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

A 15 year old with that level of sexualisation - I would be looking into the family to check if she had been raped previously by a family member as this pattern is not uncommon in children who have suffered sexual abuse

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.86.11.1607

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J358v08n01_03

 

I think you miss the point, Bowerbird.

The point was that, even Left-leaning progressives believe that rape should be punished more if the victim was a child. But why is that?
I was asking us to take a closer look at and examine those exact reasons.

My theory is it actually has something to do with the concept of "innocence" and virginity, although progressives would never consciously phrase their beliefs that way.

 

No once again there is a sniff of “excusing paedophilia” coming through I your posts. Whether or not you intend that I cannot say but THAT is the impression I get

Feel free to disabuse me of that impression.

 

The issue of rape is a different one from the issue of age of consent. You seem to be trying to conflate those two issues together as if they were pretty much the same.

Yeah, sure, you could argue that having sex with a girl who is under a certain age is equivalent to raping a girl, regardless of her age. But you seem to be trying to imply that somehow that means that the rape of a girl who is under a certain age is somehow a worse thing than the rape of a girl (or female) who is several years older.

Doesn't seem to be logical.

 

I would give them both lwop, regardless who they violently raped

 

I do think you are deflecting from the issue a little bit. Even if that's true, you still view one of them as even worse than the other, don't you?

 

Rape is aggressive non consensual sex. Be it m/f or m/m or f/f. The punishment fits the crime life should be given to the perp(s). As for a child, the perp should be castrated, and then given life.

 

You're ignoring the issues raised.

Or maybe you're saying it is a moot point, in your view.

Which is still not a moot point, since everyone obviously does not have the same view as you.

 

only if you're talking Romeo and Juliet type case where both parties consented, that is not really rape in my eyes, though it is still a crime, and the older the older party the more a crime it is - I think the States with 16 and a 5 year buffer are best.... when I grew up, my republican State was 14 and anyone could have sex with that 14 year old, even an 80 year old - so glad that has finally changed as what a sick law

 

Yeah, that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Sorry you don't understand what this thread is about, or what point I was trying to get at.

 

No but BY LAW sex with a minor is consider rape as in “Statutory Rape”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

Rape has nothing to do with gender, age, promiscuity, what the person was wearing or how they were acting it has 100% everything to do with CONSENT

 

Just putting my two cents worth in. Limbering & warming up.

 

Then, according to that argument, rape of a child should not be punished more than rape of any other female?

And yet, that's not what the law says in places where socially progressive governments are in charge.

 

Absolutely and you are correct that age disparity is taken into account with sentencing as the greater the age disparity the greater the power difference is

 

you were the one tha tbrought up age of consent

as for the topic, of course if a rapist takes someone's virginity, most of the time that it is harder on the victim, then if it was not

 

No sex against another without consent is rape

End of discussion

 

Is this directed to me?

 

That's not what we are discussing.

Or you seem to be trying to avoid the question.

 

they are both bad, you are just talking about victim impact here, and yes a victim could be impacted harsher mentally if she was a virgin - people tend to remember their first time more and this first time would not be something good to remember that strongly

 

A child is a virgin, right? So...

 

Nope; a rapist should always be punished depending on his motivation. Rape, because a woman optically makes your **** hard, should give 10 years in prison, minimum.
-->

 

Why is it then that, in California, that has all the super most progressive laws in the U.S., the maximum sentence for normal rape is 8 years, yet the maximum is 15 years when the victim is a minor?

Why the difference?

I could cite similar examples in many other progressive countries, like Germany.

This seems to go even beyond "victim impact" and is something more fundamental.

My theory: There's a subconscious equating of child to "virginity".

 

both should get lwop, but rape of a child is worse imo...

 

both seem to low too me - so do not know the answer, prob two laws made by different people at different times

but I think that shows that people are more sicked by people that rape children

 

I thought I made myself abundantly clear

In the eyes of the law sex without consent is rape end of discussion

one could be a “$5 hooker” and if she/he is forced to have sex against their consent then it is treated as rape - no exceptions

 

I do not care if it is punished more, they should both get lwop, but I am not gonna lose sleep because a rapist got more time that raped a child