How do you people feel about real-life rape? How do you feel about the laws on rape, the sentences on rape, etc?

Well, this will be a civil thread, I'm sure.

You are missing the "G" in front and "s" at the end

Oooo boy, touchy topic... Guess I'll potentially shoot myself in the foot.

Well, for the act itself, I think it's horrible. As far as the laws and sentences go, that's where I kinda hit bumps in the road. On one hand a majority of rape accusations turn out to be true, and whoever's guilty deserves everything they get, but for those instances where someone innocent gets accused, especially if the accuser makes the incident public for whatever reason, BOOM, DONE, they're publically deemed guilty, and their life at that point is basically over. Their jobs'll fire em, and most all others won't even touch em, any colleges/classes they're taking will kick them out, friends and family will likely break ties, etc. This is made worse when/if they're eventually proven to be innocent, it doesn't matter at that point, they've already been crucified as a monster. Regardless of any kind of evidence or proof, once someone claims it, society blindly takes it as the truth.

Frankly people who come out publicly, especially on places like social media need to be charged and/or fined. In some instances, yes, they're telling the truth, and in rare instances going public may be the only way people/authorities will pay attention or take it seriously, but to take justice into your own hands and publicly accuse someone is still wrong, and the accuser in question isn't usually doing so to get justice, but just ruin the other person's life. Personal revenge =/= justice.

These matters need to go to the police, not twitter, people's magazine, etc.

I heard in a recent poll that 4 out of 5 enjoy gang-rape.

SirBrownBear said:
Oooo boy, touchy topic... Guess I'll potentially shoot myself in the foot.

Well, for the act itself, I think it's horrible. As far as the laws and sentences go, that's where I kinda hit bumps in the road. On one hand a majority of rape accusations turn out to be true, and whoever's guilty deserves everything they get, but for those instances where someone innocent gets accused, especially if the accuser makes the incident public for whatever reason, BOOM, DONE, they're publically deemed guilty, and their life at that point is basically over. Their jobs'll fire em, and most all others won't even touch em, any colleges/classes they're taking will kick them out, friends and family will likely break ties, etc. This is made worse when/if they're eventually proven to be innocent, it doesn't matter at that point, they've already been crucified as a monster. Regardless of any kind of evidence or proof, once someone claims it, society blindly takes it as the truth.

Frankly people who come out publicly, especially on places like social media need to be charged and/or fined. In some instances, yes, they're telling the truth, and in rare instances going public may be the only way people/authorities will pay attention or take it seriously, but to take justice into your own hands and publicly accuse someone is still wrong, and the accuser in question isn't usually doing so to get justice, but just ruin the other person's life. Personal revenge =/= justice.

These matters need to go to the police, not twitter, people's magazine, etc.

pretty much sums up my thoughts on this topic.

tbh I think that once proven guilty rape charges should carry an automatic death sentence

Same goes for murder

slyroon said:
I heard in a recent poll that 4 out of 5 enjoy gang-rape.

Never fails

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
tbh I think that once proven guilty rape charges should carry an automatic death sentence

Same goes for murder

I can understand murder, but I think going for "eye for eye" is better with rape if you know what i mean.

Rape is "Pear" if you rearrange the letters.

...Or "Raep" if I feel like channeling the powers of my current avatar.

TheHuskyK9 said:
You are missing the "G" in front and "s" at the end

Lol xDDD

Oh you~ :')

Uploading ponification of undertale is a rape on e621?

Burgerpants said:

Uploading ponification of undertale is a rape on e621?

what the fuck

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
How do you people feel about real-life rape?

Well seeing as how it's illegal and hurts other people I'm not really the biggest fan

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
tbh I think that once proven guilty rape charges should carry an automatic death sentence

What if someone who is innocent is found guilty? Happens all the time.

I think this is one of those few times something like I'm A Goddamn Rapist can actually have some social pertinence. That whole album really shows just how dark predatory sexual violence can be (kinda messed up when you find yourself inadvertently singing along)

False accusations of rape should be punished by rape.

