Richard Dawkins and the "rape tweets"

I want to add, wheni'm, your posts are always informative, sensitive and appropriate, so I do hope you don't stop contributing. I agree that an 'argument' between you and others the comments Petallus made won't be helpful to either of you.

Although when will not be reading this, I want to make the point that I am not trying to set up any kind of game or trap and feel upset that I am being accused of this when my posts have been sincere.

This thread has been dominated by theory and professional experiences which has created an imbalance because we have heard from very few 'survivors' and if a rule has been made that they have to get straight down to brass tasks or shut up, that situation is unlikely to change.

Petallus, you made the point very well, in an earlier post, about why it's unlikely that posters will talk in detail about their own abuse experience. So far as I know, there's no 'rule' banning us from doing this, just a sense of personal boundaries that stops it. I hope you don't feel I'm criticising you for bringing a personal experience into this debate. It takes courage to be open in any situation.

I haven't read the comments as being dominated by professional experiences, I'll have another look.

I haven't been back to this thread for a bit. And gosh.

I think (once again) this disagreement could in part be put down to the difference between speaking to someone face to face and having a discussion on a forum thread. I try to engage on these forums as if having a conversation. And - people can and may and do use euphemisms all the time when trying to explain themselves.

In writing the OP, I was merely surprised that someone like RD would be as insensitive and as dumb really, to get on his Twitter account and use the subject matter as an example in explaining his logic. He does seem to love being controversial, so perhaps that's got something to do with it. Who knows. I then discovered from reading further that he had been subjected to sexual abuse as a child.

The topic has resulted in some people coming forward tentatively or definitely to express their valued and valid opinions, personal or professional, related to the subject in hand. I don't see any traps being set here, I see a process as part of a conversation.

I'm sorry it has taken this turn.

Sorry but I do not understand why lack of clarity is a good thing in discussions?

I fully understand that people may not wish to disclose personal/painful issues but by anyone saying they have had e.g. a 'bump on the head' when in fact they really mean 'I was assaulted with a blunt instrument' leaves others, unhelfully, guessing.

I'm sorry but rape is very clearly defined as penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a penis. We cannot use the term ' unwelcome attention' in that context - eg the office sleaze bag putting his arm round you and asking if you'd like to go for a drink and some fun ( not that that's ok ). We either join in discussions as adults or we don't bother - we simply can't go around second guessing what euphemisms mean. I'm sorry Petallus for what may have happened to you but it's not ok to dress it up in language that's not clear - you either upfront it or don't discuss it - otherwise you add to all the nonsense that is spoken about unacceptable sexual behaviour and make it difficult for others who may want to be more straightforward.

So, these angry attacks are simply a result of Petallus saying "I've had some experience of being on the receiving end of unwanted attentions" because she didn't want to spell it out.

If she'd said she'd been raped, she would have been applauded for her honesty and bravery, presumably.

No wonder some women are reticent about their experiences, especially if they're of an age when such things weren't openly talked about. You can't just shout at people to make them open up. I'm especially surprised at the allegation that Petallus was playing any sort of 'game' or setting 'traps'.

And before anyone says anything - no, I have no qualifications in this area but that doesn't prevent me from giving my opinion.

Penstemmon it isn't a good thing or a bad thing. It just is. Petallus used an euphemism, was pressed to clarify, she explained a bit more. It wasn't good enough for some.

Grannytwice you're jumping to conclusions IMHO when you say "making it difficult for others who may want to be more straightforward". It could similarly be argued that Petallus's tentative approach is encouraging to those who don't wish to be straightforward.

I'm not going to participate in this discussion any longer.

I'm very disturbed by the lack of sensitivity being shown on this thread, when petallus has clearly alluded to a deeply personal experience of this kind. Are we incapable of showing some understanding and sympathy without having everything spelt out? I'm sure there are others on here who have had similar experiences, but who might now be reluctant to speak about it. And Ana, I don't think you need any qualifications in this subject to be able to comment on it.

I was just pre-empting anticipated comment to the contrary, nightowl.

I agree with nightowl and ana.
I am sure we know what petallus meant and so will thousands of other women, many of whom will still be suffering in silence unable to articulate or process what happened. Others will put it down to a bad experience and are able to move on.
I think we should move back to the OP who had a bad experience and has now shared it, but, of course, now considers that he is an expert in the field and able to define the different categories, as he sees them, to his nearly million 'followers'. More than Jesus had when he was alive - wow! If only twitter had been around 2000 years ago.

Some people , who may know Petallus better than others, took the phrase 'unwanted attention' as serious assault others took the phrase to mean something far less serious. It was not clear and that is why misunderstanding can happen and then the whole thing declines into squabble rather than a debate.

My point was that debate can only be successful if we all understand what each other mean. I was not 'getting' at anyone. Hope that is clear!

I have had to put up with or to deal with a great deal of "unwanted attention". None of it was serious enough to be part of a discussion about rape. I understood that phrase to mean the sort of annoying pestering or sexist behaviour I mean when I use that phrase. I don't need or want any sympathy (not saying the original user of the phrase did either) but it was a very ambiguous phrase as the various responses in the discussion have shown. It would have been less ambiguous in a discussion about being pestered in an everyday sexism sort of unwanted attention.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be ambiguous or use euphemisms but if they do they should expect a wide range of interpretations of their comments.

That's all this part of the discussion is about really and that has been interpreted in different ways too. Clarity really does help in a discussion. Poetry's another matter.

What is one person's unwanted attention may be another person's wanted attention.

If anyone cares to go back and have a look they will see that when asked by when what I meant by the phrase 'unwanted attention', low level harassment or sexual attack, I indicated that I meant the latter.

Also, in my original post I put the phrase 'unwanted attention' in inverted commas to suggest I was being ironic.

Gransnet is marvellous in many ways, and there have been some very supportive posts since all this hoo-ha started. However, having dipped a toe in the water regarding mentioning my experiences on GN, I am glad it was only a toe I risked

It's difficult to understand irony in print. I read the posts and felt there was ambiguity. I'll read them again.

"I do consider I have been attacked" neither means nor implies the same thing as "I have been attacked."

Thus the misinterpretations.

petallus

I came close to dipping a toe and I'm very glad I didn't. If people can't read between lines, or pick up not so subtle clues, as in your response to when's question petallus, maybe I'll stick to less serious threads in future.

Not putting even a further pinkie in.

Petallus

Do you know thatbags I started to write a reply to your post and then wondered what I was doing talking about deeply personal and sensitive issues from my past from the perspective of pedantic hair-splitting.

I decided it just isn't on so I'm leaving this thread now.

I have not made any personal or emotional comments, just pointed out how easy it is not to get the intended meaning from printed words. If people want to take offence at that, go ahead; it doesn't change the truth of what I've said.

As a matter of fact, I did feel sympathy for you petallus, but I wasn't talking about that; I was talking about how language is used in discussion and why that matters. If you think that the pointing out of ambiguity in a serious discussion where meaning matters is pedantic, so be it; I'm not ashamed of trying to clarify meaning.

I can't help feeling that the original tweets and the comments on this thread have both been on a level of angels dancing on a pinhead - and equally pointless. It is perfectly obvious that rape by someone known to the victim will always be an act of assault and is often a very violent act of assault. Whether this is more traumatic than rape by a stranger depends on many individual factors, but, fortunately, most people raped once will not have experienced any other kind of rape so will be unable to compare.