[MistyTiger]

Gosh. A woman who drinks and never valued virginity very highly.
I am not trying to put you down or say you are worth less than any other woman but... maybe did you ever think you might not be the most qualified female to be giving an opinion about this?

The mega pint comment was a reference to the latest Johnny Depp trial where Amber Heard's lawyer asked if Depp poured himself a 'mega pint of wine one day'. Depp answers in an incredulous tone, "A mega pint?" I found it amusing that said lawyer was Mr. Rottenborn. It is a comical moment during the trial.

It is irrelevant about whether I value virginity or not, because we are not talking about me.

And what makes a female qualified? Are you qualified? What makes anyone on here qualified to give an opinion? Everyone has an opinion unless they are dead or brain dead. Saying you aren't trying to put me down and then questioning my ability to have an opinion....that is a way to put me down. If you ever get married, I am certain that the wife will be slapping you on a weekly basis for saying assinine statements.

[MistyTiger]

How about that sex is a lower level of violation to her.

What makes you an expert of classification of levels of violation? You believe it is the same for any experienced woman?

She would have sex with a strange man for money. That tells you how much the sex violates her, in her assessment.

80 or 90% of the reason a sexual assault is bad is the sex.

So in your mind, if it is part of her job, she never feels violated? The fact is that clients can be rough, often rougher than if the man was a lover. There are different levels of rough sex and forcefulness can lead to bleeding and tearing of a woman's vaginal walls. If a client puts a golf ball inside her and she is 35, this is a high level of violation.

Sexual assault is not about bad technique. It is about overstepping another person's personal boundaries and using force to get them to participate in their own sexual violation.

[Puffer Fish]

So in your mind, if it is part of her job, she never feels violated?

She might indeed feel violated, even with paying customers to whom she ostensibly consents to.

And in some ways, men paying to have sex with a prostitute can even be a little bit like rape for the woman.

But of course it's a far far lower violation, even if there are many elements that might be in common with rape.

Surely you would agree?

[Puffer Fish]

There are different levels of rough sex and forcefulness can lead to bleeding and tearing of a woman's vaginal walls.

But now we are talking about actual physical damages, not just "rape in general".

I agree with you. But we both know that physical damages are only a part of the reason the perpetrator is punished.

We can imagine if someone did that to her in a non-sexual way. The punishment would be far lower.
(I could think of several hypotheticals to illustrate this but won't go into it)

It is about overstepping another person's personal boundaries and using force to get them to participate in their own sexual violation.

We are not talking about whether the perpetrator should be punished ("yes" or "no") but how MUCH punishment they should get.
Overstepping her personal boundaries is one reason it is wrong, and it makes it wrong, and is necessary for criminal charges in the first place, but is not most of the reason it is wrong.

You are trying to make this all about her personal boundaries and consent, yes or no. But that's not the reason for most of the perpetrator's punishment. The reason for that punishment is how he violated her. Not merely just did he violate her, but how much.

[MistyTiger]

She might indeed feel violated, even with paying customers to whom she ostensibly consents to.

And in some ways, men paying to have sex with a prostitute can even be a little bit like rape for the woman.

But of course it's a far far lower violation, even if there are many elements that might be in common with rape.

Surely you would agree?

How would you know about the level of violation? Do you have experience working in prostitution? Do you know any prostitutes? Do you have a tool to measure level of violation?

[Potemkin]

How would you know about the level of violation? Do you have experience working in prostitution? Do you know any prostitutes? Do you have a tool to measure level of violation?

But @MistyTiger, you don’t seem to understand. @Puffer Fish is a man, and therefore automatically knows everything there is to know about everything, and can speak on behalf of all women everywhere. I hope that clears things up for you. Glad to help.

[Puffer Fish]

The exact difference is the lack of consent.

The lack of consent.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that the level of violation the woman suffered does not just have to do with whether she consented or not.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that it mostly does not have to do with whether she consented or not.

(Although lack of consent is a necessary element for it to be prosecuted as rape)

I could even imagine a few situations where the woman does consent, but it is kind of like rape.

[MistyTiger]

But now we are talking about actual physical damages, not just "rape in general".

I agree with you. But we both know that physical damages are only a part of the reason the perpetrator is punished.

We can imagine if someone did that to her in a non-sexual way. The punishment would be far lower.
(I could think of several hypotheticals to illustrate this but won't go into it)

Damage to her vaginal walls in a nonsexual way?

That is like saying if someone sort of trespassed on your property, they don't get punished much. But if they trespass on 3/5 of the property, then they should get 3/5 of the punishment? And if they trespass on the entire property they get 100% punished?

We are not talking about whether the perpetrator should be punished ("yes" or "no") but how MUCH punishment they should get.
Overstepping her personal boundaries is one reason it is wrong, and it makes it wrong, and is necessary for criminal charges in the first place, but is not most of the reason it is wrong.

How can we determine punishment based on some flimsy guidelines given in the OP? There is no actual case. You made up standards.

You are trying to make this all about her personal boundaries and consent, yes or no. But that's not the reason for most of the perpetrator's punishment. The reason for that punishment is how he violated her. Not merely just did he violate her, but how much.

It is a violation because she did not consent and it is about her personal boundaries. If she is not around, there would be no case against the rapist. He is being brought to justice because of the woman, because it is a personal hurt.

[Puffer Fish]

It is a violation because she did not consent and it is about her personal boundaries.

I do not disagree, but it would not actually be logical to take that to then mean that the whole reason (or even the majority of the reason) for it being a violation is that she did not consent.

Can you see the subtle difference there?


Maybe the reason you are disagreeing with me is that in your thought process you are making casual logical errors. Taking one statement with a general meaning, that is true in one sense of its possible meaning, but then you use it in a different sense that is not true. I think it would be helpful to get really specific about exactly what your words mean, and avoid things that are too general.

To get into technicals, in this case, the word "because" in your statement carries somewhat of an ambiguous meaning. It could either mean it is a necessary prerequisite for, or it could mean that it is the entire reason for.

[Puffer Fish]

Damage to her vaginal walls in a nonsexual way?

If you want some examples, maybe a female medical assistant who is taking a pap smear test on the woman, but feeling resentful and decided to take out a little revenge because the woman is going out with her boyfriend.

[Puffer Fish]

That is like saying if someone sort of trespassed on your property, they don't get punished much. But if they trespass on 3/5 of the property, then they should get 3/5 of the punishment? And if they trespass on the entire property they get 100% punished?

That's another bad example/analogy, but in some cases the punishment should be dependent on how close to the home the trespasser went. A trespasser who simply walks across an empty field presumably trying to cross the property to get from one end to the other is probably going to get less punishment than another trespasser who came suspiciously close to the home on a big piece of ranch property.

In the U.S. I read about an issue called "checkerboarding" where people are getting in trouble for trying to cross over the very far corner of someone's property. (The issue is there is two private pieces of property joined by their corners in a checkerboard shape and block off one area of public property from another, so hunters who want access to that public property have to cross over the very corner of someone else's private property to get there.)

Obviously this is a case where the "trespass" onto their property should be viewed as far less severe.

[Godstud]

If you want some examples, maybe a female medical assistant who is taking a pap smear test on the woman, but feeling resentful and decided to take out a little revenge because the woman is going out with her boyfriend.

You like making up fantasy anecdotes to push your pro-rape agenda. Fuck off. We're dealing with reality, not your fake beliefs about your non-existent victimization.

Rape is sex that is forced onto someone without explicit consent. Deal with it. That's the law. That's reality. That's the fact.

Whether a woman values her virginity is only important if the woman wants this taken into account when convicting the rapist. I am sure the judge would take this into consideration when sentencing the rapist piece of shit.

Your beliefs are foolish, unrealistic, misogynist, and simply make you look like a sexual predator. Think on that a bit before you post further on rape.

[Igor Antunov]

What if Genghis Khan does it? He got a statue after forcing himself on 2,000 captured woman and girl slaves, most of them virgins.

