I hope everyone reads through this whole post. I'll keep it as short as I can.

Recently, a prominent LDS leader (name revealed at the end) publicly stated that being raped by someone you know, like a dating partner or family member, is not as bad as being raped by a stranger.

Contrasting "mild rape" to "violent rape", he went on to announce that anyone - including rape victims themselves - who might feel that his "rape grading system" implies tacit endorsement of date rape should "go away and learn how to think".

I have never been raped, but I wonder what someone who has actually been raped by someone they trusted would say to this respected leader, who presumes to lecture rape victims on the horror (or relative lack thereof) of their experiences.

When I try to imagine being a victim of rape, maybe at a more vulnerable time of my life, my intuition tells me that the shock and pain of being betrayed and sexually assaulted by someone I trusted would be horrific. The cutting remark that anyone who thinks his "rape grading system" implies endorsement of date rape should "go away and learn how to think", while making a logical point, I think would only exacerbate the upset and indignation - and maybe even rage - I would already feel.

But if I could separate my own experience from the equation and respond calmly, I might point out to him that the evidence tells us that the psychological trauma of acquaintance rape can be every bit as horrible as those from stranger rape: survivors of acquaintance rape report similar levels of depression, anxiety, complications in subsequent relationships, and difficulty attaining pre-rape levels of sexual satisfaction to what survivors of stranger rape report. I might also point him to a few journal articles on this - like "Stranger and Acquaintance Rape: Are There Differences In the Victim's Experience?", published in Psychology of Women Quarterly, Volume 12, Issue 1, pages 1–24, March 1988, by Koss & Dinero.

But I might also conclude he probably wouldn't be interested in hearing me, or reading anything: anyone so smugly, cuttingly certain of his own views already would never be capable of rational, data-based discussion on this. So maybe I wouldn't try, after all. Maybe I would just ever after write him off as an incorrigible moral cretin.

At this point, you are probably wondering which LDS leader said this. Was it Tad Callister, author of an article harshly criticized on this board for encouraging modest dress? (See https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng).

No.

Was it every ex-Mormon's favourite punching bag, Boyd K. Packer?

No.

It wasn't actually an LDS leader at all. I mentioned that only because I am shocked by what appears to be a double standard on the part of A FEW ex-Mormons, where they criticize the idiotic or obnoxious views of LDS leaders in harshest terms, but then give a pass to equally idiotic or obnoxious views *only because one of their non-Mormon heroes expressed them*. I don't think that's fair.

For the record, the holder of these views was none other than - yes, once again - RICHARD DAWKINS. And to those of you who continue to defend the repugnant views of this guy, or lash out, FARMS-style, at any RFM poster who dares criticize them, when we all know you would be apoplectic if ANY "LDS leader" had said the same thing, I respectfully suggest that you take a deep breath, and just try to consider if my point about "double standards" might have some merit.

Having a double standard smacks of pure bigotry. Are we bigots? I hope not. I hope we are *principled*: Whether someone is LDS or not, our standards remain the same.

Here are links to the relevant tweets by Richard Dawkins:

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/494012678432894976

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/494039058122039296

P.S. Anticipating some of the normal responses, let me clarify that I KNOW he has used these examples only to try to illustrate a purely logical point.

It's just that the *real* point here is the actual views on rape he has expressed while trying to make his logical point. What, for example, is a "mild rape"? Or a "non-violent" rape? Rape occurs when one person has sex with another, against that other's consent. Force or violence, threatened or real, it seems to me, is ALWAYS a part of that event. What is he even talking about? And on what grounds does he presume to "grade rape" for rape victims?

Will you call a spade a spade? You do it with Packer. I say we should do it with non-Mormons - even our heroes - too.

Just my two cents.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2014 03:53PM by Tal Bachman.

I Fing don't believe it!

