Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dawkins controversial again.
Options
Comments
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,401 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 47852
-
Seems to be querying what's meant by the term "rape culture".
I'm not going to make any comment on this other than to say that (a) Dawkin's input on this topic has not improved global understanding or increased global karma; (b) the response of many people to Dawkin's comments on the topic have frequently been significantly less helpful than Dawkins himself; (c) owing to the regularity with which the term appears, "rape culture" should be defined clearly and unambiguously, if any of its (current) possible meanings are found to exist as anything more substantial than this or similar terms or slogans, should be condemned in the strongest terms and, where possible, be prohibited by both social sanction and appropriate legislation.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,401 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 47852
b) is a given. there are people even more idiotic than dawkins on twitter and other forms of media.0 -
-
Dawkins has a history of trivializing unethical behavior, and in this case criminal behavior, towards women. Date rape is at worrying levels on American campuses, which is a serious issue for society to tackle, and telling women to effectively shut up about it is hardly helpful. The reality is there is a not that uncommon misogynist male belief that if I get a girl drunk, either voluntarily or even more insidiously from spiking her drink, anything that happens afterwards is her responsibility. It is the same thinking that blames rape victims for dressing provocatively.0
-
Advertisement
-
Dawkins has a history of trivializing unethical behavior, and in this case criminal behavior, towards women. Date rape is at worrying levels on American campuses, which is a serious issue for society to tackle, and telling women to effectively shut up about it is hardly helpful. The reality is there is a not that uncommon misogynist male belief that if I get a girl drunk, either voluntarily or even more insidiously from spiking her drink, anything that happens afterwards is her responsibility. It is the same thinking that blames rape victims for dressing provocatively.
It's shocking and depressing that modern day "feminism" has done this 180 turn on sexual morals, but I guess given the power of sex and the movements obsession with victim-hood not surprising.
The sexual revolution of the 60s which genuinely empowered women to be open sexual beings entitled to make their own decisions on the quantity and quality of their sexual relationships, has led to our current situation, where in Ireland and many western countries there is a strong correlation between alcohol consumption and casual/one night stand sex. In fact I'd hazard a guess that the percentage of sexual encounters between those who don't know each other where neither of the parties has consumed alcohol is quite small.
As with the laws of drink driving, it's not impossible nor immoral to tell people they are indeed responsible for things they do whilst intoxicated, and whilst obviously forcing sex on a drunken person is a crime, having consensual sex with someone who has consumed alcohol is not, not should it be.
Anyway I wish these modern day SJWs good luck in disentangling alcohol consumption from modern day sexuality, maybe some system where the parents get together and choose partners would suit them better.0 -
This is very true, but unfortunately not that simple. There comes a point where it is not possible to have consensual sex with a person that has consumed alcohol. That point is where they have consumed so much alcohol that they are considered incapable of giving consent.I
As with the laws of drink driving, it's not impossible nor immoral to tell people they are indeed responsible for things they do whilst intoxicated, and whilst obviously forcing sex on a drunken person is a crime, having consensual sex with someone who has consumed alcohol is not, not should it be.
So, whilst you are indeed correct, that having consensual sex with a drunk person is not rape, one must be careful because what might appear to be consensual sex might not be.
This is not really anything new. If you have sex with a 15 year old that consented to sex it will still be rape, as she is considered, in law, to be incapable of consenting to sex. Similarly, a person with a certain level of intoxication is considered incapable of giving consent.
Arguing that a woman is responsible for what happens to her when she is drunk, in regards to being raped, seems very similar to saying 'well, did you see how short her skirt was? She was obviously gagging for it.' I agree that getting drunk puts one at a higher risk for getting into trouble, in general, but that should be not be a defence for someone else committing an offence.
MrP0 -
I agree, but one needs to bear in mind that there are two people in this - what's the nature of consent if the taker doesn't ask for permission reliably, the giver doesn't understand the request reliably, doesn't provide a reliable answer which then may not be understood reliably? And who are the givers and takers anyway? It's not the case that women are always the givers and men, always the takers.[...] I agree that getting drunk puts one at a higher risk for getting into trouble, in general, but that should be not be a defence for someone else committing an offence.
