils, there's always a tone of Wahey!-good-on-you-Lad in the reporting.

When it's a man accused of sleeping with an underage girl, regardless of the level of consent involved, it's always how he's a disgusting pedophile who should be shot/castrated etc.

Of all the double standards shown in modern society, this one really bugs me more than most.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.58.66
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 04:25 pm:   

when you read in the papers about female teachers etc sleeping with their underage male pupils, there's always a tone of Wahey!-good-on-you-Lad in the reporting

Not always: http://crime.about.com/od/sex/ig/female_pedophiles/

Some of the stories are truly heart-wrenching. Apparently in some parts of America a 17-year old guy is still considered a child.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 04:30 pm:   

Every time I raise this point with my feminist friends, Weber, I am told there is an accepted consensus that men are generally more up for sex than women.

I believe women enjoy sex every bit as much as men, if not more, but have better control of their libido than us and always call the shots when it comes to who they want to have sex with. Men who don't accept this and use force to decide the issue are guilty of rape. In the rare instance of a woman forcing herself on a genuinely unwilling male that too would be rape.

When it comes to issues of age and maturity and the ability to give willing consent then the Law tends to get itself in a pickle and becomes prey to the conventions that hold sway in that particular time and place.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 147.252.230.148
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 04:38 pm:   

"Apparently in some parts of America a 17-year old guy is still considered a child."

Well, I don't think the word adult quite applies to a 17-year old male. Frontal lobe development (which helps us understand consequences and control out decision-making) continues up until the early-20s.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.58.66
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 04:46 pm:   

Rape is rape and cannot be condoned, but statutory rape should be called something else entirely - 'illicit sex' or whatever. Just so that people would think the law is right and just, it has invented this fairytale about sex being dangerous and harmful for minors. Not when the relationship is loving and caring, it isn't. And of course I'm not advocating sex between septuagenarian bishops and 10-year old choirboys
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.58.66
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 04:52 pm:   

Frontal lobe development (which helps us understand consequences and control out decision-making) continues up until the early-20s

That's true enough, but does that mean you shouldn't have sex at the age of 17?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.49
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 05:02 pm:   

The fairly high age of consent is a very modern invention in Britain it was only introduced in the late 19th/early 20th century. Before that it was the age of ability - ie about 12.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.39
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 05:16 pm:   

Can I rephrase that first sentence please? I don't mean that I think 16 is a high age of consent. I meant in comparative terms it was high.

As another note on age of consent - the same sex AOC was only equalised at 16 in this country very recently - less than 10 years ago. The ruling was imposed by Europe as it decreed that a higher AOC for gay relationships was homophobic.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.132.93.209
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 06:17 pm:   

Nah.
;)
I think much of this stuff revolves around boners, the fact blokes have an 'on off' switch.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.4.19.77
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 10:38 pm:   

So do women, Tony, so do women...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.85.91
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 11:08 pm:   

"Frontal lobe development (which helps us understand consequences and control out decision-making) continues up until the early-20s"

"That's true enough, but does that mean you shouldn't have sex at the age of 17?"

I don't know the answer to that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.85.91
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 11:09 pm:   

Are we going to hear Ramsey's view?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.178.81.136
Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 - 12:26 am:   

I kind of assumed the thread's title gave Ramsey's opinion...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.24.13.157
Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 - 01:28 am:   

Rhys, I think you're confusing rape with things that multiply or add to it. Rapes that are multiple are multiple crimes. Rapes that are violent are aggravated rape. They are more serious because they go beyond what is specifically meant by 'rape'. That doesn't mean that all rapes are not equally serious.

The examples you cite are of resourceful people who coped well with being raped. How well the victim copes does not determine whether the rape is serious, any more than a person's ability to cope with being robbed determines whether the robbery is serious. There are many cases of woman (and men) dealing with the experience of rape by pretending to themselves that valid sex is taking place. In some cases, that's an attempt to minimise the violence done to them, perhaps even to avoid being murdered (as in the disturbing Tori Amos song 'Me and a Gun', which was based on real experience). If you do that, you may feel less violated afterwards, or you may not. None of that matters in considering whether it was rape.

Clarke was wrong, disastrously so, in asserting that date rape is less than rape. It is usually less than aggravated rape, but it is never less than rape.

This thread has opened up the question of the boundary between manipulative seduction and rape yes, there is a grey area, but only between what is morally wrong but legal and what is morally wrong and illegal.

Where a relationship has abusive and pathological elements, and the victim of abuse is unable to say with certainty whether rape has taken place, we are in very difficult territory only the victim ending the relationship can simplify the legal position, as that step takes her (or him) beyond the abuser's legally acceptable reach.

There is no type of sexual relationship that cannot be ended by voluntary withdrawal of consent, as long as that right is respected. With that decision, ambiguity ends. For that reason, the most crucial right of the victim of abuse is the right to walk away.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.21.5
Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 - 09:41 am:   

Well, if all rapes are equally serious, there should be a standard fixed jail term for every crime of rape, presumably. Varying the sentence for individual crimes would imply degrees of seriousness.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 - 10:31 am:   

Non-consensual sex is always rape. Rape is always a serious crime and a brutal infringement of rights, no matter how the individual is able to cope with it afterward. Violent assault is an equally serious crime and when coupled with rape represents two serious crimes which should be treated distinctly and sentence passed on each. So a man who say abducts and batters a random woman off the street and then rapes her should get significantly more time in prison than a man who say rapes a woman he has gone home with and who passes out from the effects of alcohol. There are gradations of severity in the circumstances of all crime but the effect on the victim is always of the utmost seriousness. The Law, rightly, needs to remain impartial.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 - 10:44 am:   

Actually that first scenario includes three serious crimes and infringements of the victim's rights: rape, assault & abduction - all of which need to be treated with equal seriousness. Needless to say rape is always an act of violence in and of itself but must be treated separately from the assault. So three sentences and more time in prison than the second scenario is only right and proper imho.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 - 01:46 pm:   

Agreed, Stevie though it's worth noting that quite often when someone is abducted and battered, the only legal consequence is that the victim is charged by the perpetrators with the crime of resisting arrest.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.247.215
Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 - 05:20 pm:   

I haven't thought nearly enough about this subject to be entitled to an opinion on it, so I don't have one, but your logic seems flawed here, Joel. Something about it reminded me of government massaging of crime and hospital bed statistics.

