Rape punishement

[AtheistVirus]

Do you think it's reprehensible to give extremely long jail sentence to a man who forcefully puts his dick into a woman's vagina?

To me it's mind boggling how can someone even equate rape with years or even life of jail time, some would even go so far as to kill the rapist...it's sick.
Just imagine that-->forced penis in vagina=death

I think this is most perverted in USA(along with everything else).

Also I think such punishments damage the rapee, incite beatings and murders instead of just raping.

[premjan]

Basically rape is a form of assault. Also it can cause pregnancy and health complications. It is also more traumatic I think than standard assault. It may be an attack on self-ownership also.

[AtheistVirus]

I think a rape by a masked stranger should be in a totally different category than date turning bad rape.
And even then "masked stranger rape" should be in different category than rape+beating. It shouldn't be treated any differently than aggravated assault.

[ConservativeAtheist]

Rape is a disgusting crime. It isn't as simple as a dick in a vagina. The scientific concensus is that rape is about power and control, not sex. A woman has the right to refuse any man that wishes to have intercourse with her. Without that right, a woman is nothing more than non-human property.

I think rape should be punished by a prison sentance, and violent rape should be punished with longer sentances or even death.

[premjan]

Basically women should have self-determination on whom they have sex with. Rape is an assault on female self-determination regarding the intimate matter of sex. I'm not sure what would count as a male equivalent though. Probably there isn't one - temporary castration perhaps?

[AtheistVirus]

I think rape should be punished by a prison sentance, and violent rape should be punished with longer sentances or even death.

There is something very sick in your mind when you can equate death to non-death actions.

[Brakeu]

Do you think it's reprehensible to give extremely long jail sentence to a man who forcefully puts his dick into a woman's vagina?
Not really. It's basically the most traumatic, horrible thing you can do to someone. The way you say it makes it sound rather mild. It's a shocking, inhuman crime.


To me it's mind boggling how can someone even equate rape with years or even life of jail time, some would even go so far as to kill the rapist...it's sick.
Just imagine that-->forced penis in vagina=death
We're talking about the worst thing you can do to someone, short of extended torture. It's mentally and physically scarring to a degree that is almost unimaginable.


I think this is most perverted in USA(along with everything else).

Also I think such punishments damage the rapee, incite beatings and murders instead of just raping.

So, if we punish people less, they'll rape less hard?:eek:
Okay, let me frame it for you this way;
A guy walks up to you in a dark alley and put a gun to your throat. He slams you to the ground, rip your pants off, jam his unlubricated genitals up your rear, and rips the sensitive lining of your rectum to bleeding pieces over a period of 5 minutes, the whole time ramming the barrel of his gun into the roof of your mouth.. Afterwards, he pistol whips you unconscious.
Would you want him locked away for 6 months?:huh:
A year?:huh:
3 years?:huh:

I would want him locked away for EVER.


Life in prison seems fitting for rape.

[curby]

The scientific concensus is that rape is about power and control, not sex.

Can you provide any evidence (papers, studies, etc.) that this is true?

In my opinion the issue is not as black and white as you make it out to be. From the woman's point of view, rape may very well seem to have very little to do with sex and be more about violent power assertion. But from the rapist's point of view it may really be mostly about sex.


And even then "masked stranger rape" should be in different category than rape+beating. It shouldn't be treated any differently than aggravated assault.


I don't agree. There are very strong evolutionary reasons for women to have evolved a reaction of intense displeasure when being raped, and then at the memory of the rape compared with just assault. So even though a rapist doesn't do more physical harm when raping a woman compared with beating her, he does cause the woman to suffer more.

[Demon]

The scientific concensus is that rape is about power and control, not sex.

Can you provide any evidence (papers, studies, etc.) that this is true?

In my opinion the issue is not as black and white as you make it out to be. From the woman's point of view, rape may very well seem to have very little to do with sex and be more about violent power assertion. But from the rapist's point of view it may really be mostly about sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_rape

http://www.csom.org/train/supervision/short/01_02_03.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3210146

It's a commonly known fact that rape is usually not motivated by sexual desire but by the will to dominate the victim.

Anger rape
Anger rape is characterized by physical brutality with the rapist using far more force than is necessary to subdue the victim. The experience for the offender is one that is of conscious anger and rage. He expresses his rage both physically and verbally upon the victim during the attack. His aim is to hurt and debase his victim. He often shows his contempt through abusive and profane language. The anger rapist considers rape the ultimate offense he can commit against the victim.
[...]


Power rape
The objective of the power rapist is to control the victim, not to harm them. Sexuality becomes a way to compensate for their underlying feelings of inadequacy and feeds their issues of mastery, control, strength, authority and capability. The power rapist relies upon verbal threats, intimidation with a weapon, and only uses the amount of force necessary to subdue his victim.
[...]


Sadistic rape
In the sadistic rape, the rapist transforms anger and power so that aggression becomes sexual and thus eroticized for them. The rapist finds intentional maltreatment of their victim sexually gratifying. The rapist takes pleasure in the victims torment, distress and anguish. Sadistic rape usually involves torture and restraint. Sometimes it can take on ritualistic or other bizarre qualities. The victim's injuries will be primarily focused on the sexual areas of her body; there may be mutilation of these areas.
[...]


Do you think it's reprehensible to give extremely long jail sentence to a man who forcefully puts his dick into a woman's vagina?

To me it's mind boggling how can someone even equate rape with years or even life of jail time, some would even go so far as to kill the rapist...it's sick.
Just imagine that-->forced penis in vagina=death

I think this is most perverted in USA(along with everything else).

Also I think such punishments damage the rapee, incite beatings and murders instead of just raping.


As someone mentioned before, have someone violently shove his dick up your ass in a dark alley until it's bleeding and talk to us again.

It's irrelevant what rapists, child molesters, serial killers and other violent criminals "deserve". Fact is, they have shown themselves to be a threat to society through their actions. If they can't be rehabilitated they need to be kept away from society. Period.

[premjan]

The only thing to keep in mind is whether the "power" factor isn't in some respect a psychological attempt by the rapist to correct a perceived or actual lack of personal power. This doesn't excuse it but turns it into a more sociological rather than purely criminal phenomenon.

[Riley Stone]

Do you think it's reprehensible to give extremely long jail sentence to a man who forcefully puts his dick into a woman's vagina?

To me it's mind boggling how can someone even equate rape with years or even life of jail time, some would even go so far as to kill the rapist...it's sick.
Just imagine that-->forced penis in vagina=death

I think this is most perverted in USA(along with everything else).

Also I think such punishments damage the rapee, incite beatings and murders instead of just raping.

For you, it is "mind-boggling" to think that anyone would consider rape to be such a grave and devastating crime that it would result in the imposition of a grave and devastating consequence.

To me, what is really "mind-boggling" is that an individual would attempt to trivialize the brutality and inhumanity of rape by comparing it to something as innocuous as pestering a person by sticking one's finger into another person’s ear.

Rape is not just “sticking a dick into a woman’s vagina.” It is a behavior that dehumanizes a woman, a behavior that traumatizes her and demeans her by robbing her of her sense of self-esteem and dignity. Rape is a violation of a woman’s sense of autonomy. It is a gross violation of human rights. It is a behavior that is intended to terrorize and humiliate the victim and to reduce the victim to a state of powerlessness. It is a behavior that says: “You are not a person but a piece of property, a piece of property that I own.”

I could not help but notice that even in your description of women who have been raped, you do not refer to them as victims but as "rapees," as if the rapist and the rape victim are somehow partners in a mutually agreed upon dance. This is NOT what rape is.

If you do not understand the serious short-term and long-term damage that is done to a woman when she is raped, then I don’t think you understand the short-term and long-term damage that is done to people when they are treated as if they are objects or as property that can be owned by another person. And if you do not object to the treatment of another human being as an object or as a piece of property, then I would wonder why you would object to any punishment that you think does the same.

Most people in our society, however, disagree with you that rape is a trivial crime, a crime that could be compared to pestering a person by sticking your finger into a person's ear. Most people in our society understand that rape is a gross violation of another human being that has devastating long-term effects, not only on the rape victim, but on all of society. As a society, we agree that we want to deter those who would think that such a behavior is acceptable, and we also wish to prevent such behaviors from reoccurring. The imposition of very serious consequence for a crime that society agrees is grievous and reprehensible serves both of these purposes.

[fast]

I think rape should be punished by a prison sentance, and violent rape should be punished with longer sentances or even death.

There is something very sick in your mind when you can equate death to non-death actions.I personally think that ten years is generally an appropriate punishment for the typical act of rape, but then again, if it happened to someone I care deeply for, then I might kill police officers should they try to stand in my way of killing the son of a bitch, so you can add me to the list of people quite capable of personally redefining what the word, “sick” really means.

Oh, and I’m a Christian, so you know I’m capable of making it a tad more cruel than usual, as I can repent later.

[AtheistVirus]

You missed a few things, I said there should be differentiation between 3 types of rape:
1.date turning bad rape
2.masked stranger rape
3.2.rape+beating

Also when rape is committed by young men in a non-violent manner they should get psychological treatment instead of jail sentence. Don't you think it's sick to send 20-something year old to jail for a long time because of one mistake?

And what about the forced victimization of raped persons, there have been studies made that confirm how social constructs greatly effect the extent of psychological damage in rape victims. Talking about power trip...

An I presume we can all agree how ridiculous statutory rape is. Just a long line of artificial social constructs that do more harm than good because of very primitive notions of morality.:banghead:

[mrunicycler]

I had a boss once who liked to say this about rapists:

You put them in a barnful of hay. You strap their dick to the floor in such a way that there is no way to remove the locking mechanism.

You soak the hay in gasoline and light it.

On your way out, give the rapist a dull, rusty knife, and let him choose his fate.

That doesn't seem too rough to me.

Something that hasn't been mentionned clearly enough is the trauma caused not just to the woman, but also her spouse. The idea of another man being with your wife is a very damaging thing to a husband.

Here's a website I found that seems to give an idea to how traumatic an action rape is to its victims:

http://www.rape.co.za/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

[mrunicycler]

Also when rape is committed by young men in a non-violent manner they should get psychological treatment instead of jail sentence. Don't you think it's sick to send 20-something year old to jail for a long time because of one mistake?



They should get psychological treatment PLUS jail sentence.

That they're 20 something does not excuse their actions.

[fast]

You missed a few things, I said there should be differentiation between 3 types of rape:
1.date turning bad rape
2.masked stranger rape
3.2.rape+beating

Also when rape is committed by young men in a non-violent manner they should get psychological treatment instead of jail sentence. Don't you think it's sick to send 20-something year old to jail for a long time because of one mistake?