The issue is not as black and white as it's made out to be, at least by the loudest voices in this debate.0 -
Ha. I never said it was easy... With respect to giver and taker, that is fairly easy with rape. Only a man can commit rape. The person having the penis inserted into their body is the person that must give consent. There may be some sexual acts committed by a woman against a man against his consent, but it will not be rape. That is pretty much where the simplicity ends however...I agree, but one needs to bear in mind that there are two people in this - what's the nature of consent if the taker doesn't ask for permission reliably, the giver doesn't understand the request reliably, doesn't provide a reliable answer which then may not be understood reliably? And who are the givers and takers anyway? It's not the case that women are always the givers and men, always the takers.
The issue is not as black and white as it's made out to be, at least by the loudest voices in this debate.
With respect to whether the request is reliably asked for, or whether that request is understood and whether consent, if given, is of a sufficient quality is the nub of the problem...
MrP0 -
Dawkins has a history of trivializing unethical behavior, and in this case criminal behavior, towards women. Date rape is at worrying levels on American campuses, which is a serious issue for society to tackle, and telling women to effectively shut up about it is hardly helpful. The reality is there is a not that uncommon misogynist male belief that if I get a girl drunk, either voluntarily or even more insidiously from spiking her drink, anything that happens afterwards is her responsibility. It is the same thinking that blames rape victims for dressing provocatively.
What level of rape would you say is worrying?
About 2 women in 1000 are raped on campuses in America.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry I don't have time to check, but I don't suppose you know how that compares to the non-campus rape stats?Classicporter wrote: »What level of rape would you say is worrying?
About 2 women in 1000 are raped on campuses in America.
MrP0 -
And crucially if there's anything to suggest that outside of campus rapes are actually significantly under reported making the figure artificially lower?0
-
And crucially if there's anything to suggest that outside of campus rapes are actually significantly under reported making the figure artificially lower?
I think rape is, in general, under reported, but I suspect that on campus reports might be higher due to the much better support structures they are, generally, put in place for students. I have no evidence of this, it just seems plausible.
MrP0 -
I'd tend to agree. My gut feeling is that on campsus 'rapes' may or may not be on the rise. What is on the rise is the awareness of them, leading to it being that wee little bit easier to report them. Which is a great thing. In general society though rape occurs mostly in the shadows and is hugely underreported. In some ethnical cultures it's basically rife and police are offer fearful of interfering in case they're seeing as racially profiling - a perception they must avoid at all costs.
It's only a feeling though as I'm appealing to ignorance obviously it can only be speculation.0 -
-
This is very true, but unfortunately not that simple. There comes a point where it is not possible to have consensual sex with a person that has consumed alcohol. That point is where they have consumed so much alcohol that they are considered incapable of giving consent.
So, whilst you are indeed correct, that having consensual sex with a drunk person is not rape, one must be careful because what might appear to be consensual sex might not be.
Sorry but I can't agree. Forcibly having sex with a drunken (or indeed sober) person is rape, and having sex with someone who is unconscious/non responsive I'd also be happy to call rape. However we as a society (rightly) hold people responsible for their actions whilst under the influence of alcohol. "I was drunk your honor" in no way excuses an assault, murder, theft etc, and I believe that one of the things you are responsible for is indeed the consent you give whilst drunk. I'm not sure how the law looks on other questionable consents given whilst drunk, but AFAIK drunken "consent" say to be tattooed is just as good as sober consent in the eyes of the law.This is not really anything new. If you have sex with a 15 year old that consented to sex it will still be rape, as she is considered, in law, to be incapable of consenting to sex. Similarly, a person with a certain level of intoxication is considered incapable of giving consent.
Of course this is new, this idea that the ability to give consent magically legally disappears after a certain amount of intoxication whilst the rest of our moral and legal responsibilities remain the same drunk and sober.Arguing that a woman is responsible for what happens to her when she is drunk, in regards to being raped, seems very similar to saying 'well, did you see how short her skirt was? She was obviously gagging for it.' I agree that getting drunk puts one at a higher risk for getting into trouble, in general, but that should be not be a defence for someone else committing an offence.
Well if you run into anyone arguing that drunk girls are fair game to be raped be sure to tell them that because it's extremely unlikely you'll hear it from anyone posting here.
Being drunk obviously puts us all at greater risk from certain crimes, be it rape, mugging, pickpocketing etc.
