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

I didn't give a proposal, I gave a fact...

 

I meant your argument there was a bad one because it was based on a claim that is not true.

(Or did you perhaps mean that there is way to tell for certain about her prior virginity status? It was hard to tell which of my two statements you were specifically responding to)

That doesn't really seem like it constitutes a logical argument against the proposal.

(The "proposal" I am referring to is the one in the opening post, the main thing we are debating in this thread)

 

Why should any woman who is the victim of a rape have to sit in a court room and provide evidence that she is a virgin?

If a woman has reported a rape after it happens and has to go through the whole nasty getting evidence through a rape kit, you can pretty well say she was raped. There is bruising, blood, and other physical evidence that are totally indicative of rape. Most consensual sex does not usually involve violence, bruising, bleeding and so forth.

 

If I answer your question, I will only be repeating myself.

I have already answered and responded to these type of questions multiple times so far in this thread.

The short answer is she doesn't. It's up to her.

 

Well, then you will also trust the woman if she says her virginity was stolen, I presume?

Physical evidence does not always exist. In fact it most often doesn't. And unless the injuries are severe, there is the chance she might have inflicted the injuries on herself to get a man sent to prison. (Or in some rare cases the injury might even have come from another unrelated accident and she viewed that as her opportunity to put in motion a plan she may have been thinking of before the unexpected accident)

 

LOL, and will claim he's not a misogynist..

 

This is an interesting question that I've never seen posed before, but my answer would be no. If you were going to punish someone more for raping a virgin, just punish all rapists more no matter who they rape. Whatever your top end is, double it and then apply it to everyone.

I'm actually fine with the death penalty for rape, as long as their airtight evidence.

 

Well, read the arguments before you have an opinion.

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?

I will assume the answer is yes. Once you see that, you are now on the start of the road to being able to see how a virgin could be more damaged by a rape than another woman of, how shall we say, "poorer repute" would be.

 

Doesn't matter what your subjective determination of "damaged" is. Rape is rape, regardless of who the person being raped is or your opinion of their "repute". If you want to punish a rapist who rapes a virgin more, just punish all the rapists to that extent. And then, as I said, double it.

 

That's not really a logical statement, or it least doesn't comprise a logical argument. Of course, "rape is rape", but what are you actually trying to imply by that? That all rape is the exact same as any other rape, and that no rape is worse than another?
If that is what you were trying to imply, then I will have to respectfully very much disagree with you.

I am loathe to have to repeat again, but the argument is that a woman who has her virginity stolen from her suffers more "damage" than a woman who has already "been around the block" and lives like a hooker.

In many ways the determination of how rape violates the woman is rather subjective too. Just pointing that out.
I don't believe the issue of virginity is that much more subjective than the issue of rape violation.

I think many who say "virginity doesn't matter at all" (as an absolute and universal) are applying a double standard.
(Okay then, if you believe that, what logical consistent argument can you make to prove that rape is so bad?)

 

I don't believe that Junkieturtle was trying to say rapes are all the same. I think it's more about the act of rape itself -- the definition. It's like saying cancer is cancer -- the uncontrollable growth of abnormal cells -- which is the basic definition of cancer. Of course, there are different types and degrees of cancer -- but cancer is cancer. I hope that is clear.

 

Naw...you like repeating it....even if it's not true and illogical and silly.

Nope, every rape is different....and how much sex a woman has had should NOT determine what happens to the PERPRETRATOR SLIME BALL RAPIST..

 

The point is that there are not degrees of rape. There are not lesser versions of rape. Rape is rape.

Well that's a piss poor argument that relies entirely on your subjective value for women you see as less than pure.

The issue of virginity is almost nonsensical when it comes to rape. It is completely irrelevant. You can surely have your own inner thoughts on the degrees of rape that you apparently believe in, but the law should not be making distinctions based on previous sexual activity, or lack thereof, of the man or woman who is raped.

This is like if I was trying to argue that if I go out and kill a child from a family with 8 kids, that's not as bad as if I went out and killed the only child of a different family.

The same argument that can be made about why assault is bad, why murder is bad. You're using violence to harm another individual in a situation that is absolutely not self-defense.

 

Well, then I have to very much disagree with you in the strongest terms. You seem to be viewing this in very black and white terms.

The issue isn't that the woman is worth less. It's that her purity is worth less, one could say. If her purity is worth less, then less purity has been stolen from her.
A common street prostitute who will have sex with anyone hasn't exactly lost her "innocence" if someone has sex with her one day without her consent.

 

Why? Because in your worldview, very few women these days have it or value it?

Well, that is what this whole thread is about, isn't it.

 

Well, I actually think that you are doing more damage to the parents of the only child. But the reason why killing a child is a wrong mainly does not have to do with the impact on the parents. That's only a tiny factor.
That is a terrible analogy, Junkieturtle. I normally welcome absurd and creative hypotheticals and analogies, but that really wasn't a good one.

Let me give you a different analogy. There are two women. Each of them owns a vase. One of those women looks at her vase is about ready to throw it out, but she decides against it. The other woman carefully guards her vase and it is so valuable to her she puts it behind a plexiglass display case with a security system. Now, suppose I steal the vases from both women. Wouldn't you say it is true that the theft has violated the woman more who was not so easily ready to throw her vase out? Both of the women would not have given me consent to take their vase. But one of the women valued her vase far less. She came close to throwing it away, but by a slim margin decided not to. She likely would have even sold it to me for a small amount of money, if I had tried to buy it.