And what about the forced victimization of raped persons, there have been studies made that confirm how social constructs greatly effect the extent of psychological damage in rape victims. Talking about power trip...

An I presume we can all agree how ridiculous statutory rape is. Just a long line of artificial social constructs that do more harm than good because of very primitive notions of morality.:banghead:

I would need to know the details. Some instances of what is pawned off as rape probably shouldn't be described as such. For example, a 19 year old guy and a 16 year old girl getting it on in the back seat such that she kinda wants to but isn't sure yet decides to but says stop while in progress whereas he waits 10 seconds because he's in climax, then well, no may mean no, but uh, he doesn't exactly need either long jail time let alone death in such a situation. That's for sure. Such 'rape' is certainly of a lesser kind than I conjure up when I hear rape.

In that situation, not immediately stopping (though unacceptable) isn’t my idea of a heinous violation that ought to warrant the emotions that would generally accompany violent unwanted rape.

Masked stranger rape is much worst and ought to certainly bring considerable jail time. Again, ten years. Not twenty—just my opinion.

[DancesWithCoffeeCups]

Can you provide any evidence (papers, studies, etc.) that this is true?

In my opinion the issue is not as black and white as you make it out to be. From the woman's point of view, rape may very well seem to have very little to do with sex and be more about violent power assertion. But from the rapist's point of view it may really be mostly about sex.

Except that it isn't.

Rape: Power, Anger and Sexuality (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/11/1239)

"Accounts from both offenders and victims of what occurs during a rape suggest that issues of power, anger, and sexuality are important in understanding the rapist's behavior. All three issues seem to operate in every rape, but the proportion varies and one issue seems to dominate in each instance. The authors ranked accounts from 133 offenders and 92 victims for the dominant issue and found that the offenses could be categorized as power rape (sexuality used primarily to express power) or anger rape (use of sexuality to express anger). There were no rapes in which sex was the dominant issue; sexuality was always in the service of other, nonsexual needs."

Men Who Rape: The Psychology of the Offender (http://books.google.com/books?id=hUCUg02fqCgC&dq=rape+is+about+power&pg=PP1&ots=6dHaPhwVP6&source=citation&sig=1KsI1gpG2jFXk_ITdROWWBXPKvU&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Drape%2Bis%2Babout%2Bpower%26sourceid%3Dnavclient-ff%26ie%3DUTF-8%26rlz%3D1B3GGGL_enUS177US230&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=2&cad=bottom-3results#PPA2,M1)

Page down to "Rape: A Pseudosexual Act" (Page 2)

[Unbeatable]

Do you think it's reprehensible to give extremely long jail sentence to a man who forcefully puts his dick into a woman's vagina?

I wouldn't use the word "reprehensible", but I'm definitely opposed to extremely long prison sentences. Might as well allow them the mercy of death's sweet embrace if you're going to waste most to all of their life anyway.

To me it's mind boggling how can someone even equate rape with years or even life of jail time, some would even go so far as to kill the rapist...it's sick.

I think the whole idea of trying to "equate" a crime with a punishment is just absurd and backwards monkey logic. You put criminals in prison to protect the public from them. You release them when it is deemed safe to do so. That's the way it should work. The voices clamoring for life imprisonment or execution are usually just vengeance speaking, and the opinions of the vengeful are not a valid basis for deciding the fate of a criminal, or anything else. Both criminals and people suffering from vengefulness need counseling.

Just imagine that-->forced penis in vagina=death

Don't knock death. Death is not bad. Death kills two birds with one stone-- puts the criminal out of society's misery, and puts the criminal out of his own misery. Death ends suffering on both ends. People of course still fear death, which I suppose might make it a deterrent, but after they die, they have no worries. You can't say the same about rape or being put in prison. Death is good, in my book. If I ever get around to killing people, I'll do it in a death penalty state.

But I agree with you that death is not necessarily warranted for a rapist. Death only makes sense as a replacement for life in prison, since life is such an utterly pointless and cruel sentence.

Also I think such punishments damage the rapee, incite beatings and murders instead of just raping.

Well, of course. But doesn't the public want that? I'm against causing suffering unless it serves a specific useful end, like aversive conditioning, but most of the public just wants vengeance.

[Riley Stone]

personally think that ten years is generally an appropriate punishment for the typical act of rape, but then again, if it happened to someone I care deeply for, then I might kill police officers should they try to stand in my way of killing the son of a bitch, so you can add me to the list of people quite capable of personally redefining what the word, “sick” really means.

Oh, and I’m a Christian, so you know I’m capable of making it a tad more cruel than usual, as I can repent later.

Hopefully, you were joking, but even if you were, I'm not sure I find the remark to be very funny. I'm sure there are Christians who actually do think this way. And some of these Christians may very well adopt this sort of thinking and use it as a justification to--oh I don't know--rape a woman.

The Christian could always repent later. Right?

This probably would be better discussed in another thread (and I think I may even begin a thread based on this question) but for now, let me just ask you this question in a rhetorical manner: As a Christian, do you think the death penalty would serve as an effective deterrent for Christians who rape women? (Of course, I'm not saying all Christians rape women. I'm just asking about the appropriateness of the death penalty for Christians who do rape women.) I'm not sure that for a Christian, the death penalty would be particularly effective, since he might see it as more of a reward. i.e. he would go to heaven immediately after he died.

If a Christian rapist thought that he would definitely get the death penalty if he were caught, then he might see himself in a win/win situation. Either he rapes a woman and gets away with it, or he rapes a woman, gets caught, dies by lethal injection, and goes immediately to heaven where he receives a personal welcome home from Jesus.

[Tigers!]

But from the rapist's point of view it may really be mostly about sex.

Who cares about the rapist's point of view? I'm far more concerned about the victim.

[Tigers!]

Might as well allow them the mercy of death's sweet embrace if you're going to waste most to all of their life anyway.


I am not going to waste most of their life, they're going to waste most of their life.

In Australia at least the penalty for rape does not seem to be very long, most rapists would be lucky to serve 14 years.
Not much of a penalty for ruining the life of their victim and their family and friends.

[1997]

No, I wouldn't consider punishment in most cases of rape. Recidivism is very low. The state/community should consider the nature of the rapist, not their behaviour. Moderate risk individuals could be given the option of partaking in some kind of perpetrator - mediator - victim liaison, to avoid the possibility of a record.

Rape is very often a circus of guilt conditioning and iatrogenesis, based upon extant misogynistic and sex-phobic principles that we have failed to discard of because of the seriousness of the crime. I see no fundamental, organic basis for assuming that violent rape is anything more than a rather unpleasant and potentially risky form of physical assault.

Thus, I feel that this may be the "last bastion" of Victorian society's culturally-induced victimisation of women.

[1997]

I think this is most perverted in USA(along with everything else).
The Americans have a series of extremely backward and in fact rather dangerous ideas concerning any sort of crime they consider to be "tainted" with "sex".

The comedy is the contrived, hysteria-based artifice of it all, and the tragedy is that most of them actually believe in it.

[Tigers!]

No, I wouldn't consider punishment in most cases of rape. Recidivism is very low.
Very noble of you not to consider punishment. IYHO which cases of rape aren't worth punishing?
So all those repeat rapists are just a statistical aberration and we should ignore them and hope they will go away?
The state/community should consider the nature of the rapist, not their behaviour.
If the nature of the rapist results in their behaivour then I don't want that nature any near my wife or daughter.

Moderate risk individuals could be given the option of partaking in some kind of perpetrator - mediator - victim liaison, to avoid the possibility of a record.
Moderate risk = rapist. Tell their victim that they have been horribly assaulted and violated by a moderate risk individual?
Pray tell. What do you consider to be dangerous risk? Someone who farts out loud in the street?

Rape is very often a circus of guilt conditioning and iatrogenesis, based upon extant misogynistic and sex-phobic principles that we have failed to discard of because of the seriousness of the crime. I see no fundamental, organic basis for assuming that violent rape is anything more than a rather unpleasant and potentially risky form of physical assault.

Thus, I feel that this may be the "last bastion" of Victorian society's culturally-induced victimisation of women.

[fencingmatt]

I 100% agree with the OP. Personally, I think that the whole concept of punishment is damaging to society. More effort needs to be put into working out why people commit horible crimes and how the suffering of the victims can be lessened. I actually believe that the majority of rapists are not evil people. Perhaps they are mentally ill (yes, sexual perversions/addictions are classed as a mental illness) or maybe they just lose control in a moment of madness. We must remember that sometimes good people do evil things. Punishment should be based on the intentions of the person, how likely they are to reoffend and whether they are sorry, and NOT how much suffering they have caused. Punishing the offender cannot undo the victim's suffering but trying to figure out why it happened in the first place can prevent that suffering being caused to another person in the future. We should be aiming to better the human race, not isolate those individuals we consider evil.

[fast]

Hopefully, you were joking, but even if you were, I'm not sure I find the remark to be very funny. I need to know specifically which remark you're talking about. There's at least a couple in there that may need explaining.

I'm sure there are Christians who actually do think this way. And some of these Christians may very well adopt this sort of thinking and use it as a justification to--oh I don't know--rape a woman.
At first, I thought you were talking about the police (which I can actually explain), but if you're talking about my last line, I was referring to killing the perpetrator of the crime--not raping a woman. A person who rapes ought to suffer the consequences of his immoral act, so repenting doesn't absolve one from his legal sentence.

The Christian could always repent later. Right?
A Christian can ask God for forgiveness, sure, but he that rapes another still has to sit in judgment of others for his crime. That one can repent later isn't justification for doing what's wrong. To justify an act is to show how an act is right. People often times "try to justify their immoral actions"; hence the word, "try". They try, but they fail. It isn't a justification.

As a Christian, do you think the death penalty would serve as an effective deterrent for Christians who rape women? No.

I'm just asking about the appropriateness of the death penalty for Christians who do rape women.)It's not appropriate. It's wrong. The death penalty is wrong. I'm not always against the death penalty, but then again, I'm not always as moral as I ought to be.

i'm not sure that for a Christian, the death penalty would be particularly effective, since he might see it as more of a reward. i.e. he would go to heaven immediately after he died. This is so far removed from how things are that it's irrelevant. So very few people would ever be motivated to rape so they could get the death penalty after repenting so they could go to heaven.

[anders]

I think rape should be punished by a prison sentance, and violent rape should be punished with longer sentances or even death.

There is something very sick in your mind when you can equate death to non-death actions.
I haven't tried to find any statistics, but I'm certain that the number of women who suicide after a rape is way larger than you think.

