@TheMiddleWay my 'leaves her otherwise unharmed' qualifier does NOT indicate I consider non-violent rape 'unharmful'. It is intensely harmful. LOOK UP THE WORD 'OTHERWISE' before you make such a statement about me and my views! 'Otherwise' means 'in different manner to that previously stated' - it makes NO difference WHATEVER to the assumed harmfulness of the previous statement, it mearly indicates an addition to it.

@TheMiddleWay An additional point.

If your claim really IS that violent rape is not worse than non-violent rape, then what you are saying is that ANY RAPIST should feel free to BEAT THE CRAP out of his victim in addition to raping her, because that additional violence does not actually make his crime any worse.

@TheMiddleWay Oh, but you ARE making a statement about rapists - the statement you are making is that if a man rapes a woman, then whether he does or does not beat her within an inch of her life as well is so insignificant a matter that it does not make his crime worse to have done so.

If a man commits robbery, then his crime is more serious if he commits that robbery violently. It doesn't make the robbery itself any 'less wrong', but it adds 'extra wrong' in the form of the violence. If the robbery is non-violent, he is guilty of robbery alone - if the robbery is violent he is just as guilty of robbery, but in addition he is guilty of violence.

And yet for some obscure reason that I cannot understand, YOUR view is that if a man commits rape, uniquely among all crimes, it makes no difference at all whether or not he physically destroys the woman as well - the fact that he has raped her means that anything and everything else he may do to her becomes totally and utterly insignificant, unworthy of comment, and unworthy of condemnation, because WHATEVER else he does to her CANNOT make his crime worse.

There is no 'minimisation of rape' here - there is rape, and there is rape (exactly the same crime) PLUS VIOLENCE. If you say rape plus violence is no worse than rape without violence, then you are stating that violence against women has no significance or importance. That is the direct conclusion of your position, and it is a conclusion I cannot accept.

Saying that violence adds extra 'badness' to rape does not 'minimise rape' - what it does is state that violence against women is evil, and makes whatever else that man may have done (includong committing rape) an EVEN WORSE CRIME.

@TheMiddleWay Oh - and where did I make ANY statement about the harmfulness of rape, and its relative harmfulness compared to violence?

I made no such statement - that is entirely your own assumption.

What I stated was that if X is wrong, and Y is wrong, then X + Y is more wrong as a combination than either X or Y on their own. You would accept that as fact if X is robbery and Y is violence - but the moment X becomes rape, suddenly it doesn't matter what Y is, it is instantly 'rendered insignificant' because to DARE acknowledge its significance 'minimises rape'.

@TheMiddleWay Oh - so instead you suggest standing at the hospital bedside of a woman whose body has been destroyed and saying:-

'YES, your face is smashed. YES, your bones are broken. You know what? It doesn't matter! The fact that you are lying in a hospital bed does not make your attacker ANY WORSE than he would have been had he not beaten you to a pulp.'

Is that really your position? Because I'm sorry - but if you state that rape with violence is no worse than rape without violence, that is the direct conclusion of your position.

And once more (how many times must I make this point?) acknowledging that a rapist committing additional acts of evil makes that rapist MORE EVIL does not 'minimise' the act of rape. It acknowledges that rape is not the only crime, and that the other crime is ALSO worthy of condemnation.

@TheMiddleWay And when did I ever say non-violent rape wasn't worthy of condemnation? I never did. I never have. It's not my statement, it's your assumption.

@TheMiddleWay Wrong. YOU were declaring a disagreement with MY COMMENT. So you chose to make it about what I said.

@TheMiddleWay Your response was to my comment. You directly disagreed with the statements I made in my comment. And now that you I have defended my comment, and pointed out the errors in your response to it, suddenly you're declaring that your response to my comment was not a response to my comment at all.

@TheMiddleWay YOUR COMNENT was about MY RESPONSE - I made a statement and you took issue with MY WORDS. This thread was 'initiated' by Dawkins and his words, but it was not DAWKINS'S words that you specifically took issue with.

Don't try to claim your comment was not about my words when it was my words you took issue with.

@TheMiddleWay Then they suck hard, kind of like someone else I know.

@TheMiddleWay Point out one example... somewhere, if you just have to make absolute claims.

@TheMiddleWay
Being deserved and being helpful are not always the same thing. Understandable, certainly, but when hysteria pushes reason out of the room altogether, I don’t see how the child’s interests are served.

An example of unhelpful hysteria is the article’s claim that Dawkins “defended” pedophilia, when he specifically said he opposed it.
Likewise, how could any rational person claim that rape with beating is not worse than rape without beating? We must always preserve a space for reason and clarity. Otherwise, let the hysteria flow!