[Puffer Fish]

You are making excuses for your lack of compelling arguments, since they rely entirely on what you believe, and not on reality.

What's "reality"?
It seems I have been more logical in this thread than you.

You're the one who keeps bringing up claims based almost entirely off your belief.
(If I am guilty of that, you are four or five times more guilty)

Your arguments dismiss the damage that the victims take from rapists.

No they don't. Once again, mostly in your imagination.

[Godstud]

What's "reality"?
It seems I have been more logical in this thread than you.

Your arguments are solely based on archaic religious beliefs. There is nothing logical about that.

You're the one who keeps bringing up claims based almost entirely off your belief.

That women are suitable to judge the damage they get from a rape is not belief. It's fact. The laws reflect current morality and the damage done to victims of rape. That's also fact.

(If I am guilty of that, you are four or five times more guilty)

No. You're delusional. You can't accept that your entire argument is centered around belief.

[Igor Antunov]

There is sometimes equal or greater damage done to victims of false rape accusations. Can we include them in this logical equation of yours?

[Godstud]

There is sometimes equal or greater damage done to victims of false rape accusations. Can we include them in this logical equation of yours?

This thread is not about false allegations. You are attempting to make a Strawman logical fallacy.

False allegations for rape are as common as false allegations for ANY crime, and should be treated very seriously. I think that when accusations are proven to be false, there should be some very dire repercussions to the person making the false claim. They should be enough to deter any people making false claims.

False claims for rape can cause serious harm to mental health and reputation, but it's not "greater". That's just an unsubstantiated belief. They can certainly cause as serious damage, but to infer "more" would require some evidence, and this is not the thread for that.

[Puffer Fish]

This thread is not about false allegations. You are attempting to make a Strawman logical fallacy.

Now wait a minute. I could see how the issue of false rape allegations could fit into this topic, even if it's not the primary issue.

If a woman is going to make a rape accusation against a man, and we are going to rely entirely just on her testimony to convict him, then shouldn't it matter very much what type of repute that woman has? It seems kind of natural then that the amount of punishment should be based on the woman's repute and credibility.

For example, how do we know she didn't sleep with him and then falsely accuse him of rape? If a woman's been around the block that is totally something she could have done. Whereas another young girl who always is home by 10, goes to Church on Sundays, gets good grades in school, is always known to dress very modestly in public, it's far less likely something like that might be the case.
(A lot of these are the same factors that would be used to "assess" the woman's sexual innocence)

Likewise, if a woman has accused two men of rape in the past, and now there's a third incident, one could question whether there might be some small possibility this could be a mentally unstable woman who is falsely accusing men. Perhaps the punishment should be a little lower. One woman and one accusation I could understand, but accusations against three different men in three different incidents? Should the testimony of one woman really have the power to do that. The punishment should be a little lower.
(That is indeed a different argument but is another potential reason in favor of perpetrators against already damaged women getting a little less punishment)

[Fasces]

False rape accusations are terrible.Women are inherently liars and can't be trusted. On that note, @Puffer Fish, how do we prevent the whores from lying about their virginity when punishing a man? Is it fair for a man to be punished an extra few years for taking a woman's virginity when she wasn't actually a virgin? What should we do?

[Puffer Fish]

I think that when accusations are proven to be false, there should be some very dire repercussions to the person making the false claim. They should be enough to deter any people making false claims.

Too bad women don't think that way. The type of women who would make false rape accusations are not the women who are going to be thinking logically like that.

More could be said about that but this is not the thread for it.

Women are inherently liars and can't be trusted.

If men want to attack or exert their power over someone they are most likely to use physical violence. If women want to attack or exert their power over someone, they are likely to use their mouths; either slander, gossip, or false accusations. (Sometimes using sweet talk and false promises to convince another sucker man to do her dirty work for her)
It's been that way since time immemorial.

[Fasces]

Of course, we're in full agreement.

So we add additional punishments for raping a virgin - what I'm asking, @Puffer Fish, is how do we confirm the woman is telling the truth about her virginity? If she wants revenge against a guy and lies about her virginity to add some extra punishment, that's not fair to the man. What should we do?

[Puffer Fish]

False claims for rape can cause serious harm to mental health and reputation, but it's not "greater".

The reality is that women who are caught making false accusations are never going to be given anywhere near as much punishment as the man would have got if those accusations had been believed. It's just not going to happen, whether any of you think it should happen or not.

[Puffer Fish]

- what I'm asking, @Puffer Fish, is how do we confirm the woman is telling the truth about her virginity?

There's no absolute way to tell for certain, but that is also often true with many other "facts" the court has to determine.
There are many indicators that can be used to try to come up with a good idea, whether it was likely she was a virgin or not. A wide range of things. If the parents tell the court that oftentimes their girl did not come home at night, and she dressed like a hooker in public, was seen with different guys, etc.
I'd even say whether she got trashy tattoos could probably be one good indicator (among others).

We can also look at any religious connections. Did she come from a religious or cultural family background where virginity would even be important?

[Puffer Fish]

If she wants revenge against a guy and lies about her virginity to add some extra punishment, that's not fair to the man. What should we do?

