Should a rapist be punished more if he takes her virginity?

We've already been over this.

She doesn't have to "prove" anything if she doesn't want to.

The perpetrator doesn't have to be convicted of stealing her virginity to be convicted of violating her.

In some cases, it might even be possible the perpetrator could be convicted of stealing her virginity without her ever having to be put on the witness stand about that topic.

She doesn't have to speak about this topic. But if she does, it opens her up to cross-examination.

She can merely say she wishes for the virginity stealing enhancement to be pursued against her alleged attacker.

It becomes less likely he will be convicted of that enhancement if she chooses not to open herself up about that topic, but it is still possible, depending on the situation.

FreshAir, I don't see what you could possibly have against this.

 

She doesn't have to. Only if she wants to maximize the chance that her attacker will get additional punishment (beyond the amount of punishment he will already get).

 

Basing a woman's worth on whether she's a virgin or not is a sexist, misogynistic, antiquated, backward, nasty premise...and is quite sickening..

 

in neither of those posts did I say that, in fact the first quote you posted was an elderly person

I said I would not give a rapist less time for raping the elderly, the poster thought they should get less time as the victim was not a virgin <-- why do you disagree with me on that?

the second quote was asking if the poster got their way, and the victim had to prove they were a virgin, I was asking how much less time a rapist would get if they could not prove it in his eyes - not something I wanted or proposed, I was asking the poster a question

 

"Maybe not but it WILL call the rape of a non-virgin less important....and it isn't."

that is the big part of this, and as one could never prove they were a virgin, this only drags women though the mud

 

no, it means the poster said he wanted to do that, I asked him how he would do it if the victim could not prove she was a virgin

that means the other poster wants it, not me, I was simply questioning the other poster about their proposal

 

It doesn't have to do with her worth. It has to do with the worth of her virginity to her (and her future first-time husband).

Using virginity as a determinant factor is no more "sexist" than making rape illegal in the first place is. Surely you wouldn't say that making rape illegal is "basing a woman's worth on her sexuality", would you?

 

Well, maybe you need to re-read the thread. It's all been explained.

There will be no absolute certainty. But then again, there's very often no absolute certainty when a woman claims she was raped either; and yet that doesn't always prevent the accused from being convicted.

 

reading this thread once was enough for me

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Basing a woman's worth on whether she's a virgin or not is a sexist, misogynistic, antiquated, backward, nasty premise...and is quite sickening..

Whether a woman is a virgin or not has nothing to do with the crime of rape....you did know that rape is a crime, didn't you???? Well, it is as much as that dismays some..

 

FoxHastings, you do realize the argument is it should be an enhancement to the crime of rape, don't you?
Or view it as a separate crime, if you want to.

The perpetrator stole her first sexual experience from her. The woman wanted it to be something special; it was not.

(Of course, if a woman doesn't view virginity as anything special, she doesn't have to push for this enhancement)

 

Because it's a ridiculous premise which places value on virginity.....and coming from an Anti-Choicer who think if women get raped and get impregnated they can't have an abortion but must BEAR A CHILD as punishment for being raped it is astoundingly ridiculous.

 

It's no more ridiculous than placing extraordinary value on a woman's right not to have sex.

I think there are some double standards at play for those who think virginity is just a silly concept but accept it as obvious and self-evident that a man who has sex with a woman without her consent should get a very long time in prison.

 

'

Are you serious and if you are what is wrong with you? Whether a woman has visited a topless nightclub multiple times and has in your words put herself in a compromising position, what does it matter? She was raped. You are blaming the victim and suggesting in certain circumstances the rape is somehow deserved. This is why woman don’t pursue rape charges because they get victimized because they went to a nightclub, or wore provocative clothing, or actually enjoy multiple partners. A rape is not less traumatic because you are sexually experienced and to judge a woman for her choices is disgusting. Rape is a violent crime and the victim should be in no way blamed for it.

 

Keep in mind that whether she was raped is not the actual question being considered here.
Of course, if we believe she was raped, even if she is total slut the perpetrator will get a fair amount of punishment.

We are not talking about whether she was raped. We are talking about the effects of what that rape did to her.

The argument is that, depending on her history, the rape may have damaged her more than a woman with a different history.

Surely you cannot argue that a woman who is a common street prostitute has been damaged just as much by a rape as woman who is a virgin.

