[Puffer Fish]

This is an oddball example.

Well it doesn't matter. It's only a hypothetical to illustrate a point.
I already explained why there's no need for it to be realistic.

Trespassing is a good example since violation is like invasion of property. My body is my property.

Once again, the reason trespassing is bad doesn't entirely have to do with consent.

I think you're just creating the same fallacy with that example too.

If it does mostly have to do with consent, it's just a legal convenience, a simplified rule. Not a theoretical ethical optimum.

The judge decides on punishment.

The law can also guide the judge on punishment. Sometimes it is just guidelines and it does not constrain the judge's personal discretion in unusual cases.

[Puffer Fish]

The physical damage is part of the rape.

And not all rapes have it.
Surely you are not saying that a rape without physical damage is really so far different than a rape that has a little physical damage? (Assuming it does not require the victim to go to the hospital)

To repeat: My point was a little physical damage is definitely not the main reason rape is bad. It's the sexual component, not the physical damage component.

[MistyTiger]

Well it doesn't matter. It's only a hypothetical to illustrate a point.
I already explained why there's no need for it to be realistic.


Once again, the reason trespassing is bad doesn't entirely have to do with consent.

I think you're just creating the same fallacy with that example too.

If it does mostly have to do with consent, it's just a legal convenience, a simplified rule. Not a theoretical ethical optimum.


The law can also guide the judge on punishment. Sometimes it is just guidelines and it does not constrain the judge's personal discretion in unusual cases.

It is trespassing because the trespasser is NOT ALLOWED on the property. He or she is illegally entering private property. Trespassing is about lack of consent, it is unwanted. Trespassing is a form of violation.

[Puffer Fish]

It is trespassing because the trespasser is NOT ALLOWED on the property. He or she is illegally entering private property. Trespassing is about lack of consent, it is unwanted. Trespassing is a form of violation.

Your argument is a legal one, not an ethical one.
Since we are talking what the law should be, you cannot use that argument. Otherwise it just becomes circular logic.

Now, are you are arguing that is how trespassing inherently works and should work ethically, under natural rights?

[MistyTiger]

And not all rapes have it.
Surely you are not saying that a rape without physical damage is really so far different than a rape that has a little physical damage? (Assuming it does not require the victim to go to the hospital)

How odd. So you are counting little injuries and therefore ignoring the big picture. In a court case, the evidence is evaluated in its totality. The judge and jury look at the big picture. Justice is not nearsided or narrowminded.

[Mike12]

Maybe Koreans emotional threat themselves at police departments that cover up they make case files in 2009 inquiries. That's a good monopoly of the korean empire going on.

[Puffer Fish]

In my personal opinion, a trespasser should be punished more if he trespasses into a tidy little well-kept garden with flowerbeds, rather than trespassing onto the property after everything's been blown away by a tornado and there's nothing left.

Ownership over the property is not the sole complete reason explaining why the trespasser gets punished.

The punishment will be dependent on what's on the property. If it's just a huge undeveloped field with nothing and dry dirt and sand, the violation is less.

[Mike12]

Maybe there's 3.5 billion wasted bitches that need a graveyard and there will be a good quiet 30 years of males afterwards, I don't think I ever related or expressed differently to a single one ever to have been speaking to me on any topic ever.

[Puffer Fish]

@Puffer Fish

I have the feeling you do not know what rape is.

Please define it clearly for all of us.

Part of the reason rape is bad, a very big part of the reason in some cases, is that the female's virtue and innocence is stolen. One could even say her sexual purity has been compromised (even if she was not actually a virgin). The man has obtained carnal knowledge of her, and subjected her to an intimate and soul-bonding sort of experience that should have only ever been shared between her and her husband or committed partner. It's no coincidence that the female feels all icky and dirty afterwards and feels like she is unable to wipe the rapist's dirt off her.

Of course some modern day feminists completely twist this and say the issue is all about did the woman decide she felt like having sex on that occasion.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Puffer Fish

No, that sounds wrong.

It sounds like you (incorrectly) believe that rape victims think their purity in yiur eyes is more important than their consent.

I highly doubt this is the case.

[Godstud]

@Puffer Fish Your beliefs and views are those of a rapist.

[Fasces]

I think @Puffer Fish isnt doing enough to protect male victims of false virginity accusations. What if we made a register of all women at the time of their birth with the status of virginity - then, when a man has her, he can go to the office and log it. Then other men can even search the database to see how many times she gets fucked. This protects the male victim from false rape of a virgin accusations while also protecting males from accidently fucking or, worse, marrying a whore.

[Potemkin]

Guys like @Puffer Fish make you realise why feminism is a thing.

[Puffer Fish]

It sounds like you (incorrectly) believe that rape victims think their purity in yiur eyes is more important than their consent.

It's not that their purity in my eyes is more important than their consent; it is the purity in their eyes.

Besides, even if the woman doesn't consciously realise it, things like this could still damage her. Sometimes they can't always articulate their feelings into logically coherent words.

Since I'm mostly talking to progressive feminist-inspired people in this forum, it seems hopeless to try to convince any of you.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's not that their purity in my eyes is more important than their consent; it is the purity in their eyes.

I highly doubt this.

Prove it.

[Puffer Fish]

I highly doubt this.

Prove it.

You mean like go into conservative social circles and conduct a survey, asking conservative religious women if they would feel more violated if the non-consensual act had taken away their virginity?

[Pants-of-dog]

You mean like go into conservative social circles and conduct a survey, asking conservative religious women if they would feel more violated if the non-consensual act had taken away their virginity?

No.

Ask them if they feel their purity being taken from them is more important than being forced to have sex without consent.

And not just conservative women, but everyone.

[MadMonk]

Since I'm mostly talking to progressive feminist-inspired people in this forum, it seems hopeless to try to convince any of you.

On that we will agree. We don't view sex as a sin, we don't believe in abstinence as a healthy way of life. Repressing one's sexuality is a major psychological trigger for feelings of fear, anxiety, guilt and shame. Everyone should be free to do as they please, as long as it is practiced safely between consenting adults, and not be told that their pain is less real than anyone else. You preach sexual virtue and for those that freely wish to practice it, by all means, but it does not make you a better human being by itself.

[Mike12]

On that we will agree. We don't view sex as a sin, we don't believe in abstinence as a healthy way of life. Repressing one's sexuality is a major psychological trigger for feelings of fear, anxiety, guilt and shame. Everyone should be free to do as they please, as long as it is practiced safely between consenting adults, and not be told that their pain is less real than anyone else. You preach sexual virtue and for those that freely wish to practice it, by all means, but it does not make you a better human being by itself.

oh ya? Now they're all some wackos that can be convicted by the soylent majority. i dont have a fucking thing to do with any of your freedoms listed and the 1st and last one telling me about women met a grave with their families eyes gouged out and mirrors in them 100 feet under ground.

[Puffer Fish]

On that we will agree. We don't view sex as a sin, we don't believe in abstinence as a healthy way of life. Repressing one's sexuality is a major psychological trigger for feelings of fear, anxiety, guilt and shame.

The point was you don't view the female's virginity as valuable, because she's expected to go out there anyway and have lots of casual sex with different partners.

Given that, it's entirely understandable why you would be bewildered why this matters. Because it doesn't really seem to matter in your social circles, with the culture you believe in.