Now I get that many women feel rape is a special problem, but if we were to take a story of a male friend who went out got totally hammered and had his wallet pinched we'd *probably* be less sympathetic to him than if he'd been sober, we might even say something to him like "well what did you expect falling down unconscious in that alley with puke down your shirt". Now that doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed against him, nor does it excuse in anyway the action of the thief, who is just as responsible as if they'd robbed a sober person, but there does seem to be something inside most of our brains that sees that whilst the perpetrator is fully responsible for the theft, our natural instinct is to point out to the victim that they put themselves in the situation and that for their own good avoiding such situations in the future is an action they can take for their own safety.
And no for the comprehension impaired I'm not comparing rape to getting your wallet stolen, I'm merely discussing the silly concept of "victim blaming" without the emotional baggage that rape brings to it.0 -
Classicporter wrote: »What level of rape would you say is worrying?
About 2 women in 1000 are raped on campuses in America.
Any level of rape is worrying, especially for the victim.
Could you provide a source for your statistic, as it does not correlate with anything I have read on the subject. Most rapes are not reported, in particular where alcohol is involved, as the victim feels self blame and embarrassment. This has been established by numerous research surveys, the number of college students, male and female who report being sexually assaulted or raped is in the range of 2% to 25%, depending on the questions asked. A Department of Justice survey, which asked specifically "did someone force you or threaten you", has the number for rape and attempted rape at 3%, whereas a National Victim Center survey which included all rapes where consent was not given has the number (for women) at a staggering 25%.0 -
Then how can it reach a worrying level, if every level would be considered worrying.Any level of rape is worrying, especially for the victim.
Can I see a link to this please? That number seems very high.A Department of Justice survey, which asked specifically "did someone force you or threaten you", has the number for rape and attempted rape at 3%, whereas a National Victim Center survey which included all rapes where consent was not given has the number (for women) at a staggering 25%.0 -
jackofalltrades wrote: »Then how can it reach a worrying level, if every level would be considered worrying.
All rape, as in sex without consent, is worrying from a moral standpoint, but like all crime the level of incidence of the crime can also be worrying. Murder for example is morally worrying in any instance, but the level of murder say in Dublin versus a few decades ago is also worrying.
We know from research that rape is greatly underreported. Recent surveys on US college campuses suggest rape is far more common than was previously thought and appears to be on the rise, which I accept could suggest rape is on the increase or victims are more comfortable reporting it, at least to a survey. What is unquestionable from the data is the link between rape and alcohol / drug consumption.jackofalltrades wrote: »Can I see a link to this please? That number seems very high.
I agree its very high, and a bit of an outlier on the data. Scroll down to date rape, its reference 27.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_rape0 -
Roastlamb231 wrote: »Do you have a link for the survey that gave a figure of 25%? If that survey is anything like the "1 in 4" nonsense then it is deeply flawed and biased to worrying levels.
Most college surveys suggest an average of around 2-3% of women have been victims of rape or attempted rape, if the question is simply "have you been raped". However, we also know from surveys that many, and maybe most, victims do not regard non consensual sex as rape if they are intoxicated. The surveys that report 1 in 4 include those who say they did not give consent due to the influence of alcohol/drugs.
I agree its not black and white, and personal responsibility has a huge part to play, but I also believe that sex without consent is morally wrong and everything should be done to educate young people on why it is wrong. Blaming the victim as Dawkins is doing is hardly helpful in this regard, as victims already have a lot of self blame.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
The "1 in 4/5" statistics seem to be based on surveys that were technically flawed.Most college surveys suggest an average of around 2-3% of women have been victims of rape or attempted rape, if the question is simply "have you been raped".
In some of these surveys the respondents disagreed with the person doing the survey that they had been raped.
In others sex while intoxicated was automatically considered as rape/sexual assult.
How is Dawkins victim blaming? From what I've read of the tweet he just seems to be having a go at "rape culture".Blaming the victim as Dawkins is doing is hardly helpful in this regard, as victims already have a lot of self blame.0 -
jackofalltrades wrote: »How is Dawkins victim blaming? From what I've read of the tweet he just seems to be having a go at "rape culture".