If you define mugging as (let's say) stealing money, and classify everything outside of that as an additional, separate crime, then of course - by definition, all muggings will be equal.

It seems to me that you're starting from an a priori belief and twisting definitions so that logic will return you safely to your starting assumption.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 - 07:13 pm:   

Hi Proto. No, I was just explaining what the law actually is. There is a legal punishment for rape and a different punishment for aggravated rape. It's not the case that aggravated rape is 'real' rape and the rest is less than rape. It's also not the case that 'date rape' is legally less than rape, as Ken Clarke implied. So my statement was just a clarification of the law, not a theoretical view of what the law should be. There are differences in the sentences given for rape, but those differences have (as with theft) to do with the judge's discretion regarding the character of the offender, not with the definition of the crime. Nor am I asserting that the judge should not have such discretion, though arguably judges tend to be more lenient with rapists than with people whose crimes involve property.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.222.93
Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 - 07:52 pm:   

I see what you're saying. It's subtle. I think the misunderstandings happen because the word rape is used broadly conversationally and specifically legally. In the conversational use, there are different severities of rape; but in your legal definitions, there are not. (I've no time for Kenneth Clarke at all, given his shady dealings over the last few years, so I won't bother addressing what he said.)

"...arguably judges tend to be more lenient with rapists than with people whose crimes involve property."

Again I don't know the facts here, so this may be true, but if it is I'd be surprised.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Simon Bestwick (Simon_b)
Username: Simon_b

Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 86.24.209.217
Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 11:33 am:   

Another Tory MP, Nadine Dorries, has opened her mouth and voided a tide of delusional shite.

From The Vanessa Show, May 16th:

'If young girls were taught abstinence, there would be less sex abuse.'

Yep. That's right. Let's look at that again.

'If young girls were taught abstinence, there would be less sex abuse.'

Of course. It's all the fault of young girls for not saying no to the adult in a position of trust and authority (not to mention far greater physical strength) who abuses them. They should know better than to lead men on, presumably.

Ms. Dorries, if you look around you, you should see a large, flat stone nearby.

Thank you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Simon Bestwick (Simon_b)
Username: Simon_b

Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 86.24.209.217
Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 11:34 am:   

Sorry, meant to conclude:

Ms. Dorries, if you look around you, you should see a large, flat stone nearby.

Please crawl back under it.

Thank you.

(My kingdom for an edit button.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.158.60.210
Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 11:37 am:   

I thought you meant to beat herself with
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus)
Username: Rhysaurus

Registered: 01-2010
Posted From: 212.219.233.223
Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 11:39 am:   

I can't stand stoned MPs.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus)
Username: Rhysaurus

Registered: 01-2010
Posted From: 212.219.233.223
Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 11:47 am:   

> I think the misunderstandings happen because the word rape is used broadly conversationally and specifically legally.

Protodroid (above) made that comment and it hit on something that has annoyed me for a long time: the use of the word "rape" as a metaphor. I can't say exactly why it annoys me so much, but it does.

The Rape of the Fair Country by Alexander Cordell, for example. How does one hump a landscape against its will, exactly? The humps are already there (unless the landscape happens to be Holland). I must say, however, that it's a brilliant title: the close juxtaposition of the words "rape" and "country." Brilliant but annoying...

M. John Harrison is a superb writer but in The Pastel City he invents beings called the 'geteit chemosit' who steal the brains from human beings. This act of stealing brains is often described as "head rape". No, it's not. No penis goes inside a skull at any point. It's aggravated brain theft, not rape. Get it right, you designer-grumps!

Anyway...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.158.60.210
Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 11:52 am:   

For head rape watch A Serbian Film apparently...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.11.67
Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 01:07 pm:   

That's an older, but still valid, use of the word: to plunder, despoil, to seize and carry off by force. It's only recently, with an increase in sensitivity to issues of sexual violence, that a phrase applied to the Vikings "rape and pillage" (which implies the archaic use of the word) is difficult to use today in the jovial context it once was (say, in the 1970s).

I think much confusion and many unnecessary arguments are caused (as seen above) simply by people using different definitions of a word. Poorly-defined terms seem to be at the root of most arguments, I think.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 81.155.107.43
Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 01:39 pm:   

I don't intend to trivialase this serious matter - a subject I don't know sufficient about to be confident enough to give a view - but the study of the word 'rape' (and its use in literature etc over the years) could be called 'rapeture', today of all days...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus)
Username: Rhysaurus

Registered: 01-2010
Posted From: 212.219.233.223
Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 01:49 pm:   

> Poorly-defined terms seem to be at the root of most arguments, I think.

In that case let's have a big hand for Mr Bertrand Russell, A.J. Ayer and the Logical Positivists in general... No, not literally a big hand!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.152.193.226
Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 03:57 pm:   

I don't know much about it, but logical positivism doesn't seem to work very well for science because the verification principle is such a hobbling thing to scientific advancement - the big advancements use made by geniuses tend to begin with a priori assumptions.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.152.193.226
Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 03:59 pm:   

(nix the word "use")

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration