[Puffer Fish]

I think one big part of the reason conservatives believe rapists should get more punishment than progressives do is because, in a progressive's mind, they assume a woman has already had sex with many men, or will with many men to come. That is the normal thing in their circles.

I think most people will agree that a man who rapes a prostitute should get less punishment than if he raped an ordinary woman. Why is that? Because, aside from the physical assault, the man is not really doing anything to her that has not been done to her before. I mean the sexual aspect. She's already had sex with hundreds of strange men she didn't really know and wasn't very choosy about. One more isn't that terribly big of a deal, when viewed from that perspective.

There is a gulf of difference between the perspective of conservatives and those of progressives. Should perhaps rapists receive more punishment if he has taken the girl's virginity? Especially if she comes from social circles where she is likely to try to save her virginity until marriage. (And not even just virgins, but perhaps married women, if they have never had sex with any other man besides their husband before)

It's true there may be some problematic issues with courts trying to determine whether she is a virgin, but there are several indicators that can be used to determine whether that's probably the case, and of course we would have to rely on the information from the woman too. (I don't think most women will lie about this. Most women to whom virginity is not a big deal will be satisfied as long as the rapist gets punished with many years in prison) In fact, I think many judges already do this, informally. They secretly take it into account in factoring the sentence. But maybe we should more overtly codify it into law.

[Rich]

I think most people will agree that a man who rapes a prostitute should get less punishment than if he raped an ordinary woman.

First off most prostitutes are ordinary women. There is nothing extraordinary about prostitution. So no the fact that she's a prostitute should not mitigate the sentence.

[Puffer Fish]

First off most prostitutes are ordinary women. There is nothing extraordinary about prostitution. So no the fact that she's a prostitute should not mitigate the sentence.

There is the physical assault, but the sexual facet of the crime is less severe.

There is a reason why sex without consent is wrong, and that reason becomes a lot more weak when the woman is a prostitute.

It's just one more in a long line of hundreds of men she doesn't know. She probably would have slept with him too, if he hadn't forced her, and had paid her.

[Puffer Fish]

Rape is rape regardless of their work, what they dress, their sexual history, or anything else.

And so you also believe "rape is rape" regardless of the age of the victim; and a rapist should not be punished more because the victim is a younger age?

(Or does your argument apply "differently" in that case?)

[ingliz]

@Puffer Fish

Have you been prosecuted for rape? And if so, are you on a sex offenders registry? Your misogyny and obsession with sexual violence suggest you have personal demons and a backstory.

[Godstud]

And so you also believe "rape is rape" regardless of the age of the victim; and a rapist should not be punished more because the victim is a younger age?

Rape is rape, still. If it is with an underage victim, then there is another illegal activity they are ALSO engaging in. In that case, they would be charged with several illegal activities, and not just rape.

Critical thinking is not something you do, is it?

Have you been prosecuted for rape? And if so, are you on a sex offenders registry? Your misogyny and obsession with sexual violence suggest you have personal demons and a backstory.

I hope the FBI is monitoring him.

[Puffer Fish]

Rape is rape, still. If it is with an underage victim, then there is another illegal activity they are ALSO engaging in.

Sounds like just a matter of perspective. In that case, we could make stealing virginity a separate crime.

[Puffer Fish]

Have you been prosecuted for rape? And if so, are you on a sex offenders registry? Your misogyny and obsession with sexual violence suggest you have personal demons and a backstory.

Maybe that's the reason why people have not more closely examined issues like this. Because they're "uncomfortable", and are likely to lead to poor views against anyone who tries to bring the issues up.

Problems and logical inconsistencies that exist in our society usually have a reason why they have not been previously addressed.

To address your comments, I don't think I've posted anything about "sexual violence" that was not either related to the law (discussing what laws should be) or involved news article stories from the Muslim part of the world.

[late]

Sounds like just a matter of perspective. In that case, we could make stealing virginity a separate crime.

Existing law should suffice.

Judges are there to try and create a balance. A judgement that balances the punishment to the crime. Obviously, if the victim is inexperienced, that adds to what needs to be done to create a punishment that fits the crime.

[Puffer Fish]

Existing law should suffice.

We could make the law better, improve it.

Existing law in many places already draws a distinction in age (of the victim) when it comes to maximum sentence. Maybe you think that should be tossed out?

Judges are there to try and create a balance. A judgement that balances the punishment to the crime. Obviously, if the victim is inexperienced, that adds to what needs to be done to create a punishment that fits the crime.

And wouldn't the factor of virginity fall into "inexperienced" too?

You seem to be trying to avoid the issue. Look, all I'm saying is that if they use age as a factor, why not virginity status? In fact virginity status might be even better than age.

Or are you saying that they should, but the judge should do this informally, it shouldn't be specifically written into the law?
In which case, why should age of the victim be a factor specifically written into the law?

[Pants-of-dog]

No.

A sexual assault is not any better or less harmful depending on the number of sexual partners the victim has had.

[Puffer Fish]

No.

A sexual assault is not any better or less harmful depending on the number of sexual partners the victim has had.

Yet the majority of people who believe that believe it is more harmful if the victim is younger.

Do you care to try to explain that?


My theory is that, on some subconscious level, people like you know that past sexual history matters, but you just don't want to admit it, because it flies in the face of currently prevailing feminist progressive beliefs.

I'm just trying to get you to carefully examine the why behind your beliefs and get you to recognise it. I'm not the least bit surprised that so many of you try to deflect from the issue.

[Godstud]

Yet the majority of people who believe that believe it is more harmful if the victim is younger.