All shapes, sizes, and flavors. If i ever see a new variety I haven't tried before, you can bet I'm picking it up.

fuckin love grapes

Peekaboo said:
"How do you feel about the laws on rape"

Mandatory castration for rapists, pls Obama, this is what we need.

But what happens if they turn out to be wrong? It happens.

Rustyy said:
Well seeing as how it's illegal and hurts other people I'm not really the biggest fan

What if someone who is innocent is found guilty? Happens all the time.

What do you mean

If they're actually innocent then they can't be found guilty

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
What do you mean

If they're actually innocent then they can't be found guilty

Sweet summer child, etc.

It happens enough (even once is enough) that it's a very strong argument against the death penalty. There's been several people killed and later found innocent after their death, and that's only the ones who anyone actually bothered to look in to and appeal successfully, there's probably dozens more we'll never know about.

Especially when it comes to rape, there's usually not a whole lot of physical evidence, a lot of emotional people to making accusations, so probably a much higher chance of someone innocent being found guilty.

There's also a lot of cases where the law's definition of rape does not match the common definition. There was a pretty recent case of someone going to prison for getting his girlfriend pregnant while they were both in highschool many years ago, because one of her family members was salty about something. In plenty of places that would be called "statutory rape", and be the exact same law that kiddy fiddlers go to jail for.

Other than that, it's really a humanitarian issue. You simply don't kill people, or mutilate their bodies. Leave that back in the medieval times.

Rustyy said:
What if someone who is innocent is found guilty? Happens all the time.

yep and a lot of times the accuser in the case of "false rape accusations" gets away with no punishment.

Many innocent people have been sentenced to death or exonerated on death row. Even DNA evidence can be mistaken. Spreading the death penalty is not a good idea.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Many innocent people have been sentenced to death or exonerated on death row. Even DNA evidence can be mistaken. Spreading the death penalty is not a good idea.

Not to mention it costs more, does not help grieving families any more than life imprisonment, and worst of all, is an incentive to go all out if you realize you're going to get caught anyways, as it means you can just end it all instead of being raped in prison for the rest of your life.

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
What do you mean

If they're actually innocent then they can't be found guilty

Have you heard of the Salem Witch Trials?

ShylokVakarian said:
Not to mention it costs more, does not help grieving families any more than life imprisonment, and worst of all, is an incentive to go all out if you realize you're going to get caught anyways, as it means you can just end it all instead of being raped in prison for the rest of your life.

And in some cases (such as failed burglaries), first-time criminals have ended up killing witnesses. Simply because they were afraid of a possible death sentence.

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
What do you mean

If they're actually innocent then they can't be found guilty

You have a wonderfully naive view of the legal system.

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
What do you mean

If they're actually innocent then they can't be found guilty

Unless they're black, male and young!
but in that case, they'll probaby be shot by police before they go to trial, so I guess your point still stands

As someone who suffered numerous incidents of childhood sexual assault at the age of eight (by the same perpetrator), naturally I am absolutely horrified and disgusted by it. I do not, however, support the death penalty because it is an easy way out. Serving an excruciatingly long sentence for savagely exploiting someone else, thereby scarring their bodies and minds and robbing them of their sense of bodily autonomy in order to temporarily satisfy one's self is quite a punishment in and of itself. Rapists generally do not fare well in prison, I find, having known many people who've been to prison and have seen how such people usually do in general population.

As far as the justice system's handling of things goes, though, I do think a lot more care, nuance and equal judging/sentencing could be applied to the topic. Female perpetrators of statutory rape get less years, men often have the upper-hand as far as the whole "her word against his" situation goes, not reporting incidents of rape the moment after they occur generally gets the victim dubious treatment, etc.

The point of laws, in my opinion, should be prevention and rehabilitation. Not legally sanctioned revenge. It genuinely bothers me how, whenever these sorts of topics are brought up, the response from many people is "Make them suffer!".

To me, advocating rape or body mutilation for convicted rapists is to advocate torture. Advocating rape for rapists is particularly problematic, because the idea that someone could deserve being raped is a rather... dangerous attitude to take. But either way, I'm not a fan of cruel and unusual punishments.