[Condraz23]

I don't think many people actually understand the traumatizing effects of being raped. Claiming that rape is about a penis going into a vagina is comparable to saying that force feeding is about food going into a mouth. Sure, it's technically true, but the physical act is entirely irrelevant in the context of the situation. In reality, rape has got nothing to do with sex and force feeding has got nothing to do with food. Otherwise, they would both be enjoyable. Instead, the horror comes from the fact that somebody else has total power and control over your body. That's why it's so traumatizing. Now, when I was young, it was difficult to understand the nature of rape. The comparision with force feeding works perfectly.

So whenever anybody talks about rape, think about this picture...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Djuna_Barnes_Clipping.jpg

[ConservativeAtheist]

I think rape should be punished by a prison sentance, and violent rape should be punished with longer sentances or even death.

There is something very sick in your mind when you can equate death to non-death actions.

Define non-death actions for me, please. If you mean that torturing, maming and defiling someone to the brink of death, but not technically killing them is a non-death action...then something is really sick in your mind, in my humble opinion.

Your comment makes it seem that there should be no death-penalty unless the criminal actually killed someone. That make no sense to me. Some criminals cannot be reformed, they will simply continue to commit violent crimes if released into the general public. Why should the taxpayers pay to support a human that is "broken" and cannot function in normal society? Why not take them out of the gene pool by putting them down?

You also seem to have a deep-seeded problem with women. Why don't you see that women are humans and have rights to decide who they have sex with? Date rape or violent rape...no means no...and any man that does not abide by that should be punished severly. If you were raped...regardless of whether or not the man was your friend or a stranger, regardless of whether or not he did it gentle or beat you unconscious while ramming his penis into your anus...you would want that man punished.

[sy2502]

I 100% agree with the OP. Personally, I think that the whole concept of punishment is damaging to society.
And why is that? You don't believe there should be consequences to one's actions? You think anybody should be free of doing what they want even when it infringes on the rights of others? You don't believe in the deterrent value of having punishment for crimes? You think criminals should be allowed to continue prey on good citizens? What kind of concept of justice do you have exactly?


More effort needs to be put into working out why people commit horible crimes and how the suffering of the victims can be lessened.
Once we work out that rapists do what they do because they are sociopaths, what do you propose we do? And here is the best way to lessen the suffering of victims: having as few victims as possible. How do you do that? You lock up the rapist after the first time, so that there are no more victims after that. I bet you hadn't thought of that one!

I actually believe that the majority of rapists are not evil people. Perhaps they are mentally ill (yes, sexual perversions/addictions are classed as a mental illness) or maybe they just lose control in a moment of madness. We must remember that sometimes good people do evil things.
The goodness or badness of a person is determined by his actions. Evil deed = bad person. Frankly I don't care if you want to call it "evil" or "illness" the net result is the same, that is causing terrible anguish to others.

Punishment should be based on the intentions of the person, how likely they are to reoffend and whether they are sorry, and NOT how much suffering they have caused.
Punishment is based on actions. You may be 100% in favor of rape, and think there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, you won't get punished for that. But if you act on your belief, you deserve punishment. Punishment should ABSOLUTELY depend on the likelihood of re-offending, otherwise you are saying you don't care that other people are going to be victimized by that criminal. Locking people up is not just about punishment, it's about protecting the law-abiding society from the criminals. I find it a worthy goal. Finally, why shouldn't punishment be proportional to the magnitude of the crime? I really don't understand what kind of concept of justice (if any) you have.

Punishing the offender cannot undo the victim's suffering but trying to figure out why it happened in the first place can prevent that suffering being caused to another person in the future. We should be aiming to better the human race, not isolate those individuals we consider evil.
Punishing the offender is a way of telling the victim that what happened to her was not ok, and was not socially nor morally acceptable. If you don't think that is a good thing, then once again, your concept of justice is entirely alien. I agree that prevention is the best remedy, but what are you going to do, genetic screening for sociopathic behavior? Abortion for the fetuses that show propensity? What? While you figure that out, I can assure you that locking up criminals is the best way to prevent them from doing it again, at least while they are locked up. Society has every right to defend itself against those who disrupt it and hurt its members. If you don't live according to basic principles of social interactions, you have no right to be in that society. Since we can't ship criminals to a deserted island, we have to lock them up.

[Sapho]

I 100% agree with the OP. Personally, I think that the whole concept of punishment is damaging to society. More effort needs to be put into working out why people commit horible crimes and how the suffering of the victims can be lessened. I actually believe that the majority of rapists are not evil people. Perhaps they are mentally ill (yes, sexual perversions/addictions are classed as a mental illness) or maybe they just lose control in a moment of madness. We must remember that sometimes good people do evil things. Punishment should be based on the intentions of the person, how likely they are to reoffend and whether they are sorry, and NOT how much suffering they have caused. Punishing the offender cannot undo the victim's suffering but trying to figure out why it happened in the first place can prevent that suffering being caused to another person in the future. We should be aiming to better the human race, not isolate those individuals we consider evil.

If you ignore the suffering of the victim in sentencing the perp, you compound that suffering, because it shows that you dont give a shit about the victim. For justice to take place there must be some form of restitution from the perp.

[thebeave]

Rape is a horrible crime that certainly deserves prison time, like any kind of assault. However, there's something that I just can't seem wrap my head around. Women having rape fantasies. There is no shortage of women who fantasize about being raped. Search in IIDB and you will see stories of women here who have fantasized about it, and guys who have been asked to engage in rape fantasies by their wives/girlfriends (many of who are very reluctant or even horrified at the prospect of doing so). And from what I have heard, this is not even considered to be abnormal. You would think it would be a sign of extremely low self esteem or perhaps some serious past child sexual or violent abuse, but I've been told its not. How is it that something can be so heinous and horrific on one hand, but also seen by many as great pleasure? It would be like me fantasizing about being beat up by thugs, or homosexually raped. It makes no sense. :huh:

Also, let's suppose a woman who has rape fantasies is actually raped in real life, and it ranks as the most pleasurable moment in her life. If the rapist gets caught, should he endure a long prison sentence for giving the woman pleasure? If you were the woman, would/should you press charges? Would you feel guilty for sending him to prison? This can really get weird.

[premjan]

Well, men have S&M fantasies too.

[credoconsolans]

Rape is a horrible crime that certainly deserves prison time, like any kind of assault. However, there's something that I just can't seem wrap my head around. Women having rape fantasies. There is no shortage of women who fantasize about being raped. Search in IIDB and you will see stories of women here who have fantasized about it, and guys who have been asked to engage in rape fantasies by their wives/girlfriends (many of who are very reluctant or even horrified at the prospect of doing so). And from what I have heard, this is not even considered to be abnormal. You would think it would be a sign of extremely low self esteem or perhaps some serious past child sexual or violent abuse, but I've been told its not. How is it that something can be so heinous and horrific on one hand, but also seen by many as great pleasure? It would be like me fantasizing about being beat up by thugs, or homosexually raped. It makes no sense. :huh:

Also, let's suppose a woman who has rape fantasies is actually raped in real life, and it ranks as the most pleasurable moment in her life. If the rapist gets caught, should he endure a long prison sentence for giving the woman pleasure? If you were the woman, would/should you press charges? Would you feel guilty for sending him to prison? This can really get weird.

I"m not sure where I read this or how substantiated it is, but a rape fantasy - I can't emphasize the word fantasy enough - is a subconscious desire for sex without the responsibility of having to decide to have it. It seems to be a result of the suppression of women's sexuality. Women are not as free to explore our sexuality and follow our libidos without society coming down on us negatively, so we fantasize about rape - hey, if we didn't ask for it, it isn't our fault/responsibility.

Believe me, in the majority of women's rape fantasies, there is hardly ever anyone threatening to kill us. It doesn't hurt and you're never in fear of your life. That differs quite substantially from the real thing. Please take note of this. A woman who is truly raped is never going to consider it the most pleasurable moment of her life. Try to differentiate between reality and fantasy.

[spikepipsqueak]

Rape is a horrible crime that certainly deserves prison time, like any kind of assault. However, there's something that I just can't seem wrap my head around. Women having rape fantasies. There is no shortage of women who fantasize about being raped. Search in IIDB and you will see stories of women here who have fantasized about it, and guys who have been asked to engage in rape fantasies by their wives/girlfriends (many of who are very reluctant or even horrified at the prospect of doing so). And from what I have heard, this is not even considered to be abnormal. You would think it would be a sign of extremely low self esteem or perhaps some serious past child sexual or violent abuse, but I've been told its not. How is it that something can be so heinous and horrific on one hand, but also seen by many as great pleasure? It would be like me fantasizing about being beat up by thugs, or homosexually raped. It makes no sense. :huh:

Also, let's suppose a woman who has rape fantasies is actually raped in real life, and it ranks as the most pleasurable moment in her life. If the rapist gets caught, should he endure a long prison sentence for giving the woman pleasure? If you were the woman, would/should you press charges? Would you feel guilty for sending him to prison? This can really get weird.

Not a rape fantasiser, myself, so open to contradiction, but I would be surprised if anyone fantasises about being genuinely brutalised.

I assume it is more in the bodice-ripper genre of plot and asking a partner to act it out is an expression of ultimate trust.

I think it really unlikely that a real rape would rank as "the most pleasurable moment in her life" (not sure if you're somehow joking) but very sure that the intention of the rapist is to inflict pain and fear and that the victim's status as a human being does not enter into the equation. It would be on those factors that I would base my assessment of the crime.

[thebeave]

Rape is a horrible crime that certainly deserves prison time, like any kind of assault. However, there's something that I just can't seem wrap my head around. Women having rape fantasies. There is no shortage of women who fantasize about being raped. Search in IIDB and you will see stories of women here who have fantasized about it, and guys who have been asked to engage in rape fantasies by their wives/girlfriends (many of who are very reluctant or even horrified at the prospect of doing so). And from what I have heard, this is not even considered to be abnormal. You would think it would be a sign of extremely low self esteem or perhaps some serious past child sexual or violent abuse, but I've been told its not. How is it that something can be so heinous and horrific on one hand, but also seen by many as great pleasure? It would be like me fantasizing about being beat up by thugs, or homosexually raped. It makes no sense. :huh:

Also, let's suppose a woman who has rape fantasies is actually raped in real life, and it ranks as the most pleasurable moment in her life. If the rapist gets caught, should he endure a long prison sentence for giving the woman pleasure? If you were the woman, would/should you press charges? Would you feel guilty for sending him to prison? This can really get weird.

I"m not sure where I read this or how substantiated it is, but a rape fantasy - I can't emphasize the word fantasy enough - is a subconscious desire for sex without the responsibility of having to decide to have it. It seems to be a result of the suppression of women's sexuality. Women are not as free to explore our sexuality and follow our libidos without society coming down on us negatively, so we fantasize about rape - hey, if we didn't ask for it, it isn't our fault/responsibility.

