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

Rape happens for a lot of reasons. Yes sometimes sexual satisfaction figures in or is along for the ride so to speak, but is usually not the motivating factor.

 

Keep in mind this thread is not about rape in general.

It is about a more specific topic.

 

Well, if you're not an old-style Conservative, that could be kind of difficult to understand, couldn't it?

Plus that's mostly an off topic issue.

 

I'm just using his wording against him, but if there has to be a definition then it would be any sexual activity that involved the penetration of any orifice with a body part or foreign object done against the consent of the victim, or with or without consent of a person who cannot provide actual informed consent. This would then exclude any statutory rape where the supposed victim actually can provide informed consent, regardless of whether the law says they can (ex: 18yo and 17yo, with no R&J exceptions), which would not be an actual rape. It also includes female aggressor on male victim rape with PIV.

 

But that has not been your argument. That is moving the goal posts. Your initial argument was a straight up, a lost of virginity was to be an automatic greater sentence. Not a matter of whether the victim felt that their trauma was more or less because of it. A woman might feel extra trauma because the rapist was not one of her usual 20 lovers, or she might feel extra trauma because the rapist was a known person who violated her trust by not accepting no, even worse if it's her husband who ignored her "no" and withdrawal of consent.

 

Because that is what you said. Whether you intended to or not, it is what you said.

 

That's still inevitably of course going to be up to the woman. They can't prosecute him for taking away her virginity if she doesn't tell them.

 

I just said that virginity could be a factor in rape, and would make it worse, so that should be taken into account as a factor in the punishment. To make things more fair.

 

Not to mention when we ignore almost completely men as rape victims, especially if a woman is the rapist. And I am talking about those incidents outside of prisons. Basically for some reason, we have people who seem to not even want to acknowledge that rape exists.....at least until it's one of their family that is the victim.

 

That's the problem. If it's not statutory, then rape is rape and no other details matters. All you do otherwise is discounts one person's trauma over another's.

 

I don't see what your point is. We could easily make it statutory.

 

Nope that wasn't your initial argument. You changed that goal post earlier into the thread. And you only did that in light of how hard it would be to prove virginity, whether it was claimed or not.

 

I think that could easily be implied.

Your argument that I am "changing the goal posts" doesn't work very effectively in this thread.

It is kind of an outline of an idea. How it would actually work and be implemented we could argue about.

 

Oh please, don't go there. Now you are going into a separate argument. Can we try to focus on one thing at a time?

 

Well, that is mostly off topic. But if we are talking how that is related to the issue of this thread, I think that would be like a "half rape" or something.
If it's not an actual male sexual organ going in there, then her "virginity" hasn't been absolutely completely compromised. There can be some varying nuances to this.
I don't really want to go into that argument, however. (not in this thread)

 

Full disclosure: I no longer have the bandwidth for stupidity. I can't endure them.

 

Oh so now you are dismissing the trauma of male rape victims? Obviously they cannot be as traumatized as a woman who lost her virginity to rape? They can't lose their own virginity to a female rapist, even if they were trying to save it for their marriage?

 

And this is why you are failing this. The trauma is not dependent upon what the person is raped with. It's the fact that they were raped, period. Are you making the argument that if a man raped a woman, who was a virgin, in the arse, then she has less trauma because she didn't lose her virginity at all? That's it's not a "normal rape" or a "true rape"?

 

I had to get rid of one tonight. At this rate, I might have to lose another.

 

I don't think it's "stupidity". I think it is about a difference in world perspectives. Different cultures.

You clearly have different values, so it seems like stupidity to you and you have a very difficult time understanding it.

That "culture", that you think is stupid, was once the majority culture of the entire country.

 

So were the cultures that embraced slavery, and women as chattel and no right to vote for blacks or women. Your point? Or is that what you are seeking to go back to?

 

I don't think you can compare this to things like that.

If we are going to "progress", that's fine, but we need to carefully question and scrutinize every change and not just blindly progress.

 

The should both grow up.
This is what happens when you have throwbacks to the 19th century.

 

We have already progressed well past your reality.

 

I'm out.
Before I break some forum rules and say something I really think.
The only way to stop this kind of outrageously misinformed malarky is to ignore it.