 

So the psychological effects of rape aren’t as bad if you are a common street prostitute? Just because she’s had a ton of sex, it will matter less to her if she is criminally attacked? A sex worker by accepting money for sex is giving consent for the act. When she doesn’t give consent, it’s rape. Having sex forced on you is traumatic and how do you know the extent of the trauma? Your lack of empathy is astounding.

You are minimizing rape and insulting the survivors by ignorantly assuming they will be affected less based on experience. What matters in the crime is the behavior of the criminal — not the victim.

 

Yes you can argue that because it is true. The trauma is not based upon sexual experience where the more experience a person has the less trauma will occur when they are raped. The trauma of rape comes from the lack of control, the degradation of being used against your will, the unwanted violence of the act. And for that matter, what is exhibited in public is not necessarily an accurate measure of the trauma the victim endured. A more stoic virgin who was raped my seem better in public than a prostitute who was raped, but both are experiencing the same amount of trauma. Your idea that somehow trauma is mitigated by different life decisions is ludacris and simply incorrect.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Because it's a ridiculous premise which places value on virginity...THE REST OF THE POST :
and coming from an Anti-Choicer who think if women get raped and get impregnated they can't have an abortion but must BEAR A CHILD as punishment for being raped it is astoundingly ridiculous.

OHMYGAWD!

ONLY YOU kaz would call rape "extraordinary value on a woman's right not to have sex""

It is not extraordinary...it is a basic right.

An illogical and asinine comparison....

 

WRONG....and hilarious coming from one who thinks women aren't harmed in rape at all..

 

You know what the biggest double standard is the way virginity is viewed for females versus males. The double standard in which women and men are judged differently for the same sexual behavior.

Virginity is not a tangible concept and is only significant in terms of ‘loss’ during sex. For women, virginity is often regarded as her worth inversely proportional to how much sex she has had. It is linked to purity. So the more sex a woman has had, the less pure she is. With men, losing one’s virginity is applauded and there is a positive correlation between how much sex they have had and their worth. Often, teenage boys and young men are described as losers for being virgins. Men who have lots of sex are seen as ‘studs’ rather than ‘male sluts’.

Traditionally, women are taught virginity is a valuable commodity that reflects their moral character. Women who decide to have sex when not married were regarded and are still regarded by some to be loose or impure. Men are not shamed in the same way because nobody cares if a man is still a virgin when he gets married…

And now we have you suggesting a rapists prison sentence should be harsher if he rapes a virgin. Why? Because you are suggesting a ‘virgin’ will be more traumatized by having her virginity ‘stolen’ because it’s some valuable commodity. This is part of the double standard. And you have also been linking your ideas to the moral standards of women. The saddest thing of all is that you can’t actually comprehend any argument against why people think you are abysmally wrong.

 

What does this have to do with how much punishment the rapist gets?

 

You don't seem to believe a woman who was raped was additionally harmed if her virginity was stolen too.

How can you believe that stealing her virginity does not (in and of itself) cause harm but rape does?

My only point was that her right to remain a virgin is of a similar quality of importance to her right not to have sex.
I was only asking how you could recognize one while brushing the other off as "unimportant".

 

I do not think this is realistic.

As an extreme example (to try to illustrate the point), think about a prostitute. Yes, there are separate components of the rape, the physical assault and then the sexual component. But for a prostitute, that sexual component is not really going to be as big of a factor. Strange men having sex with her is something that happens all the time. (I'm not of course saying this does no cumulative damage to her, but one more isn't going to do all that much more damage than the damage that already exists)

In a way, you could almost say that what the perpetrator did is no different from the two separate crimes of "defrauding her of her services" and an ordinary physical assault (without a sexual component).
That is one way to view it.

 

You're making my argument for me. The sexual component is not the trauma factor. It's the assault itself along with the sexual nature, as opposed to the sexual act, that is what causes the trauma even above that of non sexual assault. Yes there may be bodily trauma that is looked at for the crime itself, but the trauma induced is not centered on that. This goes doubly when the assailant is someone the victim knows, which is the vast majority of the time. The shattering of the trust, the loss of control and safety, all these and more are much greater in the trauma factors than the actual sex itself. That is why the virginity ends up being pretty much a null factor. It's loss might be something that the victim might focus on to avoid thinking about the true trauma, but it's not the source. It's not even major factor.