Do you really think mutilating and raping a person is very conducive to having them rejoin society successfully at some point in the future? Do you think that's the best way to stop them from reoffending?

That said, an even larger group of you seem much more moderate on the sorts of punishments you'd like to see handed out. Which, kudos. Seriously, it's nice to see a lack of bloodthirst here.

Clawdragons said:
The point of laws, in my opinion, should be prevention and rehabilitation. Not legally sanctioned revenge.

I get what you're saying, and rehabilitation should definitely be a more common thing in the justice system, but punishment for breaking laws that revolve around harming others in some fashion also serves as a catharsis for the victim or some measure of closure for the families of victims who don't survive, plus ya gotta be a bit harsh (within reason, of course) so that the perps who aren't as determined will think twice before doin' anything fucked up. That in and of itself is part of prevention.

Also I wholeheartedly agree that prison-rape and all sorts of other gruesome shit are not something that anyone should actively wish on anybody despite what they've done. It merely perpetuates a cycle of sexual assault and other completely unnecessary violence, which is completely inconducive to any attempts made to prevent such events from happening.

Slowdive92 said:
I get what you're saying, and rehabilitation should definitely be a more common thing in the justice system, but punishment for breaking laws that revolve around harming others in some fashion also serves as a catharsis for the victim or some measure of closure for the families of victims who don't survive, plus ya gotta be a bit harsh (within reason, of course) so that the perps who aren't as determined will think twice before doin' anything fucked up. That in and of itself is part of prevention.

Also I wholeheartedly agree that prison-rape and all sorts of other gruesome shit are not something that anyone should actively wish on anybody despite what they've done. It merely perpetuates a cycle of sexual assault and other completely unnecessary violence, which is completely inconducive to any attempts made to prevent such events from happening.

We seem mostly to agree.

I'm not saying that there isn't some element of punishment in there, but what I'm saying is that punishment should exist not for its own sake, or for the sake of "justice" or revenge, but because having that punishment will hopefully act as a deterrent to the specific crime, within reason. The catharsis for the victim or family is, to me, a "happy accident" (for lack of a better way to phrase that). It's good that it does that, but it's not the point of the punishment.

In other words, again, we mostly agree. Perhaps I should have explained what I meant by "prevention" more clearly at first, but we got there in the end.

SirBrownBear said:
Oooo boy, touchy topic... Guess I'll potentially shoot myself in the foot.

Well, for the act itself, I think it's horrible. As far as the laws and sentences go, that's where I kinda hit bumps in the road. On one hand a majority of rape accusations turn out to be true, and whoever's guilty deserves everything they get, but for those instances where someone innocent gets accused, especially if the accuser makes the incident public for whatever reason, BOOM, DONE, they're publically deemed guilty, and their life at that point is basically over. Their jobs'll fire em, and most all others won't even touch em, any colleges/classes they're taking will kick them out, friends and family will likely break ties, etc. This is made worse when/if they're eventually proven to be innocent, it doesn't matter at that point, they've already been crucified as a monster. Regardless of any kind of evidence or proof, once someone claims it, society blindly takes it as the truth.

Frankly people who come out publicly, especially on places like social media need to be charged and/or fined. In some instances, yes, they're telling the truth, and in rare instances going public may be the only way people/authorities will pay attention or take it seriously, but to take justice into your own hands and publicly accuse someone is still wrong, and the accuser in question isn't usually doing so to get justice, but just ruin the other person's life. Personal revenge =/= justice.

These matters need to go to the police, not twitter, people's magazine, etc.

Through the Wormhole had a good bit on that in one episode called "Can We Eliminate Evil?"

Genjar said:
And in some cases (such as failed burglaries), first-time criminals have ended up killing witnesses. Simply because they were afraid of a possible death sentence.

Yes, but I doubt any US jurisdiction allows the death penalty for murder committed while committing a crime. At the very least, Missouri only saves the death penalty for first degree.

Clawdragons said:
The point of laws, in my opinion, should be prevention and rehabilitation. Not legally sanctioned revenge. It genuinely bothers me how, whenever these sorts of topics are brought up, the response from many people is "Make them suffer!".