We already have laws in place that address this issue. It is more harmful, particularly in the case of a child or minor, where they are more likely to be exploited, and where consent cannot be legitimately given.

Are you now arguing against Age of Consent laws??? I wouldn't be surprised.

My theory is that, on some subconscious level, people like you know that past sexual history matters, but you just don't want to admit it, because it flies in the face of currently prevailing feminist progressive beliefs.

Your argument lacks logic and reason. The law is not based on prevailing feminist beliefs. Sexual history is irrelevant. The experience of the victim(that's the person who was raped, in case you didn't understand that) is not relevant. The law is not based on previous experience, or lack thereof. It is clear and concise.

I'm just trying to get you to carefully examine the why behind your beliefs and get you to recognise it.

No. You are trying to get us to admit that rape isn't that bad, because you are a rape-advocate. You have done this in every thread where you start up something about rape.

I'm not the least bit surprised that so many of you try to deflect from the issue.

No one has deflected anything. We've answered your idiotic premise with facts. Fact: Law already takes into account the very things you are arguing about.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yet the majority of people who believe that believe it is more harmful if the victim is younger.

Do you care to try to explain that?

The majority of people are wrong.

My theory is that, on some subconscious level, people like you know that past sexual history matters, but you just don't want to admit it, because it flies in the face of currently prevailing feminist progressive beliefs.

I'm just trying to get you to carefully examine the why behind your beliefs and get you to recognise it. I'm not the least bit surprised that so many of you try to deflect from the issue.

You are wrong.

[XogGyux]

I think most people will agree that a man who rapes a prostitute should get less punishment than if he raped an ordinary woman.

Prostitutes are ordinary women. I don't know what the fuck you are rambling about.

Why is that? Because, aside from the physical assault, the man is not really doing anything to her that has not been done to her before.

Are you foking out of your mind?

She's already had sex with hundreds of strange men she didn't really know and wasn't very choosy about.

Rape is not just a "kinky sex". Rape is a violation of body autonomy.

One more isn't that terribly big of a deal, when viewed from that perspective.

Then stop viewing it from the wrong perspective.

There is a gulf of difference between the perspective of conservatives and those of progressives. Should perhaps rapists receive more punishment if he has taken the girl's virginity? Especially if she comes from social circles where she is likely to try to save her virginity until marriage. (And not even just virgins, but perhaps married women, if they have never had sex with any other man besides their husband before)

This is the result of a misogynistic society's history that has arbitrarily placed some nonsensical value on terms such as "virginity", "purity," or any of that crap, and usually, it is reserved only for women. Even fairly conservative families would encourage their males to have many girlfriends, to go out with girls, to fuck around. But then there is the double standard for women. This is completely arbitrary. A man that fucks many women is praised as a "winner" as a "stud" as a "player. A woman that has done the same is labeled a "whore" a "slut", "easy". As long as your "thoughts" (and I vomit a bit inside my mouth for using that word) are being generated by a brain that has a framework based on this sort of misogynistic world view, the ideas generated by it are going to be utter misogynistic nonsense, as it is indeed the case now.

[Puffer Fish]

Rape is not just a "kinky sex". Rape is a violation of body autonomy.

My argument was not that it wasn't a violation and bad. My argument was that is was less bad.

Are you foking out of your mind?

I'm just trying to make a point that it is very significantly less bad. Sorry if the expressing of my statements comes across as hyperbolic.

Sometimes we have to use hyperbole and broad brushstrokes to try to get a message across. Sorry if that sounds like I am "minimizing" the violation that happens to a woman. But it needs to be said.

[Puffer Fish]

This is the result of a misogynistic society's history that has arbitrarily placed some nonsensical value on terms such as "virginity", "purity," or any of that crap,

Well, this "misogynistic society" has also arbitrarily placed a value on the victim's age, whether she is a minor or an adult woman.

My main question is, how can you approve of that, but think it is ridiculous to view sexual history as a factor?

[Puffer Fish]

This is the result of a misogynistic society's history that has arbitrarily placed some nonsensical value on terms such as "virginity", "purity," or any of that crap, and usually, it is reserved only for women. Even fairly conservative families would encourage their males to have many girlfriends, to go out with girls, to fuck around. But then there is the double standard for women. This is completely arbitrary. A man that fucks many women is praised as a "winner" as a "stud" as a "player. A woman that has done the same is labeled a "whore" a "slut", "easy". As long as your "thoughts" (and I vomit a bit inside my mouth for using that word) are being generated by a brain that has a framework based on this sort of misogynistic world view, the ideas generated by it are going to be utter misogynistic nonsense, as it is indeed the case now.

And yet, when the victim is a male (assuming the perpetrator is male) it is viewed as about equally as bad, albeit for different reasons.

[Puffer Fish]

Prostitutes are ordinary women. I don't know what the fuck you are rambling about.

Rape is not just a "kinky sex". Rape is a violation of body autonomy.

I think you need to more closely examine WHY rape is a bad. It is not only just a simple matter of the woman's consent, did she want it or not, yes or no.

Rape in some situations can violate women much more than others.

I think you should try to avoid taking a black and white perspective on this.

I am not saying that one of the women is not violated. I am just saying she is violated LESS.

[Puffer Fish]

I don't know what the fuck you are rambling about.

Here's the key part of the opening post: "Should perhaps rapists receive more punishment if he has taken the girl's virginity?"

Bringing up prostitutes was just an exaggerated example to try to illustrate how sexual history and virginity is not irrelevant.