Point is, it's only rape if you're poor and weak. Otherwise it is celebrated, you become a national hero and the literal grandfather of millions. You only need to crush your enemies and see them driven before you. Then you get to listen to the lamentations of their women.

[XogGyux]

What if Genghis Khan does it? He got a statue after forcing himself on 2,000 captured woman and girl slaves, most of them virgins.

Point is, it's only rape if you're poor and weak. Otherwise it is celebrated, you become a national hero and the literal grandfather of millions. You only need to crush your enemies and see them driven before you. Then you get to listen to the lamentations of their women.

It was rape then just as much as it is rape today. They just happened to live in a more salvage community that would tolerate atrocities such as the one you mention. Not unlike slavery, discrimination against women, gay, etc.

[Puffer Fish]

They just happened to live in a more salvage community that would tolerate atrocities such as the one you mention. Not unlike slavery, discrimination against women, etc.

Sorry but there is no comparison between slavery and discrimination.

Not everyone believes discrimination is "evil". It's certainly nothing like rape or slavery.
If you treat two people badly, that's not any better than treating one person good and the other person bad.

Hopefully you can just agree with this and we can move on, because I don't feel like derailing the discussion of this thread.

[Puffer Fish]

What if Genghis Khan does it? He got a statue after forcing himself on 2,000 captured woman and girl slaves, most of them virgins.

Igor Antunov, I don't think historians actually know for sure that Genghis Khan ever raped any women. There is some debate about that. He likely did have a lot of wealth and influence, so may not have had to resort to taking plundered women for himself. Sexual consent at that time period and in that culture also worked differently. It might not have been such an obvious situation of either being rape or not being rape.

[Puffer Fish]

You like making up fantasy anecdotes to push your pro-rape agenda. Fuck off. We're dealing with reality, not your fake beliefs about your non-existent victimization.

Godstud, how about you use some logic here. It does not matter if a hypothetical is real or plausible for it to be useful to cast a different perspective on things and help us focus on an issue. I will assume you are aware what a "thought experiment" is?

I suspect you were not even following the discussion closely, so you don't even know what the point of that example was for or how it related to the argument.

Rape is sex that is forced onto someone without explicit consent. Deal with it. That's the law. That's reality. That's the fact.

You are off topic. That has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread.

(I think you may be thinking of a different thread)

[Igor Antunov]

Btw you all conflate recent chattel slavery (which still exists today and is the most brutal form of slavery to ever exist) with slavery of the middle ages and ancient times. But back then you could sell yourself into slavery then work of your debt and be free again. It's not the same, chattel slavery isn't greek slavery.

This is the problem with nuspeak and neolibtards. They make labels meaningless by including everything into them (most potent example today is the term 'genocide' or 'gender fluid').

[Puffer Fish]

This is the problem with nuspeak and neolibtards. They make labels meaningless by including everything into them

I think you are correct.

A lot of their rationalisations use big brushstrokes and broad generalisations, and then from that make dubious characterisations of reality to support their rationale.

A lot of it is just emotionalism; a refusal to be able to think in terms of specific relevant details and logic.

This especially applies to any issue connected to perceived victimhood.

[Godstud]

I suspect you were not even following the discussion closely, so you don't even know what the point of that example was for or how it related to the argument.

You are making excuses for your lack of compelling arguments, since they rely entirely on what you believe, and not on reality. Your arguments dismiss the damage that the victims take from rapists. You try to justify it by trying to scale it, according to your archaic misogynist beliefs.

You are off topic. That has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread.

The topic, as per most of your threads, is about rape. I am on topic.

A lot of it is just emotionalism; a refusal to be able to think in terms of specific relevant details and logic.

Yes, and this is very foundation of @Puffer Fish's arguments about virginity and rape. Logic and reason don't enter into it. It's just a "belief".

This especially applies to any issue connected to perceived victimhood.

You do realize that the very reason for your threads on rape are because of your perceived victimhood, right?