Believe me, in the majority of women's rape fantasies, there is hardly ever anyone threatening to kill us. It doesn't hurt and you're never in fear of your life. That differs quite substantially from the real thing. Please take note of this. A woman who is truly raped is never going to consider it the most pleasurable moment of her life. Try to differentiate between reality and fantasy.

You are talking about rape as a sex fantasy, but isn't rape a crime of violence, making rape fantasy a fantasy about violence? At any rate, I thought like you in that one must differentiate between reality and fantasy, but I struggle with this because, as for myself, I can't really think of fantasies that I have (sex, food, travel, adventure, etc) that I wouldn't want to experience in real life. It's just a weird concept for me to fantasize about something, but would be seriously appalled and horrified if it actually happened in real life.

[Loren Pechtel]

Rape is a horrible crime that certainly deserves prison time, like any kind of assault. However, there's something that I just can't seem wrap my head around. Women having rape fantasies. There is no shortage of women who fantasize about being raped. Search in IIDB and you will see stories of women here who have fantasized about it, and guys who have been asked to engage in rape fantasies by their wives/girlfriends (many of who are very reluctant or even horrified at the prospect of doing so). And from what I have heard, this is not even considered to be abnormal. You would think it would be a sign of extremely low self esteem or perhaps some serious past child sexual or violent abuse, but I've been told its not. How is it that something can be so heinous and horrific on one hand, but also seen by many as great pleasure? It would be like me fantasizing about being beat up by thugs, or homosexually raped. It makes no sense. :huh:

I saw an explanation that seems quite reasonable although I don't have the knowledge to evaluate it:

We tend to see sex as something dirty and wrong. Yet we also find sex very enjoyable. One possible way to resolve this dichotomy is rape fantasy. If you're not agreeing to do it it can't be wrong, you get to enjoy it without the guilt.

Of course this only applies to those who have at least some guilt about it.

Also, let's suppose a woman who has rape fantasies is actually raped in real life, and it ranks as the most pleasurable moment in her life. If the rapist gets caught, should he endure a long prison sentence for giving the woman pleasure? If you were the woman, would/should you press charges? Would you feel guilty for sending him to prison? This can really get weird.

Except she wouldn't. In a rape fantasy situation she would actually still be in control.

[Loren Pechtel]

Believe me, in the majority of women's rape fantasies, there is hardly ever anyone threatening to kill us. It doesn't hurt and you're never in fear of your life. That differs quite substantially from the real thing. Please take note of this. A woman who is truly raped is never going to consider it the most pleasurable moment of her life. Try to differentiate between reality and fantasy.

What about an extreme masochist?

[credoconsolans]

Believe me, in the majority of women's rape fantasies, there is hardly ever anyone threatening to kill us. It doesn't hurt and you're never in fear of your life. That differs quite substantially from the real thing. Please take note of this. A woman who is truly raped is never going to consider it the most pleasurable moment of her life. Try to differentiate between reality and fantasy.

What about an extreme masochist?

In what context?

[credoconsolans]

I"m not sure where I read this or how substantiated it is, but a rape fantasy - I can't emphasize the word fantasy enough - is a subconscious desire for sex without the responsibility of having to decide to have it. It seems to be a result of the suppression of women's sexuality. Women are not as free to explore our sexuality and follow our libidos without society coming down on us negatively, so we fantasize about rape - hey, if we didn't ask for it, it isn't our fault/responsibility.

Believe me, in the majority of women's rape fantasies, there is hardly ever anyone threatening to kill us. It doesn't hurt and you're never in fear of your life. That differs quite substantially from the real thing. Please take note of this. A woman who is truly raped is never going to consider it the most pleasurable moment of her life. Try to differentiate between reality and fantasy.

You are talking about rape as a sex fantasy, but isn't rape a crime of violence, making rape fantasy a fantasy about violence? At any rate, I thought like you in that one must differentiate between reality and fantasy, but I struggle with this because, as for myself, I can't really think of fantasies that I have (sex, food, travel, adventure, etc) that I wouldn't want to experience in real life. It's just a weird concept for me to fantasize about something, but would be seriously appalled and horrified if it actually happened in real life.

Anything can be made into a fantasy. That doesn't change the nature of reality. People enjoy sitting down and watching action/adventure movies, don't they? Seeing the good guys take out the bad guys in imaginative ways? Isn't that fantasy? Gaming, first gun shooters is nothing but fantasy. But I'm sure faced with reality, the majority would be very sick at the sight of people getting mowed down by machine gun fire, etc., not really caring if they were bad guys or not.

[thebeave]

You are talking about rape as a sex fantasy, but isn't rape a crime of violence, making rape fantasy a fantasy about violence? At any rate, I thought like you in that one must differentiate between reality and fantasy, but I struggle with this because, as for myself, I can't really think of fantasies that I have (sex, food, travel, adventure, etc) that I wouldn't want to experience in real life. It's just a weird concept for me to fantasize about something, but would be seriously appalled and horrified if it actually happened in real life.

Anything can be made into a fantasy. That doesn't change the nature of reality. People enjoy sitting down and watching action/adventure movies, don't they? Seeing the good guys take out the bad guys in imaginative ways? Isn't that fantasy? Gaming, first gun shooters is nothing but fantasy. But I'm sure faced with reality, the majority would be very sick at the sight of people getting mowed down by machine gun fire, etc., not really caring if they were bad guys or not.

You have a point there. But in your examples, you are not a suffering victim in the fantasy. In the rape fantasy, you fantasize about being the victim of an act of violence, even if you don't really want it IRL. That just strikes me as very odd. Maybe I just don't get it, since I don't have a female brain.

[sy2502]

Rape is a horrible crime that certainly deserves prison time, like any kind of assault. However, there's something that I just can't seem wrap my head around. Women having rape fantasies. There is no shortage of women who fantasize about being raped. Search in IIDB and you will see stories of women here who have fantasized about it, and guys who have been asked to engage in rape fantasies by their wives/girlfriends (many of who are very reluctant or even horrified at the prospect of doing so). And from what I have heard, this is not even considered to be abnormal. You would think it would be a sign of extremely low self esteem or perhaps some serious past child sexual or violent abuse, but I've been told its not. How is it that something can be so heinous and horrific on one hand, but also seen by many as great pleasure? It would be like me fantasizing about being beat up by thugs, or homosexually raped. It makes no sense. :huh:

Also, let's suppose a woman who has rape fantasies is actually raped in real life, and it ranks as the most pleasurable moment in her life. If the rapist gets caught, should he endure a long prison sentence for giving the woman pleasure? If you were the woman, would/should you press charges? Would you feel guilty for sending him to prison? This can really get weird.

I am not one of them, so I can't help you understand why some women would fantasize about it. But fantasy is its own realm. I am pretty sure even those women who fantasize about being rape would not enjoy the real thing any more than you would enjoy being bashed across the head with a baseball bat. One thing I can probably assure you of is that no actual victim of rape recalls the event with fondness, nor would they count it as a sexual fantasy.
For those who mentioned S&M, the whole point is that you are consenting to it, and you are never in real mortal danger, it is just a game that you are willingly play. It is miles away from being coerced under threat of death.

[doubtingt]

Do you think it's reprehensible to give extremely long jail sentence to a man who forcefully puts his dick into a woman's vagina?



Do you think its reprehensible that most rapists never get punished at all, or that a large % of them who are caught are released only to rape again?

Your outrage seems disturbingly misplaced.

First, being raped causes severe psychological harm leading to 5-10 fold increases in accute and lifetime clinical depression, alcohol and drug abuse, and attempted and successful suicide. So, actually in many cases the rapist is ultimately responsible for their victims death.
IMO this means that a rapists' punishments should be given as though they did in fact cause these harms to each of these victims. This would more than justify years in prison. In fact, given the high probability of repeat offense, I think all sentences should be indefinite with release only occuring after thorough psych assessment deems the person a low probability repeater.

I am directing these comments at rape that is unquestionably physically coerced sex. About the only thing I agree with you on is that there are some things that currently fall under the broad category of "rape" that should be treated differently, but your dismissal of the severity and immorality of what even you would concede is "real rape" is the real issue.

[ZeusTKP]

I agree that society's attitude towards a rape victim makes the effect of the rape much worse, but that doesn't excuse the rapist. The rapist should know what the aftermath will be, so he should pay in full. Though I can't say what that should entail.

[credoconsolans]

Anything can be made into a fantasy. That doesn't change the nature of reality. People enjoy sitting down and watching action/adventure movies, don't they? Seeing the good guys take out the bad guys in imaginative ways? Isn't that fantasy? Gaming, first gun shooters is nothing but fantasy. But I'm sure faced with reality, the majority would be very sick at the sight of people getting mowed down by machine gun fire, etc., not really caring if they were bad guys or not.

You have a point there. But in your examples, you are not a suffering victim in the fantasy. In the rape fantasy, you fantasize about being the victim of an act of violence, even if you don't really want it IRL. That just strikes me as very odd. Maybe I just don't get it, since I don't have a female brain.

Not necessarily. Isn't the goal of creating any movie's protagonist is to help the audience find empathy with them? So the audience can feel the hero's pain/suffering and understand what it would be like to be in her position? An audience can experience catharsis watching such movies - feel good movies, many are called - because they felt themselves in the same position as the hero and thus shared in the satisfaction of how the end ties up nicely for the hero - getting revenge/justice/whatever. The audience shares in the feeling of victimization in such movies or games so they can feel the triumph of ending up victorious over their situation/enemy, etc.

[linwood]

To me it's mind boggling how can someone even equate rape with years or even life of jail time, some would even go so far as to kill the rapist...it's sick.
Just imagine that-->forced penis in vagina=death


I don`t have a problem with any of the punishments mentioned above for the crime of rape.
Rape is the only completely morally objective crime I can think of.


There is something very sick in your mind when you can equate death to non-death actions.

Then I am a VERY sick individual as I easily equate in such a manner about many crimes.


he scientific concensus is that rape is about power and control, not sex.


I get tired of hearing this.
Yes, rape is about power but it is also very much about sex.
If it wasn`t rapists would be able to find different avenues for their power trip.
Sex is an integral part of rape in both the victims and the rapists minds.


Don't you think it's sick to send 20-something year old to jail for a long time because of one mistake?


No.
Rape is not a "mistake" ever.
It`s an intentional act that deserves some jail time always...every time.


You put them in a barnful of hay. You strap their dick to the floor in such a way that there is no way to remove the locking mechanism.

You soak the hay in gasoline and light it.