To me, advocating rape or body mutilation for convicted rapists is to advocate torture. Advocating rape for rapists is particularly problematic, because the idea that someone could deserve being raped is a rather... dangerous attitude to take. But either way, I'm not a fan of cruel and unusual punishments.

Do you really think mutilating and raping a person is very conducive to having them rejoin society successfully at some point in the future? Do you think that's the best way to stop them from reoffending?

That said, an even larger group of you seem much more moderate on the sorts of punishments you'd like to see handed out. Which, kudos. Seriously, it's nice to see a lack of bloodthirst here.

Hey, sometimes, you can't rehabilitate someone. So you let them be raped in prison.

In a lighthearted comment about a serious subject, this is what I have to say about rape.

ShylokVakarian said:
Yes, but I doubt any US jurisdiction allows the death penalty for murder committed while committing a crime. At the very least, Missouri only saves the death penalty for first degree.

People are rarely able to think clearly when they're caught committing a crime.

For instance: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110211/news/702119847/

Genjar said:
People are rarely able to think clearly when they're caught committing a crime.

For instance: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110211/news/702119847/

Ah, yes, that guy.

My point still stands. It's not first degree anyways, it was spur of the moment, so whoever did that probably won't be sentenced to death.

Rape is bad, mmk? People who do it should be sent to prison for a long time. People who falsely accuse others of it should be sent to prison too, mmk?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8

Merry Christmas.

I made this post after seeing a post on facebook about a man raping and killing his year old daughter, and then was proceedingly gang-raped to the point of needing stitches, and then gang-raped again the night after.

What do y'all think about that? The man was in for a life sentence, too.

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
I made this post after seeing a post on facebook about a man raping and killing his year old daughter, and then was proceedingly gang-raped to the point of needing stitches, and then gang-raped again the night after.

What do y'all think about that? The man was in for a life sentence, too.

I've already expressed my opinion that the idea that someone can "deserve" rape is troubling. This scenario doesn't change my mind. I don't approve of rape, even if it is the rape of rapists.

Clawdragons said:
I've already expressed my opinion that the idea that someone can "deserve" rape is troubling. This scenario doesn't change my mind. I don't approve of rape, even if it is the rape of rapists.

Don't forget "Child murderer..."

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
I made this post after seeing a post on facebook about a man raping and killing his year old daughter, and then was proceedingly gang-raped to the point of needing stitches, and then gang-raped again the night after.

What do y'all think about that? The man was in for a life sentence, too.

Not my idea of justice.
But I can't say what happened to him is particularly troubling.

Fenrick said:
Don't forget "Child murderer..."

I didn't.

I have... a very unpopular set of opinions, when it comes to young infants. I generally avoid discussing them, because people tend to be uncomfortable hearing said opinions expressed.

The short version though is that, in this case specifically, the rape is a far greater crime in my eyes than the murder, so I was focusing on what I see as the worst thing he's done.

The act of rape is a horrible thing, and it should be punished severely. I don't know about rape laws in other countries, but the rape laws here in Sweden are quite sound. However, out courts and judges are in my opinion spineless cowards since very few cases of clear rape are dealt with properly. And the sentences for rape in Sweden are ridiculously low. My country really needs to grow a back bone when it comes to the judgement of rape (and most other crimes as well).

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
I made this post after seeing a post on facebook about a man raping and killing his year old daughter, and then was proceedingly gang-raped to the point of needing stitches, and then gang-raped again the night after.

What do y'all think about that? The man was in for a life sentence, too.

Yeah, I'm with Clawdragons. Terrible behaviour towards anybody is not excused by anyone's history. If you rape a rapist, you are no less a rapist for the fact that they were a rapist first / advocating the murder of Nazis because they are Nazis just makes you a Nazi too / etc. Acceptable targets aren't.

That doesn't mean if I was right there, I wouldn't be tempted to do him violence. But justifying my uncivilized feelings as 'okay' because they are towards a 'deserving target' is the opposite of reasonable behaviour.

savageorange said:
That doesn't mean if I was right there, I wouldn't be tempted to do him violence. But justifying my uncivilized feelings as 'okay' because they are towards a 'deserving target' is the opposite of reasonable behaviour.

