Richard Dawkins and the "rape tweets"

Penstemmon the whole point of euphemisms is lack of clarity, hoping that people can read between the lines without having to spell it out.

when, since no-one has intruded on my personal experiences, do you mean that my personal experiences should not intrude on this thread?

It's one thing to have professional experience of working with perpetrators and victims of sexual abuse, another to have been on the receiving end of it as I suspect a few Gnetters have.

I feel quite angry at the insensitivity of the last few posts (not aka) and feel it would be quite unsafe to say much more.

I think that's very wise of you GrannyTwice as I'm sure you hadn't realised how it came across.

Aka - I'm just going to ignore that

This is tantamount to telling Petallus that 1) she can't comment on a personal experience which is very relevant to this discussion unless 2) she is prepared to be exact.

Sorry but I see this as a form of censorship. Moreover, just because some people are incapable of reading between the lines that doesn't give them the right to dictate new forum rules.

Euphemisms turn into a sort of mental gymnastics that have no place when discussing such a serious subject. Let's get back to the discussion and not intrude on personal experiences, shall we?

Euphamisms can create lack of clarity.

Disagree.

I think it's absolutely fine obviously not to go into sensitive personal details on a forum but I think we should say nothing or use the proper words - it doesn't help to use euphemisms as it sends an odd message.

It's probably easier to go into detail from the professional perspective.

when I used 'unwanted attention' as a euphemism.

I'm probably not the only Gnetter who would not go into sensitive personal details on an open forum.

It was obvious, I think, reading between the lines and in view of her previous post, what Petallus was saying.

I'm confused, Petallus. Why would you need to call an attack 'unwanted attention?' Unwanted attention for me is the office pest, the persistent ex-boyfriend trying to get you back, verbal abuse, being singled out for attention that you've made clear you don't want. An attack, in this context, indicates something on another level entirely. I'm sorry if this is what you have experienced.

when I don't know where you would draw the line between 'unwanted attentions' and 'attacked' but having said that, I do consider I have been attacked.

Petallus I understand exactly where you are coming from.

I've had experience of being on the receiving end of 'unwanted attention' too, Petallus but I haven't been sexually attacked, thank goodness. Offenders are very good at minimising the terrible harm they inflict. Victims don't get to choose what sort of harm will be inflicted on them, or where.

There is burglary and aggravated burglary: both are wrong and cause distress, one may cause greater distress than the other. It does not mean I condone burglary because I feel aggravated burglary is nastier.
Perhaps that is the example RD could have used.

I do feel RD is sometimes undermining his own reputation. Of course he is getting older and it is possible that his clarity of thought is not as good as it used to be.

I did say I understood it was a complex issue when. Anyhow, I've had some experience of being on the receiving end of 'unwanted attentions'

Those examples are two extremes, Petallus. There is little that is cut and dried about sexual attacks for the victims to rationalise.

Although I understand this is a complex issue, I agree with thatbags. If I had to chose between being raped by someone I had willingly got into bed with or being raped by a stranger in the street, I know which I would choose.

That is not to say I would not hate that option to happen.

Me neither, bags. I was just thinking about the convincing way that rapists have persuaded and wriggled out of potential prosecutions. It goes some way to explain the attrition rate - still very few complaints get as far as charges, court or conviction.

Once a rapist turns up to see the team providing treatment, the stock minimising claim is 'it just happened' so they see no reason to examine their behaviour or go through treatment as they claim it won't happen again.

With tongue subtly in cheek, they will be told 'oh dear, if it just happened, it could just happen again! That makes you more dangerous than we thought! Are you safe to walk the streets? How do you know you won't do something completely out of character at any moment?

Date raping is as 'in character' as a stranger rape. Just a different MO.

I do not have your knowledge and experience in this field, when, for which I'm profoundly thankful. I think I have led a sheltered life, for which I'm also profoundly thankful.

But I would never have gone to bed with someone I was just dating. Never got so pissed I didn't know what I was doing either. What a quagmire of difficulties excessive drug use (including alcohol) causes!

Having taken many date rapists and abusing spouses through treatment for their behaviour, bags I have found that the plea 'I didn't intend to hurt her/him' doesn't bear out when they start to break down, minute by minute how their thinking was shaping up into an intention to exert control whatever the cost. What comes out at court is the tip of the iceberg when you start to explore attitudes, sense of entitlement, and objectification of the person they have harmed. If you or I were extremely drunk we wouldn't attack another person, but those people who are that way out use alcohol, drugs, or tell themselves it's ok, to disinhibit themselves and give themselves permission to fulfil their fantasies and intentions.

A date rapist does it habitually and persuades his victim that s/he is giving consent. The ones that end up in court are few in comparison and will claim it's a one-off. The victim may think they've both got in bed willingly but will not know the rapist does not intend to stop if the other party wants them to.

I know rape within marriage is possible but that's not the situation I'm talking about.

I accept that, when, but I still think there's a difference between the situation where a couple have gone to bed together (both parties willingly) after a date and one of them rapes the other and the situation where someone is randomly attacked out on the street and raped. Perhaps I shouldn't see a difference, but I do. The first seems preventable to me.

bags the difference between manslaughter and murder is intention, but there is no difference in the intention of an abuser to commit 'mild' or 'serious' sexual harm - there is intention and planning in both examples.