That is another great thing about this proposed enhancement. She can only ever use it against one man in her life.
(Obviously she can't claim to have had her virginity stolen twice)

Anyway, most women who would ever lie about being raped have already been in a string of relationships, and no one would ever be believing they had any level of "sexual purity". Doubtful she could even successfully use this enhancement against him.

A case where a woman might lie is when she is virgin or does not have much sexual experience, and has sex with a guy, but then the guy immediately leaves her and she finds out she's been used.
Well, at least the guy actually had to have sex with her to incur her wraith. And you know what, by some arguments you could say he did kind of steal away her innocence.
She was only handing over her body with the understanding there would be some level of commitment.

[Fasces]

So you're ok with innocent men spending years in jail extra for raping virgins, even if she wasn't a virgin?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Puffer Fish

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

Please define it clearly for all of us.

[Patrickov]

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

Please define it clearly for all of us.

I finally find an instance when you put your usual "define!" / "give evidence!" tactic into good use.

[Rancid]

@Puffer Fish have you ever been convicted of rape?

[MistyTiger]

But now we are talking about actual physical damages, not just "rape in general".

I agree with you. But we both know that physical damages are only a part of the reason the perpetrator is punished.

We can imagine if someone did that to her in a non-sexual way. The punishment would be far lower.
(I could think of several hypotheticals to illustrate this but won't go into it)


We are not talking about whether the perpetrator should be punished ("yes" or "no") but how MUCH punishment they should get.
Overstepping her personal boundaries is one reason it is wrong, and it makes it wrong, and is necessary for criminal charges in the first place, but is not most of the reason it is wrong.

You are trying to make this all about her personal boundaries and consent, yes or no. But that's not the reason for most of the perpetrator's punishment. The reason for that punishment is how he violated her. Not merely just did he violate her, but how much.

The physical damage is part of the rape. Do you know what a rape kit is? The rape kit is a procedure done the day of the rape where a nurse examines the victim in the hospital for tears in the vagina, bleeding and other damage. An idiot will say that the damage is separate from the rape. The truth is that the damage can be included in the case to support the argument of forcefulness and violation. A sane person would not welcome pain.

[MistyTiger]

That's another bad example/analogy, but in some cases the punishment should be dependent on how close to the home the trespasser went. A trespasser who simply walks across an empty field presumably trying to cross the property to get from one end to the other is probably going to get less punishment than another trespasser who came suspiciously close to the home on a big piece of ranch property.

In the U.S. I read about an issue called "checkerboarding" where people are getting in trouble for trying to cross over the very far corner of someone's property. (The issue is there is two private pieces of property joined by their corners in a checkerboard shape and block off one area of public property from another, so hunters who want access to that public property have to cross over the very corner of someone else's private property to get there.)

Obviously this is a case where the "trespass" onto their property should be viewed as far less severe.

This thread is based on a bad example/analogy. If I were a law professor, I would provide a much better one and probably give you a C in the class for not fully understanding some concepts.

Trespassing is a good example since violation is like invasion of property. My body is my property. I can insure my body and legally protect it with official documents. Every 5 years, I renew a driver's license. I have medical insurance. I can apply for power of attorney. A person is entitled protection from harm, like a property should not be trespassed on.

The judge decides on punishment. I do not see the point of nitpicking over severe and less severe punishment, as we are not judges. Judges are usually former lawyers so they are usually not in their 20s. In US legal classes, virginity is not mentioned. For the most part, US law is secular. Centuries ago, it was decided to separate church and state. Some states might allow businessss to close shop on Sunday, but this is not common. The Walmart in my area is busiest on Sundays.

[MistyTiger]

If you want some examples, maybe a female medical assistant who is taking a pap smear test on the woman, but feeling resentful and decided to take out a little revenge because the woman is going out with her boyfriend.

This is an oddball example. Usually when the rape victim is brought in, the paperwork is quickly looked at and signed. I doubt a few seconds is enough time to recognize if the 2 women are acquainted. Also, a medical assistant is trained to be professional and concentrate on performing her duty. She has other duties to do before she can go home for the day. She will see that the victim is in shock and she will quickly make her observations and send the victim on her way. A hospital is not like a grocery store where the workers are more talkative or emotional.

[Puffer Fish]

So you're ok with innocent men spending years in jail extra for raping virgins, even if she wasn't a virgin?

If you read my explanation, you would see how that is unlikely.

Men already spend years in jail for rape, even though they did not commit rape.

This wouldn't be too much different from that.

(There's a higher chance of a man being wrongfully convicted of rape than a man who did commit rape getting extra jail time even though she was not actually a virgin)

[Mike12]

How would Amy Coleman or Nick Rainosek or Bradley Nash or Josh Cobb or Julia Park or Tammy Benson have one fucking word of wisdom about anybody? Brent Wren and Timothy Landry and St John and Eric Semen and Scott Walker and are ashes , most of them ,already ashes in the wind, especially the ones that offered up having opinions like Dr Burnett, Dr Burnett will Join the burning ashes in the wind of Scott Walker no longer employed UAHuntsville or anywhere and Jack Drost got his lips stitched.