Should a rapist be punished more if he takes her virginity? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15241826
MistyTiger wrote:At any age, a rape victim feels traumatized after rape, regardless of being a virgin or not.

But she will probably be even more traumatised if that was her first time having a sexual experience with another person.

Seems like an especially terrible thing to do to a female to steal away her first experience from her like that. From then on, every time she has sex thereafter she is probably going to associate it with the traumatic experience. The first time we have an experience, we usually draw an association in our mind, and that association can be permanently etched into the psyche.
It could very likely lead to sexual relationship problems in her marriage later when she gets married.

At least if she had sex with her husband first before the assault, a connection would have established itself in her mind between sex and tenderness/love.
#15241828
MistyTiger wrote:Rape is not that bad, what the fuck are you on? Using your logic, if a person gets a neck injury at the age of 20 and then another neck injury at age 50, the neck injury at age 20 is less damaging to their neck? Have I got that right?

Sex doesn't work like a normal physical injury.

A lot of this IS psychological. Physical damages might not necessarily be left.

If an assailant merely physically assaults her without committing a sexual violation, that is often not anywhere close to being as bad as forcing sex on her. This shouldn't even need to be stated but the worst part of rape is usually not the physical injuries.
#15241830
Patrickov wrote:@MistyTiger is a woman while you are not. I think she has more authority in this matter than you do.

MistyTiger wrote:Have I got that right? Ok. Where is MY mega pint of wine?

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?
#15241833
Puffer Fish wrote:But it is not the same rape.
If that was what you were trying to imply, then I respectfully very much totally disagree with you.
It is the same and you disagree with me because you like to downplay the effects, and impact, of rape on its victims.

Puffer Fish wrote:That is so absurd, I really wonder if you can actually believe this.
It's the law and you've shown that you believe in stupid dumbass shit, but not reality. I even presented evidence to that end, which you ignored, because it didn't conform to your rapey bias.

Puffer Fish wrote:Sorry if the truth is offensive.
You say what you believe and truth has nothing to do with that. Facts don't matter to you, either.

Puffer Fish wrote:In my opinion it is your belief that is detached from common sense reasoning and reality.
Your opinion, is fucking stupid, and you are the last person who should be mentioning common sense reasoning or reality, since you are devoid of both.

Puffer Fish wrote:I think that's a failed analogy.
It's a good analogy. You just don't like it.

Puffer Fish wrote:Anyway, Godstud, I think you ignore the exact precise reasons why rape is wrong in the first place.
I know why rape is wrong, but you are constantly looking for reasons why it is not, or ways you can circumvent the consequences of such actions.

The law is quite clear about rape, and it really does boil down to consent. FFS, for a person who claims to be interested in laws, you sure know fuck and all about them.

Puffer Fish wrote:I would say the woman's REASONS for consent (or lack thereof) very much play a role into how violated she is. It's not as simple as just she was raped or she wasn't.
Women oftentimes have very good reasons for not wanting to have sex with a man, to put it bluntly.
You are wrong. It comes down to how YOU FEEL, and not what the victim of the rape feels, right? That's your argument here. Is that what you wanted to express, or should you rethink it and try again?

The reasons for a woman refusing to give consent are irrelevant. Consent not given is still consent not given. If a woman wants to refuse consent because she doesn't feel like sex, is tired, has a headache, doesn't like you, changed her mind, etc. is really irrelevant. The fact remains is that she refused to give consent.

Role-playing is something else, entirely. That's a part of CONSENSUAL sex between two adults.

The reasons a woman have for not giving consent do not matter. All she has to do is refuse to give consent, then if you continue to force yourself onto a woman, you are raping her. ANY reason to refuse consent, is sufficient. You are in no position to say how much they are violated, as that would be up to the victim of the crime to determine, and not you.

Puffer Fish wrote:But she will probably be even more traumatised if that was her first time having a sexual experience with another person.
That is not for YOU to determine. You have shown that you lack even the most basic human empathy, on this topic.

Puffer Fish wrote:At least if she had sex with her husband first before the assault, a connection would have established itself in her mind between sex and tenderness/love.
Again, that's not for you to determine, and the breach of trust/love might be shattered and MORE traumatic. Rape is not "tenderness", either, you tool.

Puffer Fish wrote:Then let's talk about how the future husband will be impacted.
:roll: The rapist deserves whatever they get, and no one knows what a future husband will think. The victim of the rape is the one who has to deal with the trauma. Stick to reality.

Patrickov wrote:Most men in this generation are having difficulties of even putting their penises into proper use, so whether they are the first of their respective recipients is no longer a concern.
MOST men have no problems with this. Males growing up in their parent's homes, in single parent homes, and not being independent are having problems dealing with women. They lacked strong male role models and are suffering for it. Lacking social contact can also have the same effect.