According to this guy's logic, a murder committed by a family member should be considered a "mild murder"?
Such as this one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2192570/Armando-Perez-accused-killing-wife-Diana-Gonzalez-confesses-murder-moments-pleading-innocence.html

http://archive.sltrib.com/?searchoption=articles&keyword=SLPD+rape+cases

This is how the Mormons feel about human rights and rape. Just read a few.

I get it... You don't like Dawkins. It's no surprise then that he's said things that you don't agree with.

Are his comments defensible? Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I think everyone should get out of the rape ranking business. Each situation is unique and what impact it has to the victim will be based on several factors.

That being said. Why are you so up in arms to demonize this guy? Yes, you don't like him, I get that. But this is an Ex-mo site, not an Ex-atheist site. A lot of people here have found a lot of help in books like "The God Delusion", I was one of them.

Is Dawkins perfect, of course not. He's a mortal man, with his own opinions, some of which I don't agree with and some may be horribly flawed. But, the nice thing is, he's not my "prophet" he's not my "leader" or anything else. He's a guy with opinions, some of which I agree with some of which I don't. I don't believe he has any special authority so I don't have to listen to everything he says like I did with church leaders when I was a TBM.

But that leads me to my next point. Comparing him to Packer is simply disingenuous. Dawkins simply stated his opinion and presented it as such. When Packer speaks, his audience believes it is the literal word of God. Packer is actively participating in an organization that promote things like "Even the poor should pay tithing" and teaching "doctrine" that is nothing less than sexual oppression and has cause real harm to countless young people (how many young homosexual people have been kicked out of their homes, how many marriages have been destroyed by "marry the gay away", how many have killed themselves due to these teachings?)

One states an unfavorable opinion, the other preaches with the full weight of religion behind him, yet, you have the audacity to say that they are one in the same. I think your meter is a bit broken.

Have you never said anything that someone didn't agree with, even got angry over? Do you think that everyone likes your music and can't find fault with it? Come on, you're a public figure, you have to know that when everything you say is scrutinized you're going to make mistakes and/or people aren't going to agree with you.

That doesn't mean he's right, but that also doesn't put him in the same boat as Packer.

+1000

"I think everyone should get out of the rape ranking business. Each situation is unique and what impact it has to the victim will be based on several factors."

I completely agree with these thoughts.

As for likening Dawkins and Packer, the key is 'like' - a comparison does not have to be literal and indeed, most often is not. I can give a link to a story about JWs or Jewish fundamentalists or the FLDS in Canada. None of them are directly about Mormonism but there are parallels that can be drawn.

The parallels are what makes for discussion, reflection and even enlightenment.

In the case of Dawkins and his thoughts on abuse and rape and religion, we saw similar thoughts, plus agreement, being expressed on this board this week. To me, that is what is under discussion. People, Dawkins included, are "ranking" rape and other forms of abuse as well as opining on the reactions of various victims and the ramifications of their experiences. People are also thinking of their own, unique, experiences and perhaps extrapolating that into what they think other injured parties are feeling or how they 'should' react or what the long term effects will be. Etc.

All those elements are on topic for the life situations and experiences of many RfM lurkers and posters. I hope people can see past the very most literal interpretations and reflect on the many parallels that could be examined to good effect.

Finally Free - I am not "demonizing" Richard Dawkins. I am QUOTING him, and trying to make a few serious overall points:

1.) Richard Dawkins should not be taken seriously as a moral pontificator, which he most definitely is by far too many people, including some on this board;

2.) Rotten opinions can emerge from anti-religionism just as easily as they can from religionism, and we should examine opinions carefully no matter where they come from;

3.) Ex-Mormons should not inadvertently ape Mormons, who maintain a double standard: one for their leading lights, and quite another for everyone else.

1. Agreed, he has a great background in evolution and biology and has had some success debunking religious views, especially creationist views, but he's no moral leader. I don't think he's trying to be, from what I can tell, he gave his opinion in response to questions posed to him, I don't recall stating "Everyone should agree with me, or burn in hell!" or anything of the sort. (ETA: That's what Packer does and it's another reason why I think you're comparing apples to oranges when you compare Dawkins to Packer) I don't have a quote, but I'm pretty sure he's even stated that they are his personal opinions and that he shouldn't be setup as a moral standard.