I really like this sentiment and how you phrased it.

I mean, seriously, if you don't mind, could I save this paragraph and quote it sometime? I have never heard this put better before in my life.

Clawdragons said:
I didn't.

I have... a very unpopular set of opinions, when it comes to young infants. I generally avoid discussing them, because people tend to be uncomfortable hearing said opinions expressed.

The short version though is that, in this case specifically, the rape is a far greater crime in my eyes than the murder, so I was focusing on what I see as the worst thing he's done.

I'll have to take your word for it, because murder victims tend to be a bit worse for wear than rape victims (ie buried in the ground).

No, I don't think rape is anywhere near trivial, but what's your angle here? That murdering children is, in this case?

Fenrick said:
I'll have to take your word for it, because murder victims tend to be a bit worse for wear than rape victims (ie buried in the ground).

No, I don't think rape is anywhere near trivial, but what's your angle here? That murdering children is, in this case?

Well, since you're asking directly...

I don't generally do this, but:

[TRIGGER WARNING]

The following opinion may be very offensive to some. Additionally, I am examining some aspects of rape in detail, and these details may be disturbing for some.

And there you go.

Clawdragons said:
I really like this sentiment and how you phrased it.

I mean, seriously, if you don't mind, could I save this paragraph and quote it sometime? I have never heard this put better before in my life.

Thanks, and sure, that's okay.

Clawdragons said:

I think very young infants have very little in the way of sense of self, personality, awareness, and social bonds. They experience no fear of their own mortality, they have had no impact on society, and relatively few people care about them to any extent. In this case, in fact, even fewer than usual people care about this child, because clearly the father doesn't.

Furthermore, at such a young age, the infant is more replaceable. I do recognize that, again, for the parents, there is an emotional loss which can't be bridged, but that is much less significant than the amount of loss that others would feel if the child was older and had many connections and impact. Relatively little resources went into it's formation, compared to an older child or an adult.

These things combine together such that I feel that the younger a child is, the less harmful their death is overall. On the other hand, the amount of suffering that results from a rape is more static across the ages. At older ages, there are a lot more emotional aspects, but on the other hand, the physical damage and pain caused by the act are more extreme as the child is younger.

Furthermore, death is simply the end of consciousness. For the individual who has died, there is no loss, because the individual has ceased to exist. I don't really consider miscarriages to be a tragedy either.

I'm not saying that the murder is not wrong, for the record. Just that, at this young age, comparing the two, I find the rape to be the much worse crime. The loss of life itself in this case seems much more trivial compared to the pain which that life suffered while alive.
[/section]

And there you go.

By this logic, killing a homeless person is "Less of a crime" than killing someone who's well off. After all, they probably didn't have any friends, and certainly not as much societal influence.
They call them "Human rights," instead of "Sentient adult rights" for a reason.

Fenrick said:
By this logic, killing a homeless person is "Less of a crime" than killing someone who's well off. After all, they probably didn't have any friends, and certainly not as much societal influence.
They call them "Human rights," instead of "Sentient adult rights" for a reason.

And what happens when you drop the "human" part of human rights? I think that's an arbitrary distinction. Why should one's classification as a member of the human species be relevant in the slightest to determining moral standing?

I'm more than willing to say that that classification is arbitrary, and, yeah, even speciesist.

You can't say that all life has equal rights, unless you want to argue that you are guilty of a trillion counts of manslaughter on behalf of your immune system.

So it seems to me that the only reasonable thing to do is to try to come up with criteria that apply regardless of species. The criteria I listed were my best attempt at doing so. They are, I fully recognize, flawed. If you can propose a better set of criteria, I'd be happy to hear them, and if they seem less flawed to me, I'll adopt them in whole or in part.

To clarify, social bonds and societal influence are relatively minor comparatively. The largest criteria, by far, has to do with self-awareness. I think the others still do play a part, both positively and negatively, but they are secondary. If you don't understand why I consider them worth mentioning still, I can try to explain further.