Puffer Fish wrote:Gosh. A woman who drinks and never valued virginity very highly.
Most people in this century don't value virginity to any degree, and you are trying to push your (likely)Christian beliefs onto others, who might not have the same views as yourself. Think on that a bit.

Puffer Fish wrote: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?
Yes, you are trying to say that. You implied it with your last statement(see above). As a female she is eminently more qualified to give an opinion on this than some potential sexual predator and rape advocate.
#15241838
Puffer Fish wrote:Gosh. A woman who drinks and never valued virginity very highly.


She's still a woman. She still has more authority than you.

It's her choice not to value her virginity highly, or more precisely, when, how and who she's to give her virginity to.
There's no place for you to criticize her belief and choice about herself whatsoever.
#15241845
Godstud wrote:No. It's not all circumstantial. That's bollocks. Are you another rape advocate? :eh:

Rape Fantasy Role-playing is still consensual. It's not rape. It's ACTING. I know even you know this, but are playing really dumb to troll, no doubt.

Money has nothing to do on whether it is rape or not. It may still be rape, but the victim might be sufficient compensation for the injury they have suffered.

eg. If I punched you in the head, but then gave you $10,000 not to press charges, you might just take the money. That does NOT mean that I didn't assault you.


You just reiterated my entire point, but with extra salt. :lol: And yes outside of the courtroom these discussions about labels lead to moot outcomes.

Those vaccines man...how many did you take?
#15241887
Puffer Fish wrote:Let's start here:

Do you believe a prostitute is just as much damaged by non-consensual sex (because the customer refused to pay her) as a normal woman is damaged by non-consensual sex?


Loaded question.

I believe that a sex worker is just as much damaged by non-consensual sex as another woman is damaged by non-consensual sex.

Why not?
#15241909
Pants-of-dog wrote:Loaded question.

I believe that a sex worker is just as much damaged by non-consensual sex as another woman is damaged by non-consensual sex.

Why not?

Except she probably would have had sex with him if he had given her money.

Assuming that it was not too forceful, and there were no injuries and not too much fear, is what happened to her really that different from what normally happens to her all the time?
Will she even be likely to remember that incident for the rest of her life, or will the sexual encounter just kind of blur together with all the thousands of other memories of having sex with strange men she doesn't know?

Of course it is still wrong. But it is much LESS wrong. Like I stated earlier, the issue is not merely a black and white one of consent, but depends very much on the reasons that exist behind her not giving consent. Two women could both say no, but one might have a far better much more strong reason to say no.
They both still have the right not to give their consent, but one woman has still been violated much more.
#15241913
You are wrong, @Puffer Fish, and the law even says you are wrong, as what you believe is not relevant, and is truly fucked up.

The rape of a prostitute is just as bad as the rape of a spouse, or a virgin. It's rape, pure and simple, but rape advocates like yourself want to believe otherwise. :moron:

You are in no position to determine what a victim from rape suffers, or "who is violated more". You are just a sexual predator wannabe.
#15241925
Puffer Fish wrote:Except she probably would have had sex with him if he had given her money.


This is not relevant.

You are also incorrectly reducing the damage caused to the sex worker to a purely economic harm.

In fact, this economic harm suggests that the sex worker is harmed more since they incur an economic loss as well as being sexually assaulted.

Assuming that it was not too forceful, and there were no injuries and not too much fear, is what happened to her really that different from what normally happens to her all the time?


Are you arguing that people who are frequently raped should be treated as less harmed by rape than those who are raped less frequently?

That is morally abhorrent.

Will she even be likely to remember that incident for the rest of her life, or will the sexual encounter just kind of blur together with all the thousands of other memories of having sex with strange men she doesn't know?


The sexual assault part of it will probably make a significant difference, yes.

Of course it is still wrong. But it is much LESS wrong. Like I stated earlier, the issue is not merely a black and white one of consent, but depends very much on the reasons that exist behind her not giving consent. Two women could both say no, but one might have a far better much more strong reason to say no.


You keep insisting this, but you have yet to provide a single reason that would be relevant to the people being raped.

They both still have the right not to give their consent, but one woman has still been violated much more.


No, not as far as I can tell.
#15241939
@Puffer Fish The law is based on current morality and rules. Law on criminal activity change as society changes. You trying to say that isn't relevant is fucking laughable and shows your disconnect from reality. You want it to be the 1950s. It's not.

Pants-of-dog wrote:That is morally abhorrent.
This is Puffer Fish and his arguments in a nutshell.