2. Agreed. Rotten opinions come from people, no matter what their background, religious or otherwise. Each opinion should be judged on it's own merit.

3. Agreed, it's hard to break the patterns that have been ingrained in us. Some of us, I include myself in this, were taught from birth that a small handful of people hold all moral knowledge and should be followed without question. That's not easy to break and it's hard not to try and find a replacement for the leadership that the church provided.

That being said, I do get the feeling you're demonizing the guy. Maybe that's just the feeling I get and I'm wrong, but you seem to be looking for any snippet that he said to show what a horrible person he is. Your point, at this point, is coming across as "I don't like this guy and neither should you, here's why!" with guns blazing. Sometimes good people have bad opinions or at least opinions you don't agree with and yes, sometimes "bad" people can say things that are agreeable. Isn't that kind of your point in #2?

Maybe your point is just the three that you have listed here and you're using Dawkins as your poster child, but you seem hard pressed to make sure that everyone agrees with your opinion of the guy.

BTW, maybe I haven't seen it, and yes there are a lot of people who are defending Dawkins, but I haven't seen anyone hold him up as a THE high moral standard to follow... But again, that could just be how I'm reading things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2014 06:12PM by Finally Free!.

Wow, I did not see that one coming. Brilliant parody with a totally unexpected plot twist at the end...

I know this wasn't your point, but I think the premise you are working with is wrong. You state:

"Recently, a prominent LDS leader (name revealed at the end) publicly stated that being raped by someone you know, like a dating partner or family member, is not as bad as being raped by a stranger."

But that is not at all what Dawkins was saying. He was focusing on violent vs non-violent. He did make the claim that date rape is better than stranger rape, but he didn't make the claim that date rape is the same as being raped by a non-stranger. What this means is that he was solely focusing on violence.

If Tommy Monson claimed that violent rape is worse than non-violent rape it would bother me only because he isn't an expert on these things and his opinion is irrelevant, not because he is LDS or the things he was saying were inherently bad.

That being said, I agree with your larger point that everything Dawkins (or anybody) says should be examined and that the source (Mormon vs non-Mormon) is irrelevant in this analysis.

Edit: Also, I don't think that Dawkins should weight in on this debate. He isn't an expert. While I think that religion is open game for anybody to use as a logical experiment, I don't think that rape is. Making shallow or glib statements about rape has the possibility to hurt people who might be triggered by it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2014 05:00PM by snb.

I would say that ALL rape is violent, by definition, so I don't see the point of differentiating "non-violent" and "violent" rape. Who can say that non-stranger rape is "non-violent"?

Oxford Online Dictionary defines rape as:

"The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will"

The words 'forcing' and 'against their will' denote violence.

Anyone who thinks that rape by a non-stranger is "less violent" is mistaken. Rape is a form of violence. There is no evidence of mitigation due to the rapist being known to the injured party and, in fact, that may increase the detrimental effects of being a victim of rape.

I'm really hesitant to expand too much on this, but I do think that non-violent rape is possible and even common.

Beyond this I'm going to say that you make a good point. Also, I'm no expert and I don't want to talk about something when I could hurt people because of insensitive remarks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2014 08:33PM by snb.

Aside from the obvious force, rape causes tears and bruising in the vaginal canal or the rectum due to lack of lubrication in most cases. In other cases of sexual assault, such as oral, it can cause bruising and tears as well.

It's also violent in the sense of the damage to the psyche.

Even vanilla, average sexual intercourse with consent can cause tears, soreness, and pain. What do you think forcibly inserting into a person's body feels like? Then if a victim has a rape kit done, objects, scraping, and collecting of the evidence is performed in the area just barely violated.