On your way out, give the rapist a dull, rusty knife, and let him choose his fate.


I like the way your old boss thinks.


The state/community should consider the nature of the rapist, not their behaviour.


The act of rape explicitly shows the nature of the rapist.
The least physically violent of all rapists should still gain jail time for their utter disregard of anothers rights in order satisfy their own sexual power trip.
This type of extreme narcissism and lack of empathy is an unacceptable danger to society.


I see no fundamental, organic basis for assuming that violent rape is anything more than a rather unpleasant and potentially risky form of physical assault.


So it matters not to you what psychological damage is caused by rape simply because you disprove of the origins you "believe" those psychological problems stem from?
This leaves no one to account for those psychological problems.
They don`t matter since you don`t think they should exist in the first place huh?
"Organic" is an odd term to use here, I assume you mean material or physical basis.


The Americans have a series of extremely backward and in fact rather dangerous ideas concerning any sort of crime they consider to be "tainted" with "sex".


Thats odd as I`m American and the fact that rape involves sex has nothing to do with why I believe it to be one of the most reprehensible crimes committed.

If my wife were raped it wouldn`t bother me an iota that a strange man had his penis in her, hell it wouldn`t bother me if she willingly had a strange mans penis in her.

What would bother me are the emotional life altering ramifications of either act.
Not the sex.

Bad generalisation there.


We should be aiming to better the human race, not isolate those individuals we consider evil.


I would argue that isolating those individuals who cannot live without harming innocent members of our society IS bettering the human race.


However, there's something that I just can't seem wrap my head around. Women having rape fantasies.


Women who have rape fantasies don`t want to be actually brutally raped .
Many don`t want to be raped at all.
"It`s a fantasy".
It`s fun to fantasize about for some but they`d never enjoy an actual rape.
The irony is that the women who wish to be controlled in their fantasies have compete control of those fantasies.
Take that control away and see how long that fantasy lasts.

[spikepipsqueak]

Just want to say how much I agree with you and to add in reference to this


Thats odd as I`m American and the fact that rape involves sex has nothing to do with why I believe it to be one of the most reprehensible crimes committed.

If my wife were raped it wouldn`t bother me an iota that a strange man had his penis in her, hell it wouldn`t bother me if she willingly had a strange mans penis in her.

What would bother me are the emotional life altering ramifications of either act.
Not the sex.

that the stance which regards women as property (and which you clearly don't subscribe to :notworthy:), and its various ramifications through history, is part of why rape is so emotionally as well as physically devastating.

The OP may have been right that some of the trauma of rape is socially constructed, but while society continues to construct it that way, the meaning of the crime remains so much more than an agravated assault that the two cannot be compared.

[Unbeatable]

If you ignore the suffering of the victim in sentencing the perp, you compound that suffering, because it shows that you dont give a shit about the victim. For justice to take place there must be some form of restitution from the perp.

That doesn't make sense. Restitution makes sense when it comes to things that are measurable like money. When it comes to suffering, what reliable method is there for determining what quantity of restitution is sufficient but not excessive?

[Tigers!]

there must be some form of restitution from the perp.

That doesn't make sense. Restitution makes sense when it comes to things that are measurable like money. When it comes to suffering, what reliable method is there for determining what quantity of restitution is sufficient but not excessive?[/QUOTE]

Surely the very fact that we take the victim's experience seriously enough to ensure thet the one who brutually violated and assaulted her cannot ever do it again (hopefully) or at least not for a long time. They will go some way to obtaining restitution for her. Granted we ourselves can never fully provide restitution for what she has gone through but we need to try.
Ignoring their plight or treating the assailant with kid's gloves or a slap on the wrist is not restitution.

[Unbeatable]

That doesn't make sense. Restitution makes sense when it comes to things that are measurable like money. When it comes to suffering, what reliable method is there for determining what quantity of restitution is sufficient but not excessive?

Surely the very fact that we take the victim's experience seriously enough to ensure thet the one who brutually violated and assaulted her cannot ever do it again (hopefully) or at least not for a long time. They will go some way to obtaining restitution for her.

I do not see how this relates to my question.

[spikepipsqueak]

Tigers! is talking about an emotional restitution which, as you suggested, is commensurate with the nature of the crime, not a shollow recompense based on finance. (I think)

[Tigers!]

Tigers! is talking about an emotional restitution which, as you suggested, is commensurate with the nature of the crime, not a shollow recompense based on finance. (I think)
I was mainly talking of the emotional restitution to the victim from the judicial/police persons, rather than the assailant (who rarely acknowledge what they have done. This comes 1st, then financial next.
The victim is comforted and encouraged by the fact that she is being taken seriously and her ordeal is one that needs to be acknowledged and dealt with.

[Illusio]

Rape is a disgusting crime. It isn't as simple as a dick in a vagina. The scientific concensus is that rape is about power and control, not sex.

"The scientific consensus" also has uttely failed to produce anything of value in the area of rape-prevention.

Although many from the "scientific establishment" reacted negatively to the book "A Natural history of rape", which explains rape in evolutionary terms, I think the book did a masterful job of utterly discrediting the existing "scientic consensus". When exhaustive meta-studies of rape research concludes that virtually none(I believe it was like 1% or so) of them test hypotheses or use statistical methods to establish what confidence we should have in the data - the entire field is worthless.

The evolutionary explanation sees rape as a strategy that up to a point can lead to more ancestors for males. It can't become a dominating strategy in humans as it also leads to violence between males due to jealousy, but a low tendency to rape, if the chance of reprisals is low, is an evolutionary stable strategy. Not only that, but rape is seen in many animal species as well(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzpNumA6uU4) - so overly intellectual explanations of rape can be dismissed out of hand(Such as rapists "hating women").

It's also pretty amusing that the "it's not about sex" explanations ignore the fact that.. well, rape *is* sex. Specifically, before the pill and safe abortions, rape would lead to children - propagating any biologically based tendency to rape.

And no, I'm not saying that rape is good, or that men shouldn't be punished severely just because part of what causes rape may be innate in men.(After all, society punishes all kinds of sociopaths, even though deviant psychological traits are highly hereditary.) The main point of that book is that if it is correct, rape prevention needs to focus on practical things such as city-planning avoiding structures where rapists would run low-risk of detection. Informing women about high-risk acticity, such as walking home alone from town, informing them about the bell-curve around age 20 or so where they are at high risk of rape(another indication that rape is a deep strategy for reproduction. The vast majority of victims are near the height of reproductive ability.) and in general inform them about it being dangerous to put themselves in a situation where they are alone with a man if they aren't looking for sex.

[linwood]

The OP may have been right that some of the trauma of rape is socially constructed, but while society continues to construct it that way, the meaning of the crime remains so much more than an agravated assault that the two cannot be compared.



Well said.

While I also disagree with the social/cultural reasons for the emotional trauma from rape I won`t pretend it doesn`t exist.

Thank you.

[mikumiku]

Rape is a disgusting crime. It isn't as simple as a dick in a vagina. The scientific concensus is that rape is about power and control, not sex. A woman has the right to refuse any man that wishes to have intercourse with her. Without that right, a woman is nothing more than non-human property.

I think rape should be punished by a prison sentance, and violent rape should be punished with longer sentances or even death.

But the reality is, those men with the greatest amounts of power, likely have access to presidential pardons... making them able to do as they please and get away with rape with minor or no jail time. So in reality a woman has no legal protection before those men given immense power in this world, in this nation and in others.

[Terrell]

I do not think that the death penalty is apropriate in cases of rape unless the rapist (or his accomplice(es)) also murder the victim during the commission, or attempted cover-up of the crime. I support life without parole as the sentence for rape, regardless of whether the victim is a woman, a man, a child, or an elderly person of either gender.

I would want to look at the circumstances though with respect to how hard it is to prove a rape case. It should be much easier to prove most rape cases where it's between strangers or those cases where violence is involved, DNA should make it a fairly easy case, since the Defendant would have a damn near impossible time explaining it away.

A One Night Stand (Bar Scene), Date Rape, Acquaintence Rape, or Maritial Rape, would be much more difficult case to prove, absent violence. Here we get into much more subtle human sexual behaviour and possible regret vs rape scenarios. We don't want to send someone to jail at all, much less for the rest of his life because someone regretted having sex with him, and said it was rape. I think that in these types of cases there should be, as part of the burden of proof, which in the US justice system rests on the accuser not the accused, should be that the victim show that she (he) stated their refusal to sexual activity in a way that the defendant could reasonably understand as NO or that it be shown that the victim was in an impaired state that was such that they were unable to give/refuse consent. Absent that that being done, the case should be unable to survive a motion to dismiss with prejudice, with jeopardy having been attached, the case would then be over and the defendant free. On the other hand if she can prove she said stop, and he went on anyway, or she was too impaired to say no and he took advantage of her, lock the bastard up for the rest of his life. The same applies if the gender roles are reversed. The same rules apply for 2 or more parties of the same sex or any combination of same or either sex.

[mikumiku]

I do not think that the death penalty is apropriate in cases of rape unless the rapist (or his accomplice(es)) also murder the victim during the commission, or attempted cover-up of the crime. I support life without parole as the sentence for rape, regardless of whether the victim is a woman, a man, a child, or an elderly person of either gender.

I would want to look at the circumstances though with respect to how hard it is to prove a rape case. It should be much easier to prove most rape cases where it's between strangers or those cases where violence is involved, DNA should make it a fairly easy case, since the Defendant would have a damn near impossible time explaining it away.

A One Night Stand (Bar Scene), Date Rape, Acquaintence Rape, or Maritial Rape, would be much more difficult case to prove, absent violence. Here we get into much more subtle human sexual behaviour and possible regret vs rape scenarios. We don't want to send someone to jail at all, much less for the rest of his life because someone regretted having sex with him, and said it was rape. I think that in these types of cases there should be, as part of the burden of proof, which in the US justice system rests on the accuser not the accused, should be that the victim show that she (he) stated their refusal to sexual activity in a way that the defendant could reasonably understand as NO or that it be shown that the victim was in an impaired state that was such that they were unable to give/refuse consent. Absent that that being done, the case should be unable to survive a motion to dismiss with prejudice, with jeopardy having been attached, the case would then be over and the defendant free. On the other hand if she can prove she said stop, and he went on anyway, or she was too impaired to say no and he took advantage of her, lock the bastard up for the rest of his life. The same applies if the gender roles are reversed. The same rules apply for 2 or more parties of the same sex or any combination of same or either sex.

Question is if one uses one's massive knowledge of the mind, to get someone feeling "NO" to say yes and unwillingly seemingly-willingly iniate the sexual act. If someone says yes, and iniates the act, even if it is rape it is legally allowed rape as there was no "NO" either verbally or through body language, there was only "YES".

