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

I disagree. If it were an ordinary physical assault, and did not have the sexual component, it would not be that bad.

Imagine if I tackled you to the floor and then started rubbing your hand and then maybe urinated a little bit on your hand (bodily fluids). I think everyone would agree that would be nowhere near as bad as a rape.

The fact that you don't seem to view the sexual component as a big deal might suggest more about your personal background.

I am a little bit confused as to what you are saying. You will have to get more specific. How exactly do you think the two combine together to make something worse than the sum of each of them?

That might be true for some victims, but would not be true for others.

I do commend you for your attempts to have a logical discussion.

 

Why do you have to compare the two? Why does it upset you that the perpetrator of one victim should get more punishment than if it had been another victim?

Haven't I already answered this question over and over again in this thread?

 

Ewwwww!

it is still about having power over someone else and that does not always involve penetration

 

Penetration is the main factor in a rape.
If there is no penetration, it's much less bad.

I'm also in a conservative forum and several of the people there are even reluctant to actually consider it to be a "rape" if no penetration occurred (although it still would of course be a sexual assault, or whatever other word you would want to call it).

Penetration is a very big deal. If a perpetrator does everything to a woman that happens in a normal rape but there is no penetration, he might only be sentenced to 3 or 4 years. If, on the other hand, there was penetration, it could be more like 20 or 30 years.

(Well, at least in culturally conservative areas)

 

Yes it is - because it is about loss of control

 

You think a young woman being forced to lose her virginity does not hurt her at all.

 

That is only one aspect of rape. There are additional other aspects.

Maybe to you, loss of control would be by far the worst part of it, but to another woman it might be loss of her virginity.

 

I very much doubt Fox would ever assert that

 

Are you suggesting that somehow prostitutes cannot be raped because they are not virgins?

 

No, of course not.
It is just much less bad, if it happens.

(The perpetrator should still get plenty of punishment of course, all the more so if he did not know that woman had a dubious reputation at the time of the assault)

He has assaulted her and made her feel powerless. He has taken from her her services without paying her. But has he "sexually defiled" her? I would say probably not.

More likely she might feel fear rather than feeling any (new) sense of "dirtiness".

You would agree that a simple physical assault, when the sexual aspect of that assault is near meaningless, is much less bad than a rape?

 

Who are you to judge? It is completely dependent on the circumstances. For far far too many years defence of rape relied on “proving” in court that the victim was a “loose” woman

it still exists today and should be stamped out

Each rape is unique

 

I have not advocated that a woman should have to prove she was a wholesome woman in order for rape charges to stick to her perpetrator.

She would only have to provide evidence of it if she wanted the "virginity enhancement" to stick, on top of the rape charges.

And part of those "circumstances" may involve her past sexual history.
It could make the violation all the worse if she is not the type of woman who has been "around the block".

Um, that is what we are talking about. Judging to give the victim fair and appropriate justice.

 

Well, that doesn't matter itself, but if she claims she was a virgin, it's going to make us much more skeptical about the claim.

 

Yes you are

you are advocating an impossible to prove standard - how would someone “prove” they were a “virgin” prior to the rape? It also stands that if raping a “virgin” gets a longer sentence then those who rape women who are not virgins will get a lesser sentence.

The woman should not be on trial ergo her sexual history is irrelevant

 

Why? She could go to every male stripper joint around and still be a virgin -

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
coming from one who thinks women aren't harmed in rape at all..

I Have never said that so you are now going into the country of MakeBelieve because you have no good argument for rape...

 

What TF!!!


You are advocating a rape sentence based on the rapist's knowledge of the woman's past !!!!??? GoodGawd ....against all reason and laws...

UH, YES, rape is "sexually defiled"....no matter how light YOU make of it.

HOW TF would YOU know how she felt ??? ANSWER : YOU do NOT know.

 

What is a "wholesome woman".... a sexist term from the 19th century....

 

Well, if she's already been "sexually defiled", it's kind of hard to make her more sexually defiled, isn't it?

 

There's no way to absolutely prove she was a virgin. But then again, there's no way to absolutely prove she was actually raped, is there?
I see a double standard here.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
UH, YES, rape is "sexually defiled"....no matter how light YOU make of it.

rape is "sexually defiled"....no matter how light YOU make of it.

So you contend that if a woman has been raped before then the next rape isn't rape?

 

YES, there is.

Oh , noes! YOU see a double standard !!!! So what?

Sad to see you can't see all the posts showing how wrong you are....

 

Places which have a culture that puts more value on virginity and the female's "sexual purity" typically have much longer prison sentences for the crime of rape.
I don't think that's a coincidence.

It may be that, either subconsciously or consciously, that is the reason for the longer prison sentences.

 

Probably in most rape cases there is actually not.
It doesn't prevent the man from being convicted though.

You need to think about this some more, FoxHastings.

Even if there is DNA evidence, we still can't always know if the woman might have slept with him and then falsely accused him of rape afterwards. (It has been known to happen)
There is a whole other discussion we could have about this issue. It would probably be a topic better to have in a separate thread, if you do want to argue about it.

Getting back to the main point, the point is that just because there's no way to prove for certain that the female was a virgin before the sexual assault does not mean we cannot use it as a determining factor in the sentencing (punishment). Because at the same time, we may be sentencing the man for a rape that we have no way to know for certain he actually committed. If we can do one, we can do the other.

So I think your objection to the proposal is not valid, FoxHastings.

 

No, but it IS misogynistic, sexist, antiquated, and really stupid and ignorant.