I hope this helps your understanding why rape and sexual assault is always violent, even if the victim isn't beaten to a bloody pulp.

Good points and clarification all around. Thanks to both of you for engaging with me and clearing up some misconceptions I had. I really do appreciate it.

Ethically and legally, all rape is equally bad and is to be condemned and it's perpetrators punished.

Now having said that, can you at least agree that different rapes have varying impacts on victims?

I am an adult male who was once raped by males. I am over it, and I don't think about it much. I was a victim, but I refuse to be one now. I am going on with my life. That's all that Dawkins said about his molestation as a schoolboy.

Tal, your premise is wrong, and your conclusions are wrong. You try to "imagine" what it would be like to be date-raped and how that would compare with being stranger-raped. But you have not first-hand knowledge of either one, apparently. I was date-raped once and date near-raped once. Once I was able to fight off my attacker, once I wasn't. Both times I went through endless self-examination, what did I do to bring this on? etc. I blame rape culture for: 1) putting me in the situation in the first place; 2) not recognizing I was in a situation until it was far too late; 3) not understanding what was going on; 4) not being at fault, but thinking I was; 5) believing that boys push and girls say no--those are their respective responsibilities. I have a friend who was date gang-raped. She had the same experience. She didn't recognize a crime had been committed against her until years after it happened. She was at fault, she'd stopped fighting them, and she was too drunk to continue resisting--that's consent isn't it, or at least she deserved it, right? A woman gets drunk, she gets gang-raped. Of course. What was she thinking?

But, guess what? Rape culture finds support in religious teachings about men and women. Dawkins has got an opinion on that because he thinks the typical religious view concerning women is disgusting. Mormons don't. Katie Kelly got excommunicated for publically demanding equality; and Mormons think she should have been excommunicated. What did she think would happen? Dawkins hates that. But, he's not moral enough for you.

No. It is not true that religion and anti-religion are just as bad. Religion gives a basis for immorality, for tribalism. Anti-religion is anti religion's getting a pass on immorality simply because religion gets a pass. When the issue is religion vs. anti-religion, religion's setting the agenda. Anti-religion is being anti the agenda when the agenda harms people and there's no defense except somebody's imagination about what an imaginary person wants and expects. Being anti this does not create a basis for immorality. Dawkins doesn't advocate for date rape or priest rape, but religions definitely advocate for the continued lower status of women that perpetuates rape culture, based on nothing other than superstitious speculation about what sky-daddy wants for real, living human beings.

talking about about which kind of victim suffers more?

It seems like public discourse on rape should be centered on training men (or sometimes women), that forcing sex on someone is destructive, wrong, and a crime, no matter WHAT the situation. Rape by someone you know and/or trust is much bigger problem because it happens more. And it probably happens more because more people think it's OKAY.

EVERYBODY knows it's wrong to attack someone on the street, beat them up, and rape them. But there are people who seem to think that if you drug someone so they can't resist it or remember it, or if you took them out to dinner and then ignored them when they said "no", that it wasn't so bad. And some of these people are repeat offenders.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tracyclayton/cee-los-rape-comments-got-him-dropped-from-a-music-festival#2bq198y

"If someone is passed out, they're not even WITH you consciously. So WITH implies consent!"

I've followed all of the threads regarding Dawkins and Shermer and it seems that at times, what gets lost in the discussions are the people that deal with rape and abuse. Instead, there's been a lot of talk about quantifying abuse, about rape victims acting in ways that seem strange considering what they're alleging and there's been very little about the fact that it's a complex and confusing mix of competing emotions when an abuse or rape has occurred.

I don't know if Shermer raped anyone and I don't know if Dawkins is a creep. I'm posting this as a real person who has gone through abuse. I'm hoping to put a context to odd behavior exhibited by an abuse victim. Most people will read this and say why didn't you just tell someone.? What I'm hoping though, is that I'll have articulated my story well enough that maybe some of you will realize that it isn't so cut and dry. It will not conform in a neat, simple and orderly fashion.