[Terrell]

I do not think that the death penalty is apropriate in cases of rape unless the rapist (or his accomplice(es)) also murder the victim during the commission, or attempted cover-up of the crime. I support life without parole as the sentence for rape, regardless of whether the victim is a woman, a man, a child, or an elderly person of either gender.

I would want to look at the circumstances though with respect to how hard it is to prove a rape case. It should be much easier to prove most rape cases where it's between strangers or those cases where violence is involved, DNA should make it a fairly easy case, since the Defendant would have a damn near impossible time explaining it away.

A One Night Stand (Bar Scene), Date Rape, Acquaintence Rape, or Maritial Rape, would be much more difficult case to prove, absent violence. Here we get into much more subtle human sexual behaviour and possible regret vs rape scenarios. We don't want to send someone to jail at all, much less for the rest of his life because someone regretted having sex with him, and said it was rape. I think that in these types of cases there should be, as part of the burden of proof, which in the US justice system rests on the accuser not the accused, should be that the victim show that she (he) stated their refusal to sexual activity in a way that the defendant could reasonably understand as NO or that it be shown that the victim was in an impaired state that was such that they were unable to give/refuse consent. Absent that that being done, the case should be unable to survive a motion to dismiss with prejudice, with jeopardy having been attached, the case would then be over and the defendant free. On the other hand if she can prove she said stop, and he went on anyway, or she was too impaired to say no and he took advantage of her, lock the bastard up for the rest of his life. The same applies if the gender roles are reversed. The same rules apply for 2 or more parties of the same sex or any combination of same or either sex.

Question is if one uses one's massive knowledge of the mind, to get someone feeling "NO" to say yes and unwillingly seemingly-willingly iniate the sexual act. If someone says yes, and iniates the act, even if it is rape it is legally allowed rape as there was no "NO" either verbally or through body language, there was only "YES".

What? If you didn't say no, or give a clear sign of no (like physically pushing him away), in one of the that second group of scenarios, I think it should be damn near impossible for you to prove the person guilty of rape. There wasn't any intent on the part of the defendant to rape you there. He honestly thought that you wanted him to be with him, and you didn't clearly communicate with him your desire for him to stop, men cannot read women's minds, try communicating directly, with direct language when you want your date to stop. If you do so, you have a much stronger case against him, if he doesn't stop and all of my sympathy on your side, if you just drop hints, and he doesn't get the hints, I'm going to be much more willing to hear his side of the story on that. (Those yous were of the "general you variety not you specifically for ease of typing my post btw)

[mikumiku]

Question is if one uses one's massive knowledge of the mind, to get someone feeling "NO" to say yes and unwillingly seemingly-willingly iniate the sexual act. If someone says yes, and iniates the act, even if it is rape it is legally allowed rape as there was no "NO" either verbally or through body language, there was only "YES".

What? If you didn't say no, or give a clear sign of no (like physically pushing him away), in one of the that second group of scenarios, I think it should be damn near impossible for you to prove the person guilty of rape. There wasn't any intent on the part of the defendant to rape you there. He honestly thought that you wanted him to be with him, and you didn't clearly communicate with him your desire for him to stop, men cannot read women's minds, try communicating directly, with direct language when you want your date to stop. If you do so, you have a much stronger case against him, if he doesn't stop and all of my sympathy on your side, if you just drop hints, and he doesn't get the hints, I'm going to be much more willing to hear his side of the story on that. (Those yous were of the "general you variety not you specifically for ease of typing my post btw)

Intelligence varies in humans if the gap is large enough it can go either way. A woman basically raping a man legally or a man legally raping a woman, by the art of persuasion, the art of words.

[Sabine Grant]

What? If you didn't say no, or give a clear sign of no (like physically pushing him away), in one of the that second group of scenarios, I think it should be damn near impossible for you to prove the person guilty of rape. There wasn't any intent on the part of the defendant to rape you there. He honestly thought that you wanted him to be with him, and you didn't clearly communicate with him your desire for him to stop, men cannot read women's minds, try communicating directly, with direct language when you want your date to stop. If you do so, you have a much stronger case against him, if he doesn't stop and all of my sympathy on your side, if you just drop hints, and he doesn't get the hints, I'm going to be much more willing to hear his side of the story on that. (Those yous were of the "general you variety not you specifically for ease of typing my post btw)

Intelligence varies in humans if the gap is large enough it can go either way. A woman basically raping a man legally or a man legally raping a woman, by the art of persuasion, the art of words. But in both situations, the solicited party has the alternative to respond to psycho manipulation or coercion with a "No way Jose". Which cannot happen when dealing with the use of physical force to physically subdue the targeted party and violate his/her body.

Cases where psycho manipulation has happened are reflected mostly among sexual activities with a mentally disabled person where the court has established that such person cannot be expected to provide an informed consent.

For example, sexual activities with an individual affected by advanced dementia or with severe degrees of mental retardation. The mental evaluation of such person is based on specific mental health care professional tools of diagnosing which demonstrate that such person is deprived from the capacity to interpret and process circumstances and conditions based on existing realities.

[mikumiku]

Intelligence varies in humans if the gap is large enough it can go either way. A woman basically raping a man legally or a man legally raping a woman, by the art of persuasion, the art of words. But in both situations, the solicited party has the alternative to respond to psycho manipulation or coercion with a "No way Jose". Which cannot happen when dealing with the use of physical force to physically subdue the targeted party and violate his/her body.

Cases where psycho manipulation has happened are reflected mostly among sexual activities with a mentally disabled person where the court has established that such person cannot be expected to provide an informed consent.

For example, sexual activities with an individual affected by advanced dementia or with severe degrees of mental retardation. The mental evaluation of such person is based on specific mental health care professional tools of diagnosing which demonstrate that such person is deprived from the capacity to interpret and process circumstances and conditions based on existing realities.

Even the mind of a healthy adult follows rules. The cells following the rulebook to create a brain and function as one. He who knows the rulebook, knows how to hack away psychological defenses and barriers like a hot knife through butter.

It is only one who lacks true skill that resorts to physical means.

[Terrell]

What? If you didn't say no, or give a clear sign of no (like physically pushing him away), in one of the that second group of scenarios, I think it should be damn near impossible for you to prove the person guilty of rape. There wasn't any intent on the part of the defendant to rape you there. He honestly thought that you wanted him to be with him, and you didn't clearly communicate with him your desire for him to stop, men cannot read women's minds, try communicating directly, with direct language when you want your date to stop. If you do so, you have a much stronger case against him, if he doesn't stop and all of my sympathy on your side, if you just drop hints, and he doesn't get the hints, I'm going to be much more willing to hear his side of the story on that. (Those yous were of the "general you variety not you specifically for ease of typing my post btw)

Intelligence varies in humans if the gap is large enough it can go either way. A woman basically raping a man legally or a man legally raping a woman, by the art of persuasion, the art of words.

Persuading someone to sleep with you is not rape. Forcing, coercing, blackmailing, drugging, or taking advantage of them when they're impaired would be examples of rape.

[mikumiku]

Intelligence varies in humans if the gap is large enough it can go either way. A woman basically raping a man legally or a man legally raping a woman, by the art of persuasion, the art of words.

Persuading someone to sleep with you is not rape. Forcing, coercing, blackmailing, drugging, or taking advantage of them when they're impaired would be examples of rape.
But if you can persuade without none-of-the latter such that they agree while internally disagreeing? Is it not rape?

[Terrell]

Persuading someone to sleep with you is not rape. Forcing, coercing, blackmailing, drugging, or taking advantage of them when they're impaired would be examples of rape.
But if you can persuade without none-of-the latter such that they agree while internally disagreeing? Is it not rape?

No it's not. Given that our species is not gifted with telepathic abilities it is unreasonable to expect a person to know what another person feels inside absent that person expressing it in a manner that can be easily understood. Direct language or direct physical action work best, hints sometimes work, but they aren't as good, and if I'm on a jury, I'm inclined to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Just saying "I felt no on the inside but I didn't say or do anything to express that feeling and went along with it" doesn't work at all and should get the case dismissed with prejudice because no reasonable person should construe it as rape. Men are not, and cannot reasonably be expected to be mind-readers, nor can women. Say what you want, or don't want with respect to sex, that's why we have language.

[mikumiku]

But if you can persuade without none-of-the latter such that they agree while internally disagreeing? Is it not rape?

No it's not. Given that our species is not gifted with telepathic abilities it is unreasonable to expect a person to know what another person feels inside absent that person expressing it in a manner that can be easily understood. Direct language or direct physical action work best, hints sometimes work, but they aren't as good, and if I'm on a jury, I'm inclined to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Just saying "I felt no on the inside but I didn't say or do anything to express that feeling and went along with it" doesn't work at all and should get the case dismissed with prejudice because no reasonable person should construe it as rape. Men are not, and cannot reasonably be expected to be mind-readers, nor can women. Say what you want, or don't want with respect to sex, that's why we have language.
But what if a man knowingly caused this state of affairs? Due to past experience knowing there's an internal "NO" despite an external "YES" being all that is present. You're saying that there is no problem with such behavior? If he serially goes on doing this to girl after girl?

[Terrell]

No it's not. Given that our species is not gifted with telepathic abilities it is unreasonable to expect a person to know what another person feels inside absent that person expressing it in a manner that can be easily understood. Direct language or direct physical action work best, hints sometimes work, but they aren't as good, and if I'm on a jury, I'm inclined to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Just saying "I felt no on the inside but I didn't say or do anything to express that feeling and went along with it" doesn't work at all and should get the case dismissed with prejudice because no reasonable person should construe it as rape. Men are not, and cannot reasonably be expected to be mind-readers, nor can women. Say what you want, or don't want with respect to sex, that's why we have language.
But what if a man knowingly caused this state of affairs? Due to past experience knowing there's an internal "NO" despite an external "YES" being all that is present. You're saying that there is no problem with such behavior? If he serially goes on doing this to girl after girl?

There's no reasonable way for him to know that or for him to be expected to know that. He's not Deanna Troi from Star Trek the Next Generation and cannot sense other people's internal feelings in that manner against thier outward signs nor can the law reasonably expect him to do so.

If she says yes on the outside, it is more reasonable to say that he took that yes in good faith than to say that he should have to respect an internal no that he has no means to detect, much less understand. Unless or until humans evolve telepathy or at least 1/2 telepathy (like Deanna Troi's empath abilties) it is unreasonalbe to expect a man to react to a woman's emotions as far as she does not express them in a external way that can be reasonably understood by him. As much as he might like to, because it would make it way easier to keep her happy, he cannot read her mind, and it is unreasonable to hold him accountable for not being able to read her mind.