Victim blaming is one of more pernicious aspects of "rape culture", along with trivializing rape (mild rape versus stranger rape). Rape is rape, if sex is non consensual it is rape. Yes there are exceptions as with everything, like both parties involved being intoxicated to the point of not been able to seek or give consent, but I think common sense would suggest these are rare (and generally a handy excuse for those committing the offense).
Taken in isolation, Dawkins latest tweet may seem relatively harmless, but it has to be taken in the context of a whole series of tweets to his roughly 1M followers. In the past he has had a go at a feminist who complained about being propositioned in a hotel elevator, scolding her that Muslim women have it worse, mothers or parents who decide to continue a Downs Syndrome pregnancy are immoral, he has described some pedophilia as "mild", and now some rape as "mild". If a Catholic bishop were to make such statements about child abuse, how do you think it would be received? "Ah sure, it was mild rape, not at all like stranger rape".
Basically he is crap at philosophy and should stick to science. He has muddled incoherent thinking that generally isn't backed up by any evidence. His stated moral worldview is that it is immoral to do anything to add to world suffering, which is how he defended his Downs Syndrome argument. Perhaps he could take his own advise then and pause before causing suffering on subjects he knows nothing about, or at least interview a few people with DS and ask if they would prefer if they had been aborted, or ask their parents about the suffering they have caused. He might be surprised by the answers, if he had done any research on the subject he would know that people with DS are very happy with their lives, and their parents and siblings pretty much universally say their lives are better because of it.0 -
He might be surprised by the answers, if he had done any research on the subject he would know that people with DS are very happy with their lives, and their parents and siblings pretty much universally say their lives are better because of it.
That's your opinion, Dawkins has his - I get that religious people get muddled and think Dawkins is some kind of atheist pope, but really he's not.
Number of people affected by Dawkins' opinion on whether it's moral or not to go ahead with a pregnancy if you know the fetus has Downs ... Zero. Unless you're proposing the existence of a pregnant woman out there who once told the fetus has Downs syndrome says something like "Personally I have no problems raising a child like this and would be happy to do so, but Richard Dawkins says it's immoral so I'd better have an abortion".0 -
Dawkins has become an embarrassment to the atheist community.0
-
That's your opinion, Dawkins has his - I get that religious people get muddled and think Dawkins is some kind of atheist pope, but really he's not.
Dawkins has set himself up as an atheist pope, and an authority figure of reason and logic, and there are plenty who regard him as such. Nowhere have I suggested he speaks for all atheists, nor even a majority of atheists, but in my experience he does speak for many strong atheists, given how frequently he is referenced on atheist fora, his speaking engagements at Atheist organizations, his 1M Twitter followers, and the fawning of his followers on his website. Personally I don't give a rats ass about him, but I do care about his influence on society, which I believe is negative.
My opinion on the DS issue is based on the evidence of those that have studied people with Downs Syndrome and their families, his opinion is based on his individual flawed logic. Survey data makes it quite clear that the great majority of parents, guardians and siblings of people with DS state their lives are positively affected by their DS child/sibling, and more importantly 98% of DS adults say they are happy with their lives and happy with who they are.
The inability of some strong atheists to see this issue clearly is disturbing, as clearly they cannot get past Dawkins as an authority figure. What if a religious figure stated that being gay leads to suffering, due to how it is perceived in society, and if we had a reliable genetic test parents should really abort and try again. What gives Dawkins the ability to judge who is worthy of life and love or not? The excuse that it is just his opinion is pathetic, his opinion is highly influential and needs to be countered publically, in the same way that intolerant fundamentalist religious opinion needs to be countered.Number of people affected by Dawkins' opinion on whether it's moral or not to go ahead with a pregnancy if you know the fetus has Downs ... Zero.
Actually not true. Dawkins is a significant public figure and his views are widely publicized, and taken seriously by significant numbers. His need for constant media attention and wide reporting of his views are evidence of this. His widely disseminated views are hurtful to those who have decided to go forward with DS pregnancies. Put yourself in the shoes of someone with DS or a family member, and imagine how you would feel if you heard an authority figure with a large public following thinks its immoral that you or the person you love was allowed to be born.