I am going anon for this comment as very few people know this about me and even though I use an online moniker here, I still don't feel comfortable in people knowing this about me as my moniker.

Why do I not feel comfortable? Because the person who did this to me was my mother. Every time I see people idolize women as mothers to the exclusion of any possible wrong doing, I feel a white hot pain in my chest. People minimize or refuse to believe that women can abuse their own children and in a sense they invalidate the pain of people that have gone through the abuse.

My mother was severely emotionally abusive. She did her best to isolate my siblings and I from our father and each other. She would make us part of a circle of secrets. She'd tell me awful things about everyone in our family; it was our secret. She was the only one you were allowed to trust and as a result you were in a house full of people but completely alone, except for her.

What I realize now is she was grooming all of us. In the beginning she would say inappropriate things about my brother, his physical attributes (eg., how shapely his butt was---said to a 15 year old boy etc) and how all the girls found him attractive. To this day, I don't know if anything more happened because she successfully divided us emotionally from one another.

In my case it was for so long, "just" the secrets. My dad, she said, had an inappropriate attraction to my sister. I was 9 when she told me about it. No nine year old should think these things about their father. My sister confirmed later that the only person who treated her in an inappropriate manner was our mother. It happened once and although it was not rape it was still emotionally damaging. That was the only time my sister ever acknowledged the abuse to me.

After my parent's divorce I became my mother's "husband". There were many times during their divorce that I had to sleep with her. It wasn't a comforting sleep, it was a fondling, spooning sleep where I just gritted my teeth and hoped for morning. It made me feel dead inside and I would cry uncontrollably at odd times during the day. I was completely disconnected from reality.

The thing about being abused by your parent who has expertly groomed you since birth, you truly feel there is no escape and that it is your fault and you carry with you the irrational belief that it is your duty to put up with all of it. I was told that I was responsible for her life and it meant I had no life of my own.

At one point I got brave enough to try and leave, but it didn't matter, she found out and poisoned the well. I was lied about, she told everyone I was unstable. She was my mom and everyone believed her. Frankly, I probably seemed unstable. I was unreliable, often unresponsive, and suffered from flat affect strangely punctuated by over animation. I didn't make sense to other people. No one suspected that I was that way because of my life at home. Everyone thought, no mother would ever lie like that about their own child. Abusers always lie and some of those abusers are women, mothers and pillars of the community.

I finally did get away. But I held onto the secrets for so long. I was messed up for so long, until it all spilled out and I finally got some help.

So when someone says that there are "degrees" of abuse or that being abused by someone you know isn't as bad as someone you don't know, they are projecting their own beliefs onto others. They are telling you, the person who went through it, how you should feel about it and in a way how you should feel about yourself.

Maybe some people come out of it unscathed, if so I am genuinely happy for them and envy them. However, the deep betrayal, destroyed relationships and messed up self beliefs that many suffer with, should never be minimized.

There is a legacy of abuse even after it's physically over. I have no original family, no siblings that I share everything with, even though I know they're out there in the world. In so many ways we're still our abuser's secret keepers.

OK, I'm going to post this even though I fear I'll be flamed.

Thanks for sharing that and bringing some reality to the discussions.

You've explained clearly why it's hurtful to be victimized by the very person who should be protecting you from abuse. Being dependent on a powerful abuser over time must be devastating.

I'm sorry for your pain and also sorry that you must worry about being flamed on RfM after everything you've already suffered.

They call it rape when a 17 year old boy has consensual sex with a 22 year old teacher.

Seems we ought to save the term for forcible rape.

And of course, some say all men are rapists.

It's a betrayal of trust and abuse of power. The kid might feel temporarily flattered but is likely damaged for life.

Is playing gatcha games the best way to make your point? Or does it increase the level of hostility? There are threads now asking if raising children LDS is worse than all other child abuse. Are you going to write countless threads or do you only do this to people you personally dislike?