[mikumiku]

But what if a man knowingly caused this state of affairs? Due to past experience knowing there's an internal "NO" despite an external "YES" being all that is present. You're saying that there is no problem with such behavior? If he serially goes on doing this to girl after girl?

There's no reasonable way for him to know that or for him to be expected to know that. He's not Deanna Troi from Star Trek the Next Generation and cannot sense other people's internal feelings in that manner against thier outward signs nor can the law reasonably expect him to do so.

If she says yes on the outside, it is more reasonable to say that he took that yes in good faith than to say that he should have to respect an internal no that he has no means to detect, much less understand. Unless or until humans evolve telepathy or at least 1/2 telepathy (like Deanna Troi's empath abilties) it is unreasonalbe to expect a man to react to a woman's emotions as far as she does not express them in a external way that can be reasonably understood by him. As much as he might like to, because it would make it way easier to keep her happy, he cannot read her mind, and it is unreasonable to hold him accountable for not being able to read her mind.
You're taking this from an Innocent's perspective. I'm taking this from an Alice in wonderland perspective. A mathematic+logic perverted genius knowing the structure of the human mind to a ridiculous degree pulling this stunt off time and again intentionally and on purpose with full knowledge of what he is doing, and using the law as his defense.

[Terrell]

There's no reasonable way for him to know that or for him to be expected to know that. He's not Deanna Troi from Star Trek the Next Generation and cannot sense other people's internal feelings in that manner against thier outward signs nor can the law reasonably expect him to do so.

If she says yes on the outside, it is more reasonable to say that he took that yes in good faith than to say that he should have to respect an internal no that he has no means to detect, much less understand. Unless or until humans evolve telepathy or at least 1/2 telepathy (like Deanna Troi's empath abilties) it is unreasonalbe to expect a man to react to a woman's emotions as far as she does not express them in a external way that can be reasonably understood by him. As much as he might like to, because it would make it way easier to keep her happy, he cannot read her mind, and it is unreasonable to hold him accountable for not being able to read her mind.
You're taking this from an Innocent's perspective. I'm taking this from an Alice in wonderland perspective. A mathematic+logic perverted genius knowing the structure of the human mind to a ridiculous degree pulling this stunt off time and again intentionally and on purpose with full knowledge of what he is doing, and using the law as his defense.

I don't think that Alice in Wonderland is apropriate for our legal system. I think that both the woman and the man have some responsibility to communicate in sexual situations, just like all other social situations, and are responsible for their actions, but I don't think that either extreme view should ever be determinative as far as the assessment of who is at fault.

To word that better. since I worded that poorly, "She asked for it" (dressed provacitively, was a prostitute, a "loose woman", etc.) is never an acceptable excuse for a man raping a woman (there's never an excuse for a woman to rape a man either or any other type of rape either), while if a woman and a man are engaged in a make out session and a woman wants it to stop, it's her responsibility to articulate it to him that she wants him to stop, in a way he can reasonably be expected to understand, and his responsibility to respect her wishes. If she fails/refuses to tell him she wants him to stop, and continues to go along with it, it's unreasonable to expect him to know she wants him to stop. The law has to act based on a "reasonable person" standard, or it's not a reasonable law, "Alice in Wonderland" was anything but reasonable, it was all the Queen of Hearts yelling "Off with their Heads" about anyone who offended her.

[jemand]

Cases where psycho manipulation has happened are reflected mostly among sexual activities with a mentally disabled person where the court has established that such person cannot be expected to provide an informed consent.

For example, sexual activities with an individual affected by advanced dementia or with severe degrees of mental retardation. The mental evaluation of such person is based on specific mental health care professional tools of diagnosing which demonstrate that such person is deprived from the capacity to interpret and process circumstances and conditions based on existing realities.

This brings up a question I have occasionally pondered... In the case of Alzheimers or some other gradually degenerative mental condition, if the sufferer married long before any symptoms appeared and there was consistently an assumption of consent in the relationship (as in, no allegation of marital rape or domestic abuse etc) would the ability or lack of ability to consent to any given act occur at the same point of mental capacity as that for initiating a new relationship or would the presumption of consent continue longer?

Or if an accident or head trauma caused an adult to have the mental "age" of a child or early adolescent, would they still be unable to consent to any type of relationship as a child wouldn't, or would the history of explicit and implicit consent while fully capable mentally again lower the bar?

I honestly am not sure I know what would be fair or right in these types of situations.

[Allied35]

I think that just as a woman should be able to chose not to have sex with, she should be able to choose with who, and why she does have sex. However, if a woman wants to have sex for money, this is illegal???
Perhaps if prostitution were legal, there would be less rapes.
Many women, and married men underestimate how powerful the urge to have sex can be in men when they have not had any in a long time. Most men can control themselves but I believe that banning prostitution is asking for more cases of rape.
Where I live and in most of the rest of South America prostitution is either legal, or tolerated, and I rarely hear of rapes here. Maybe I'm wrong but why would a man risk prison time and alienation when for 20 bucks he can bang a hot chick?

[sy2502]

I think that just as a woman should be able to chose not to have sex with, she should be able to choose with who, and why she does have sex. However, if a woman wants to have sex for money, this is illegal???
Perhaps if prostitution were legal, there would be less rapes.
Many women, and married men underestimate how powerful the urge to have sex can be in men when they have not had any in a long time. Most men can control themselves but I believe that banning prostitution is asking for more cases of rape.
Where I live and in most of the rest of South America prostitution is either legal, or tolerated, and I rarely hear of rapes here. Maybe I'm wrong but why would a man risk prison time and alienation when for 20 bucks he can bang a hot chick?

Let me immediately say I have no problem with prostitution (not sex trade or sex slavery). But frankly, if you haven't had sex in a while, your hand is there to help you, there is absolutely no reason to become violent towards somebody who has no fault in your problems and whose life you are going to mess up forever. Come on now! There is no excuse, NONE whatsoever for rape. If you have half the normal social skills, you are sufficiently equipped to tell if the woman wants to have sex with you or not. If you are sexually frustrated, lock yourself in the bathroom and masturbate until you give yourself a nosebleed. The only reason for rape is willfully wanting to hurt another human being.

[Sabine Grant]

Cases where psycho manipulation has happened are reflected mostly among sexual activities with a mentally disabled person where the court has established that such person cannot be expected to provide an informed consent.

For example, sexual activities with an individual affected by advanced dementia or with severe degrees of mental retardation. The mental evaluation of such person is based on specific mental health care professional tools of diagnosing which demonstrate that such person is deprived from the capacity to interpret and process circumstances and conditions based on existing realities.

This brings up a question I have occasionally pondered... In the case of Alzheimers or some other gradually degenerative mental condition, if the sufferer married long before any symptoms appeared and there was consistently an assumption of consent in the relationship (as in, no allegation of marital rape or domestic abuse etc) would the ability or lack of ability to consent to any given act occur at the same point of mental capacity as that for initiating a new relationship or would the presumption of consent continue longer? That's an excellent question. It appears that the "presumption of consent" is continuous. I am basing my answer on a distant relative of mine who developed Alzheimer's and up to the point she reached advanced stages, her husband would comment on having sex with her. From a personal perspective, I could not help but associate his activity with her as being a form of exploitation. Legally speaking, IMO it would take the intervention of a third party to petition a court to remove her from his guardianship. At such late stages, there is no way she was mentally able to process what was happening.

Or if an accident or head trauma caused an adult to have the mental "age" of a child or early adolescent, would they still be unable to consent to any type of relationship as a child wouldn't, or would the history of explicit and implicit consent while fully capable mentally again lower the bar?

I honestly am not sure I know what would be fair or right in these types of situations. Usually married persons who are evaluated as permanently mentally disabled will be placed under spousal "guardianship" (under the next of kin). I believe that other next of kin potentials may contest that automatic status in court if they feel that the spousal next of kin is abusing or neglecting the disabled spouse. I suppose sexual abuse would be under the same status as abuse and neglect.

[mikumiku]

I think that just as a woman should be able to chose not to have sex with, she should be able to choose with who, and why she does have sex. However, if a woman wants to have sex for money, this is illegal???
Perhaps if prostitution were legal, there would be less rapes.
Many women, and married men underestimate how powerful the urge to have sex can be in men when they have not had any in a long time. Most men can control themselves but I believe that banning prostitution is asking for more cases of rape.
Where I live and in most of the rest of South America prostitution is either legal, or tolerated, and I rarely hear of rapes here. Maybe I'm wrong but why would a man risk prison time and alienation when for 20 bucks he can bang a hot chick?

Let me immediately say I have no problem with prostitution (not sex trade or sex slavery). But frankly, if you haven't had sex in a while, your hand is there to help you, there is absolutely no reason to become violent towards somebody who has no fault in your problems and whose life you are going to mess up forever. Come on now! There is no excuse, NONE whatsoever for rape. If you have half the normal social skills, you are sufficiently equipped to tell if the woman wants to have sex with you or not. If you are sexually frustrated, lock yourself in the bathroom and masturbate until you give yourself a nosebleed. The only reason for rape is willfully wanting to hurt another human being.

The s3x urge varies from person to person, as genes and environment varies, not all can be satisfied by a hand. Some urge for real females, and so badly they can barely control it. If they have other personality defects, like inability to control impulses, or violent tendencies, etc. They will react, as a domino falls so too shall they.

Soon with advanced computer assisted tissue engineering stalkers will be able to look, sound and act like the boyfriends or husbands of their prey. They need not even lie to sleep willingly... would it be rape if they said they were not the boyfriend in a literal way...

Hypothetical EXCHANGE

MALE: "I'm not John"...
FEMALE:"oh but you're, don't joke and come over here!"
MALE:"I'm telling you I'm reeaallly not John but I would like to sleep with you"
FEMALE:"Good one... come to the bed and tell me how you're not John"

Being a super stalker he's analyzed John's behavior in bed in intimate detail...

[Blackclaw]

I 100% agree with the OP. Personally, I think that the whole concept of punishment is damaging to society. More effort needs to be put into working out why people commit horible crimes and how the suffering of the victims can be lessened. I actually believe that the majority of rapists are not evil people. Perhaps they are mentally ill (yes, sexual perversions/addictions are classed as a mental illness) or maybe they just lose control in a moment of madness. We must remember that sometimes good people do evil things. Punishment should be based on the intentions of the person, how likely they are to reoffend and whether they are sorry, and NOT how much suffering they have caused. Punishing the offender cannot undo the victim's suffering but trying to figure out why it happened in the first place can prevent that suffering being caused to another person in the future. We should be aiming to better the human race, not isolate those individuals we consider evil.

