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

WHAT TF !!!
No one had "recreational sex"" until the sixties !?!! ???

There were no drugs until the sixties??!!


Uh, you need a history book....you couldn't be more wrong...

 

That's right, I forgot, women are always right. Congrats!

 

Thank you. A post hasn't made me laugh this hard in a long time.


I can tell we have very different worldviews on this.

It almost begs the question what does the woman have to do to not be a credible witness.

 

Same standards as applied to MEN...

 

You mean, if a man accuses of a woman of raping him?

Okay, yes.

 

No we just think it really has nothing to do with prosecuting rape because of the subjective nature of the experience

 

My worldview is this. A person can hate men, do drugs, be mentally ill, and even have made prior false accusations — it doesn’t mean they haven’t been raped. Why is that so funny? What if somebody assaulted you and the perpetrator walked away with no sentence because it was determined you couldn’t possibly have been assaulted because you do drugs and lie all the time.

I am delighted my worldviews are very different than yours.

 

It doesn't mean they have either. You seem to only care about the alleged victim, not the accused perpetrator.

Take a look at the other side of this.

 

I think, while the issue of whether or.not a person has actually raped or not is a vital and valid issue to discuss, I think it is a topic removed from this, where the initial focus was on a predator who has actually raped, but whether the sentence should vary based upon circumstances.

 

You: "It almost begs the question what does the woman have to do to not be a credible witness."

Me: Same standards as men.


I mean whether a witness is credible or not does not depend on their gender....

 

Yes, your defense of rapists is obvious...your numerous threads attempting to minimize rape make it obvious all your sympathy lies with the rapist...and none with the victim


Did you know men get raped....by men...gee, that must be a conundrum for YOU....who's to blame there ????

 

I considered the accused perpetrator and he may have been innocent but all we heard was his side. After reading the first three chapters of what he had to say, there is a whole heck of a lot that just doesn’t make sense so I really can’t decide if he is being truthful or not.

What other side though? All we have is ‘accused perpetrator’s’ account of what he said happened and his account of what she was like. Therefore, I can’t look at both sides because there is only one side.

Should I throw him under the bus like he threw the alleged victim. Should we believe him after all he is an alcoholic with multiple alcohol related arrests, seems to hate feminists, likely a bigot, a prison escapee, multiple stays in jail and all that? Do we take him at his word or not? Seems not if we were two treat the two of them equally because according to you she less than a credible witness because of what the man wrote about her. You don’t know the truth either.

Bottom line — if a woman is raped, then whatever her past, it’s not relevant to the rape itself and she shouldn’t be judged for anything her past. That was my only point which you decided to laugh about. That is really despicable.

 

You are totally correct. Everyone is trying to take the discussion off topic.

One good thing about the virginity factor is that if the woman has some reason to falsely accuse a man of rape, she has a way of having him punished less. She will just (secretly, behind closed doors with privacy) tell the court she does not wish to pursue the virginity enhancement. (This does not necessarily mean she is not a virgin, but could just mean a woman doesn't want to open up herself to that level of examination, or might have something in her history that would be likely to make people question whether she is so, so the claim would be pointless to pursue)

There are various reasons a woman might have motivation to falsely accuse a specific man of rape, even though she doesn't specifically want him punished, or punished very much.

This way, at least the damage could be minimized a little bit.

 

Well, there are two separate issues with that. The woman's past could either tell us something about the likelihood that she is telling the truth about actually being raped, or it could tell us about how much "damage" a rape would be likely to do to her.
The first of those is probably a topic more appropriate for another thread. The second is more what we are focusing on in this thread.

Furthermore (and just playing devil's advocate here), if she already accused three men of rape three different times in the past, even if we assume she was telling the truth, that could kind of beg the question a little bit how much this latest rape actually traumatized her. Maybe the perpetrator should get a tiny discount in punishment, because the damage that was inflicted was a tiny bit less?
This isn't of course the main argument I'm trying to make, but it is just a minor little thing that could help support the wider argument (that her history is not totally irrelevant).