I don't care what a person's credentials are. Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Muslim, Atheist, Hindu, whatever. By them saying these types of things, they are showing the world what they really are about.

I was raped by my (now ex-)husband. While pregnant with our 3rd son, going into the 3rd trimester. There are some events that will not go away, and some parts that I don't remember - such as what I did afterwards. Since I did not go to the police right away, and since he knew better than to leave physical marks, I put it out of my mind for years afterwards.

I began having flashbacks after I left him. My body would (and still will not) let me forget. I cannot sleep more than a few hours at a time, have night terrors (different from nightmares, which I also have), wake up in a panic EVERY time from sleeping, have constant panic attacks throughout the day. And this is after going years in therapy and on medication.

Now, I can not see another therapist again because the last 2 lied to my face and lied in their notes so that I could not obtain SSI. But can you imagine what I would be like working? (Not to mention my other physical ailments).

This is what minimization of rape does to a person. If what he says is true, I should have just been able to move on with my life. Instead, I'm cursed to PTSD, panic attacks and severe depression every minute of every day - sleeping and awake.

There is societal understanding (to some extent) of the standard 'stranger rape' story. Not so much of the betrayal kind. Yet, it is the betrayal that can cause the greatest emotional damage to the victim.

And to add a little detail that might explain why I can not 'just get over it'. He has my children and refuses to let me see them. Because he has been able to discredit me to such a large degree, to make me look 'crazy'. Yet he is the one that caused the emotional damage. So, my rapist ex-husband has custody of my children.

There is no recovery from that.

I concede "Free man"'s point that the word "rape" is probably not a great word to describe consensual sex between a 17 and 22 year old. I share the concern that overuse of that word will denude it of meaning.

While I stand by what I've written here, I can also understand that other people have different viewpoints. What I know will continue to disturb me is sometimes sensing different standards for evaluating words or behaviour depending on whether we happen to agree with someone's overall worldview.

I would like to add for the record that I have admired Michael Shermer for years. I have read all of his books save one (it's still on my list), and some of them I have read several times. I have been touched by his descriptions of how we create "sacred" connections and moments in a world which seems to lack supernatural superintendence or intervention. I have silently cheered him on as he has fairly and thoughtfully sought to understand and explain the enduring phenomenon of religion. I have admired that he has allowed various viewpoints to appear in "Skeptic" magazine. In particular, I remember one debate which he published between Richard Dawkins and David Sloan Wilson (also an atheist) on the possibly adaptive nature of religion.

I have disliked finding out that in his personal life, he displays boorish, disrespectful, and even predatory behaviour. I was shocked to discover that James Randi almost had to ban Shermer from the Skeptics conferences he (Shermer) helped create.

I mention this only to highlight that my concerns about Dawkins, contrary to the ongoing bleatings of the likes of "Steve Davis", have nothing to do with disagreement about other issues. They only concern opinions and/or behaviour which I think most people would find troubling, foolish, and even pernicious.

"Anon for this one" - Just read your post. So sorry to hear all that.

Sending you best wishes and healing thoughts...

> I mention this only to highlight that my concerns
> about Dawkins, contrary to the ongoing bleatings
> of the likes of "Steve Davis", have nothing to do
> with disagreement about other issues. They only
> concern opinions and/or behaviour which I think
> most people would find troubling, foolish, and
> even pernicious.

Yet people on this board are saying things not much different than Dawkins but they get a free pass because. . .

A free pass? What are you talking about? The opinions range around "even though it would seem that stranger rape is worse, rape by an intimate is worse," "Rape by a stranger is worse," "All sexual abuse is bad," "Rape is something you can get over," "Rape is something you can't get over," "There should be no ranking of rape at all," "Some things called 'rape,' like a late-teen male being raped by his five-years-older teacher, shouldn't be called rape;" there has been no complete consensus. Every poster on this subject's allowed to have an opinion, and express it. Except, that is, Dawkins. Dawkins, alone, is not allowed to have an opinion that differs from the OP's. Why not?