No "good" person is capable of carrying out an act of violent rape. Perhaps that person could become a "good" person later, but at the time of the act they are placing their desires over the welfare and life of another human being.

There are people that are evil. There are people who will always be evil. If a person is evil, they need to be kept away from society. If a person is mentally ill to the point of being unable to control violent impulses, they need to be kept away from society.

If the OP was true, that rape is essentially just unwanted sex and nothing more, then the victims of rape would not suffer the amount of long term trama that is well documented. Their family members would not feel the overwhelming desire to find the rapist and do horrible things to them.

Rapists hunt and stalk their victims. I have a hard time feeling sorry for them when they get hunted down themselves.

[jemand]

This brings up a question I have occasionally pondered... In the case of Alzheimers or some other gradually degenerative mental condition, if the sufferer married long before any symptoms appeared and there was consistently an assumption of consent in the relationship (as in, no allegation of marital rape or domestic abuse etc) would the ability or lack of ability to consent to any given act occur at the same point of mental capacity as that for initiating a new relationship or would the presumption of consent continue longer? That's an excellent question. It appears that the "presumption of consent" is continuous. I am basing my answer on a distant relative of mine who developed Alzheimer's and up to the point she reached advanced stages, her husband would comment on having sex with her. From a personal perspective, I could not help but associate his activity with her as being a form of exploitation. Legally speaking, IMO it would take the intervention of a third party to petition a court to remove her from his guardianship. At such late stages, there is no way she was mentally able to process what was happening.

hmmm... I can see where you're coming from but what would bother me more was his actually talking about it. This reminds me a little of the discussion awhile back on sex while one partner is asleep: and personally I wouldn't mind it in a long term relationship, but I guess some people would. I can see that some people wouldn't mind a continuing sexual relationship past the loss of some mental function unless this mental loss or deterioration actually causes them to change their opinions enough to ask for it to stop. However, unlike the case of sleep, these situations would be more permanent.


Or if an accident or head trauma caused an adult to have the mental "age" of a child or early adolescent, would they still be unable to consent to any type of relationship as a child wouldn't, or would the history of explicit and implicit consent while fully capable mentally again lower the bar?

I honestly am not sure I know what would be fair or right in these types of situations. Usually married persons who are evaluated as permanently mentally disabled will be placed under spousal "guardianship" (under the next of kin). I believe that other next of kin potentials may contest that automatic status in court if they feel that the spousal next of kin is abusing or neglecting the disabled spouse. I suppose sexual abuse would be under the same status as abuse and neglect.

Is it sexual abuse if they have a significant history of consenting to sex with this person, and have not indicated that they changed their mind? I can imagine that the psychological isolation from being alone in a mental hospital (if there is any type of mental function left) may feel worse from their perspective than continued intimacy with someone they may remember subconsciously. The mind is an odd thing especially when it malfunctions. And if they are totally oblivious to the world, how are they harmed? It's kinda creepy and I can't see why anyone would *want* to continue sex after a certain point but I'm not convinced it would be wrong per se.

[jemand]

Their family members would not feel the overwhelming desire to find the rapist and do horrible things to them.

Which is why I'm always shocked at the incidences of "honor killings" following a rape. What can make a brother/father/son align themselves with a violent, exploitative individual and feel no sympathy or empathy for their own family member. Most cultures are as you say, even ones in which female roles are highly constrained. Even where there is no centralized government, if a woman is raped, the brothers or other relatives will avenge her. (one incidence of this is even recorded in the bible, Absalom for his sister Tamar)

But what kind of upbringing and conditioning can turn a brother into someone who will kill his own sister-- for being raped!?

[premjan]

Honor killing is the philosopher's rather than the hero's approach. Philosopher take sides based on category or type rather than clan.

[sy2502]

But what kind of upbringing and conditioning can turn a brother into someone who will kill his own sister-- for being raped!?

This kind of killings happen in societies in which women are blamed for many things. Female sexuality in particular is seen as the source of all evils, and women's behaviors are constrained under the pretense of dishonoring the male members of the family. The male honor (or whatever distorted version of it) is more important than the life of the woman. You can get this perspective only if you dehumanize women, turn them into property rather than people.

[mikumiku]

I 100% agree with the OP. Personally, I think that the whole concept of punishment is damaging to society. More effort needs to be put into working out why people commit horible crimes and how the suffering of the victims can be lessened. I actually believe that the majority of rapists are not evil people. Perhaps they are mentally ill (yes, sexual perversions/addictions are classed as a mental illness) or maybe they just lose control in a moment of madness. We must remember that sometimes good people do evil things. Punishment should be based on the intentions of the person, how likely they are to reoffend and whether they are sorry, and NOT how much suffering they have caused. Punishing the offender cannot undo the victim's suffering but trying to figure out why it happened in the first place can prevent that suffering being caused to another person in the future. We should be aiming to better the human race, not isolate those individuals we consider evil.

No "good" person is capable of carrying out an act of violent rape. Perhaps that person could become a "good" person later, but at the time of the act they are placing their desires over the welfare and life of another human being.

There are people that are evil. There are people who will always be evil. If a person is evil, they need to be kept away from society. If a person is mentally ill to the point of being unable to control violent impulses, they need to be kept away from society.

If the OP was true, that rape is essentially just unwanted sex and nothing more, then the victims of rape would not suffer the amount of long term trama that is well documented. Their family members would not feel the overwhelming desire to find the rapist and do horrible things to them.

Rapists hunt and stalk their victims. I have a hard time feeling sorry for them when they get hunted down themselves.

The only reason there is such trauma is that we've evolved to give ridiculous importance to the sexual act. Due to the fact it is connected to reproduction. Sex is no different than a good kiss, or eating some of the best food out there... but because it is connected to reproduction evolution has wired our brains in such a way(genetic influence), and society has given such importance to it(environmental influence.), that most end up really traumatized by something that shouldn't be that big of a deal.

If the guy is sterile and std free. Most with a strong mind will emerge unscathed, with no long term damage physical or psychological, in many cases at least.

[itsamysteryhuh]

The only reason there is such trauma is that we've evolved to give ridiculous importance to the sexual act.

:rolleyes::rolling:

Was that due to random genetic mutation... or what? :Cheeky:

[itsamysteryhuh]

No "good" person is capable of carrying out an act of violent rape. Perhaps that person could become a "good" person later, but at the time of the act they are placing their desires over the welfare and life of another human being.

There are people that are evil. There are people who will always be evil. If a person is evil, they need to be kept away from society. If a person is mentally ill to the point of being unable to control violent impulses, they need to be kept away from society.

If the OP was true, that rape is essentially just unwanted sex and nothing more, then the victims of rape would not suffer the amount of long term trama that is well documented. Their family members would not feel the overwhelming desire to find the rapist and do horrible things to them.

Rapists hunt and stalk their victims. I have a hard time feeling sorry for them when they get hunted down themselves.


So... does that mean a "good" person is capable of carrying out an act of nonviolent rape?

Regardless, just send them all to a heavily-guarded island somewhere and let them rape each other (nonviolent rapists on one island and violent rapists on a different one) for however long their sentences are. That would get them away from society and make them pay for their crime.

[Allied35]

I think that just as a woman should be able to chose not to have sex with, she should be able to choose with who, and why she does have sex. However, if a woman wants to have sex for money, this is illegal???
Perhaps if prostitution were legal, there would be less rapes.
Many women, and married men underestimate how powerful the urge to have sex can be in men when they have not had any in a long time. Most men can control themselves but I believe that banning prostitution is asking for more cases of rape.
Where I live and in most of the rest of South America prostitution is either legal, or tolerated, and I rarely hear of rapes here. Maybe I'm wrong but why would a man risk prison time and alienation when for 20 bucks he can bang a hot chick?

Let me immediately say I have no problem with prostitution (not sex trade or sex slavery). But frankly, if you haven't had sex in a while, your hand is there to help you,
If one's hand were equal to a woman, normally straight men would not perform homosexual acts while in prison.
there is absolutely no reason to become violent towards somebody who has no fault in your problems and whose life you are going to mess up forever. Come on now! There is no excuse, NONE whatsoever for rape.
I didn't give an excuse, I gave a reason.

If you have half the normal social skills, you are sufficiently equipped to tell if the woman wants to have sex with you or not.
Do you actually think that rapes occur because the rapist doesn't have the social skills to tell that his victim doesn't want to have sex??? Are you aware of the absurdity of your statement?

If you are sexually frustrated, lock yourself in the bathroom and masturbate until you give yourself a nosebleed. The only reason for rape is willfully wanting to hurt another human being.

That's ridiculous, I'll bet it has a lot more to do with the sex than with hurting people.

[Blackclaw]

No "good" person is capable of carrying out an act of violent rape. Perhaps that person could become a "good" person later, but at the time of the act they are placing their desires over the welfare and life of another human being.

There are people that are evil. There are people who will always be evil. If a person is evil, they need to be kept away from society. If a person is mentally ill to the point of being unable to control violent impulses, they need to be kept away from society.

If the OP was true, that rape is essentially just unwanted sex and nothing more, then the victims of rape would not suffer the amount of long term trama that is well documented. Their family members would not feel the overwhelming desire to find the rapist and do horrible things to them.

Rapists hunt and stalk their victims. I have a hard time feeling sorry for them when they get hunted down themselves.

The only reason there is such trauma is that we've evolved to give ridiculous importance to the sexual act. Due to the fact it is connected to reproduction. Sex is no different than a good kiss, or eating some of the best food out there... but because it is connected to reproduction evolution has wired our brains in such a way(genetic influence), and society has given such importance to it(environmental influence.), that most end up really traumatized by something that shouldn't be that big of a deal.

If the guy is sterile and std free. Most with a strong mind will emerge unscathed, with no long term damage physical or psychological, in many cases at least.

The trauma is due to someone doing things to your body against your will by violence or the threat of violence. If you think that's not a big deal then are saying you wouldn't mind if someone held a gun to your head and then penetrated your anus with a penis? Now don't argue that it's not the same thing because your a guy and such an act isn't "natural." That just social bias based upon cultural mores. It's just penis in anus. No big deal right?

Except for the gun to your head, the fear that you are about to die, the disgust of being penetrated by a sadistic individual who cares nothing about you, and the concern that you may be receiving a virus that will eventually kill you even if the creature raping you doesn't decide to blow your head off just to make sure you can't testify against him later.

If you survive would you ever walk that street again? Would you walk any street at night again? Would you refuse to walk alone? Would you be able to trust anyone to walk with. Would you ever leave the house unarmed? Would you ever leave the house? Would you move simply