He insists that rape within a marriage isn't that bad. That raping a prostitute isn't that bad. And that a virgin has more to lose(we didn't ask for your belief). He also argues that Age of Consent is "age discrimination", in his words. :knife:
#15241940
Pants-of-dog wrote:You are also incorrectly reducing the damage caused to the sex worker to a purely economic harm.

Well, what is the actual physical harm that was inflicted on her?
The part of rape that makes it the worst is the sexual part, and that part is kind of lacking when it comes to a sex worker.

I mean let's look at the exact difference between what this woman has done a thousand times before and this particular assault. That is where we will be able to precisely identify what the damages are.

And it seems obvious to me those damages are far far less.

I mean, imagine if you will a hypothetical upside down alternate reality where a woman can be "raped" BUT at the same time not be forced to be involved in a sexual experience, and not be involved in a sexual experience with another person. That almost sounds oxymoronic and impossibly meaninglessly absurd, and indeed it should. Because instinct tells us that the sex IS what makes rape bad. Take that away and what else is there? Not too much.


It seems this argument is just going round and round in circles. I've already addressed this type of statement before.
#15241941
Godstud wrote:@Puffer Fish The law is based on current morality and rules. Law on criminal activity change as society changes. You trying to say that isn't relevant is fucking laughable and shows your disconnect from reality. You want it to be the 1950s. It's not.

Law is not entirely based on morality. The fact that the law has changed over time proves that. Those rules in society can change.
I find your argument very bizarre. It seems you are saying things are the way they are so we should not change it. Even though things used to be a different way. But you do not want to go back to that other way.

Godstud wrote:He insists that rape within a marriage isn't that bad.

Is that my argument in THIS thread, or are you taking this discussion off topic?
#15241943
Pants-of-dog wrote:The sexual assault part of it will probably make a significant difference, yes.

Why? What's so horrendous about sexual assault if the issue is not about a strange man having sex with her?
What else is it??

It seems to me that's the main thing that makes rape bad. Take that away, and what else do you have?

Of course I'm not saying it's not "bad", but it's far less bad.


(And please don't say "She doesn't want to have sex with him", because then you're just going into semantics. You could argue she doesn't really want to have sex with any of the hundreds of men she's had sex with but she's doing it for the money. Kind of indicates that her revulsion to sex isn't that strong, even if she didn't want to do it that one time. Sounds like a lower level of violation)
#15241945
Pants-of-dog wrote:You keep insisting this, but you have yet to provide a single reason that would be relevant to the people being raped.

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

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.
#15241946
Puffer Fish wrote:Law is not entirely based on morality.
Morality changes, and the laws change with it. That you don't understand that speaks volumes of your ignorance on such matters.

Slavery is immoral. Was it always such? We have many laws that would not have seemed immoral even a century ago. You know the old axion: Times change.

Puffer Fish wrote:I find your argument very bizarre.
I use facts and reality while you rely on a fucked up pro-rape belief system that is outdated by a half century.

Puffer Fish wrote:It seems you are saying things are the way they are so we should not change it.
They are this way because we DID change them. The changes you want to make only set us BACKWARDS. You want to undo, what has been done.

Puffer Fish wrote:But you do not want to go back to that other way.
No. That's a good observation. I am surprised you made it. I don't want to go back to when spousal rape & abuse was acceptable. I don't want to go back to laws from the 1950s.

Puffer Fish wrote:Is that my argument in THIS thread, or are you taking this discussion off topic?
It's relevant because it's one of your beliefs. I was not making an argument to this end.

Puffer Fish wrote:Why? What's so horrendous about sexual assault if the issue is not about a strange man having sex with her?
What else is it??
That it's a stranger is not the worst part of sexual assault. It is a FACTOR. It is a facet of the criminal assault. The victim may, or may not, see this as important.

Puffer Fish wrote:It seems to me that's the main thing that makes rape bad. Take that away, and what else do you have?
You've already shown a complete lack of empathy and a disconnect with what a victim might feel. It's not up to you, as to what makes the rape bad. It's up to the victim to determine that, NOT YOU.

Puffer Fish wrote:Of course I'm not saying it's not "bad", but it's far less bad.
You contradict yourself with this statement. :knife:

Puffer Fish wrote:How about that sex is a lower level of violation to her.
According only to you. It's your belief. It's not an argument. How people view sex differs from person to person. Not everyone might be brought up with archaic Christian beliefs.

Puffer Fish wrote:She would have sex with a strange man for money. That tells you how much the sex violates her, in her assessment.
Many people have sex sex with strangers for no money. That's irrelevant. Consensual sex doesn't violate people. RAPE does.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

A apparently a lot of the reactive armor on those […]

Xi's China is in economic trouble, he faces mortg[…]

Higher interest on savings accounts? yes

All of which are excellent reasons for Grant to r[…]