I'm sorry, I mis-read what you said. I'm agreeing with you.

1. There are gradations of sexual abuse, low to high, with regard to the lasting psychological and emotional damage it does.

2. DITTO for religious indoctrination.


3. The gradation scales overlap, i.e., there are some cases where religious indoctrination has a worse long-term affect than some cases of sexual abuse.

I think this is all Dawkins was saying. It's a perfectly logical and reasonable position.

We would ALL agree with number 2, right? It seems many of you will NOT admit #1 in order to avoid the conclusion (#3).

Now please, don't think you can refute the above with anecdotes about how YOUR particular sexual abuse was worse than YOUR particular religious upbringing. That has no bearing on the argument.

Cheers

So 1 + 1 = 3 is more correct than 1 + 1 = 8... or 37?

Wrong is wrong. In medicine a slight overdose may not be fatal like a large one, but this still applies.

Dawkins' theory states that the emotional damage is less the closer the relationship the victim has with the perpretrator, with levels of violence being equal. My example serves to show that the opposite effect could actually be the case. The betrayal aspect is not taken into account. Neither is society's response. Both can have additional devastating effects on the victim.

The level of additional physical violence inflicted to be able to accomplish rape has no bearing on the emotional effects of rape. And it is the emotional effects of rape that make it so devastating.

Dawkins is speaking about something he does not have expertise in. In this matter, he is just speaking from personal viewpoints. Which to me is very telling about what type of person he is on the inside. Celebrity, intellectual functioning, religious beliefs or non-beliefs, I don't care. I have no respect for someone that minimizes the effects of rape, or any other kinds of violence onto another human being.

So a prostitute goes in to the supermarket to do some grocery shopping. She brings her basket of food items to the check out counter and the food charges are tallied. She hands the cashier a one hundred dollar bill. The cashier examines the bill and says "this is counterfit". The woman gets a look of shock and horror on her face and says "oh my god... I've been raped". Just thought I would lighten the mood here. There are varying degrees of rape. It's not so much tied to how well you know the perpetrator.

I'm concerned about the generally unscientific nature of Dawkins' comments.

--He tries to use a single data point to establish a general conclusion about a serious, significant issue.

--He thinks the fact that this anecdote is from personal experience somehow adds more weight to his argument.

--He is a biologist lecturing the world on psychology.

--And the biggie for me: preemptively telling critics to "go away and learn how to think".

He was obviously speaking as a man, not as a scientist.

I don't think those fuckheaded assholes even thought of that before saying the things that they did.

Apparently for Tal, comparing raising children in a religious environment to child abuse is only bad if an atheist does it.

Ex-mo posters get a free reign.

“If you meet the Buddha, kill him.”– Linji

I'm wondering about this...

How does a lifetime of mental rape from a religion compare to a 20 minute rape between a 17 year old male and a 22 year old female teacher?


Hmmmm. More importantly, what would the arbitrator of morals, Richard Dawkins, say?

:->

Dagny: "How does a lifetime of mental rape from a religion compare to a 20 minute rape between a 17 year old male and a 22 year old female teacher?"


Hmmmm....well, to begin, he probably wouldn't point out the obvious, that the latter is agains the law and the former is a metaphor.

Sorry, but not a fan of this thread. It's headline is obvious "click bait."

Also, the original post is manipulative and just assumes that the readers will have "double standards." Anyway, who could blame a reader for initially assuming that the quote came from the MORG, especially after being deceived by the headline!

The majority of ex-mo's have already learned their lesson about allowing themselves to be spoon-fed information by any person (whether that be Monson or Dawkins).

Dawkins is right on evolution (and probably atheism too), wrong on rape. Just because we agree with one (or several) of Dawkins' viewpoints doesn't mean that we adopt them all, or even that we like the man.

The point is that we need to maintain our objectivity, and I think that is what the original post was trying to say.