In some cases, it might even establish a pattern that a woman may have been putting herself in compromising situations, and raise the question whether she was really an "innocent little flower". Which would factor into the sentencing.

If the woman suffered two alleged sexual assaults which both transpired in a gentleman's topless nightclub, for example, the judge could probably infer something about the woman and the likelihood of the sort of situation which may have transpired. Past history is not always going to be totally irrelevant. It can suggest certain patterns. (Not that we know for certain, but it indicates likelihoods and probabilities, which should factor into the sentencing decision)

 

Sorry, it's not as simple as that. You cannot deflect from the issue that easily.
In many areas (especially run by progressives, of which you seem to be one), that is NOT going to happen.
So that means we can talk about some rapists getting more punishment than others.

You can't continue to deflect.

What you advocate for will NOT happen. So now we get to talk about this proposal.

Then you should also "not lose any sleep" if the rapist gets more time because the victim was a virgin, correct?

 

we should not attack the victim because she was or was not a virgin, or make her prove she was

 

It was mostly isolated to certain small groups in certain areas. Like the Hollywood crowd, or certain circles of women in Chicago or New York City. Also groups of people who had very transient lifestyles, like travelling entertainers. It mostly started in the 1920s, with a focus on Chicago.

In the 1860s, the majority of women in many parts of the West were prostitutes, since there was an overabundance of men and the gender-ratio was skewed. That and the fact that the poorer more "wild" segment of the population moved West.

It was always certain groups of women.

If you want to discuss this, we should start a separate thread.

 

My proposals do not do any of that.

Giving a rapist more punishment if the victim is a virgin will not "attack the victim because she was not a virgin", nor will it "make her prove she was".
It could still be entirely optional to her whether she's willing to be asked questions related to that.

 

OK I think we need a perspective check here. @FreshAir you have noted repeatedly about rapist getting less punishment if the girl was not a virgin. Now first, we are well aware that you would prefer LWOP. But we are working within the context of the OP, which is based on the idea that there are multiple level of punishment in place in the law. So the question context is IF there is to be this separation, what should the criteria be? Not what should it be for rape, but what should the separation criteria be for such a system.

With that said, the next question for reference and context is how is punishment determined? We can always look from a point of no context and say that is less or that is more. The question is, is that a base line minimum for the crime of rape? If so, then no rapist ever gets less punishment, some only get more. However, if we have a baseline that is not a minimum, and the sentence can go lower than the baseline, then the sentence can be less or more.

 

Ya, once YOU have your say you want to 'start another thread"...

But you could use a thread and a book and an education on history .......sex for fun has been around since humans have been around...,.did you know there was a time
BEFORE the 20th century?

I also notice how you single out women for all that sex.....as if they didn't have sex with MEN ....Ya, MEN weren't having sex just women HILARIOUS...


And maybe yo could address some posts here instead of "making a new thread"

Like :Yes, your defense of rapists is obvious...your numerous threads attempting to minimize rape make it obvious all your sympathy lies with the rapist...and none with the victim


Did you know men get raped....by men...gee, that must be a conundrum for YOU....who's to blame there ????

 

LOL, you are saying a victim has to prove their innocence....doesn't seem like you know much about law...

 

it most certainly does, because your rapists in your example has already taken away the virginity of his victim, how is she gonna prove she was a virgin which is what you want her to have to do

 

"you have noted repeatedly about rapist getting less punishment if the girl was not a virgin."

where have I said that, I said that it can be more harmful to the victim if it's her first time, I never said we should make the victim prove she was a virgin

and all violent rapists should get lwop, period

 

Maybe not but it WILL call the rape of a non-virgin less important....and it isn't.

Basing a woman's worth on whether she's a virgin or not is a sexist, misogynistic, antiquated, backward, nasty premise...and is quite sickening..

 

These are two of the post that were what I was thinking of:

You might not be the only one who has asked these questions in such a way, and I am blending them into one. But you seem to be referring to less time in these two as if taking from a baseline.