I honestly do not understand why people defend him, as I said compare him to a religious figure making such utterances, like references to "mild pedophilia" or "mild rape". It seems to me an appalling lack of empathy to think in this fashion, but as you say everyone is entitled to an opinion.0 -
But how is he victim blaming in his last tweet, as you claim?Victim blaming is one of more pernicious aspects of "rape culture", along with trivializing rape (mild rape versus stranger rape). Rape is rape, if sex is non consensual it is rape. Yes there are exceptions as with everything, like both parties involved being intoxicated to the point of not been able to seek or give consent, but I think common sense would suggest these are rare (and generally a handy excuse for those committing the offense).0 -
porsche959 wrote: »Dawkins has become an embarrassment to the atheist community.
There's an atheist community now? Nobody told me!0 -
Advertisement
-
But the issue we have is that it is not black and white. Drunken consent is still consent, and that is the legal position. There is a difference between being drunk, inhibitions and having sex when one might otherwise not have done so: not rape; and being so drunk as to not understand what is going on. As you rightly point out, having sex with a person that is unconscious is, and should be, rape. But the complication arises at a level of drunkenness where the person is still conscious, but just barely. it is at this point where their ability to consent is doubted, and this is where the difficulty arises.Sorry but I can't agree. Forcibly having sex with a drunken (or indeed sober) person is rape, and having sex with someone who is unconscious/non responsive I'd also be happy to call rape.
Being voluntarily intoxicated is not an defence, in general, for committing a crime. But we are not talking about a drunk person committing a crime, we are talking about a drunk person being a victim.However we as a society (rightly) hold people responsible for their actions whilst under the influence of alcohol. "I was drunk your honor" in no way excuses an assault, murder, theft etc,
As I said earlier, drunken consent is still consent. What we are talking about here is not that having sex with a drunk person is rape, but there comes a point where it might be. Here is a quote form the Court of Appeal in England in the case of R v Bree where a guy appealed, successfully, his rape conviction:and I believe that one of the things you are responsible for is indeed the consent you give whilst drunk. I'm not sure how the law looks on other questionable consents given whilst drunk, but AFAIK drunken "consent" say to be tattooed is just as good as sober consent in the eyes of the law.R v Bree wrote:If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting… However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape.
The above pretty much sums up my view on this, and to be honest, I don't think you and I are far apart on this.
I am pretty sure this is not a new concept. Consent, and the ability to give it validly, has always had capacity as a qualifier. And remember, we are not talking about having had a few drinks here, we are talking about being so drunk as to be on the verge of unconsciousness.Of course this is new, this idea that the ability to give consent magically legally disappears after a certain amount of intoxication whilst the rest of our moral and legal responsibilities remain the same drunk and sober.
I think that is a fair point, but it is a difficult one to balance. I know you are not comparing rape to getting mugged, but just think about the difference there would be in a cross-examination of a man what had his wallet stolen while drunk and a woman that was, let's say, actually raped whilst drunk...Well if you run into anyone arguing that drunk girls are fair game to be raped be sure to tell them that because it's extremely unlikely you'll hear it from anyone posting here.
Being drunk obviously puts us all at greater risk from certain crimes, be it rape, mugging, pickpocketing etc.
Now I get that many women feel rape is a special problem, but if we were to take a story of a male friend who went out got totally hammered and had his wallet pinched we'd *probably* be less sympathetic to him than if he'd been sober, we might even say something to him like "well what did you expect falling down unconscious in that alley with puke down your shirt". Now that doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed against him, nor does it excuse in anyway the action of the thief, who is just as responsible as if they'd robbed a sober person, but there does seem to be something inside most of our brains that sees that whilst the perpetrator is fully responsible for the theft, our natural instinct is to point out to the victim that they put themselves in the situation and that for their own good avoiding such situations in the future is an action they can take for their own safety.
And no for the comprehension impaired I'm not comparing rape to getting your wallet stolen, I'm merely discussing the silly concept of "victim blaming" without the emotional baggage that rape brings to it.
But then should s/he not have posted correct but shouldn't be, 'correct but shouldn't be and correct but shouldn't be'? Simply stating my post was wrong, wrong and wrong, is an indication of a belief that what I said was factually wrong. Personally I happen to agree that what ought to be, in terms of sexual offences is very different from what is currently in place, but that does not change the reality of things.Think s/he is talking in terms of what 'ought' to be. Whereas you are talking in terms of what is.
MrP0
Advertisement