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
I made this post after seeing a post on facebook about a man raping and killing his year old daughter, and then was proceedingly gang-raped to the point of needing stitches, and then gang-raped again the night after.

What do y'all think about that? The man was in for a life sentence, too.

That sounds like people on the inside eating each other alive. Not classic cannibalism, but the inward destruction remains. A vicious cycle and all that. No just punishment was carried out in the eyes of the law, nor for the morals those laws were based upon. Rape is not a righteous decision.

At this very moment, I will acknowledge that such barbaric acts can unsympathetically seem deserved or fair, that someone who performed a vile act and received their comeuppance for it may even be pleasing news, but then my sense of morals kick in telling me it is sick, perverse, and base to relish in the destruction of others. Most importantly, my sense of pride would degrade my perceived self-worth if I were to instantly accept and apply such impulses to outward behavior or guiding thought without first seeking a more potentially rational and balanced interpretation, which was what I decided my first paragraph was.

Clawdragons said:
And what happens when you drop the "human" part of human rights? I think that's an arbitrary distinction. Why should one's classification as a member of the human species be relevant in the slightest to determining moral standing?

I'm more than willing to say that that classification is arbitrary, and, yeah, even speciesist.

There are a multitude of reasons that we care more about the well-being of other humans than animals. If you consider all of them to be "arbitrary," then... honestly, what planet must you be from?

Fenrick said:
There are a multitude of reasons that we care more about the well-being of humans than other animals. If you consider all of them to be "arbitrary," then... honestly, what planet must you be from?

I said that using species specifically as a criteria is arbitrary. Whether something is human or not is arbitrary. If you are using other, non-arbitrary traits to determine that we should care more about the well-being of humans, those traits should apply regardless of species.

I listed a few traits myself, and some of them would result in greater value being placed on the well-being of humans compared to many other animals.

Then I asked you for the reasons you find relevant for distinguishing the relative moral standing of various individuals and species, considering you find mine insufficient. But your response doesn't actually seem to include any characteristics or traits.

So I suppose I'll ask again. What criteria are you using here? What characteristics do you use to justify the assertion that we should care more about the well-being of humans over other animals?

This whole thread sounds like it wears a fedora.

Actinium-89 said:
This whole thread sounds like it wears a fedora.

You right

Every now and again it seems that there's certain threads that take off...can't possibly imagine why!

Actinium-89 said:
This whole thread sounds like it wears a fedora.

finally someone said it

Actinium-89 said:
This whole thread sounds like it wears a fedora.

I feel like I'm out of the loop here.

Clawdragons said:
I feel like I'm out of the loop here.

Oh, it's about the whole MRA thing -- you know, the women-hating (usually fat and/or otherwise unattractive) fedora-wearing men.

apparently it also applies to the thread, but I'm not seeing it

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
but I'm not seeing it

How am I not surprised.

Actinium-89 said:
How am I not surprised.

I don't know. I can't see what you're thinking

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
Oh, it's about the whole MRA thing -- you know, the women-hating (usually fat and/or otherwise unattractive) fedora-wearing men.

apparently it also applies to the thread, but I'm not seeing it

Ah. Is that what a fedora is associated with?

I can definitely see that in this thread, personally. It's been sort of obvious since the thread started. If you're having trouble seeing it, I can point out the highlights.

You know though, I'm going to back out here. It seems like I'm one of the few who takes a middle ground on these issues, so whenever one of these posts comes up I feel besieged from both sides.

The only acceptable punishment for all types of rape is....
Life in prison with hard labour. All proceeds of their labour should be given to the victim and to help support women groups.

I hear allot about rehabilitation; but the same people will forget to tell you that people who commit sexual assault have the highest recidivism rate among all categories of crime.

Rapist should not be set free, ever, period.

CuteCoughDeath said:
The only acceptable punishment for all types of rape is....
Life in prison with hard labour. All proceeds of their labour should be given to the victim and to help support women groups.

I hear allot about rehabilitation; but the same people will forget to tell you that people who commit sexual assault have the highest recidivism rate among all categories of crime.

Rapist should not be set free, ever, period.

That definitely seems more useful than execution or just regular imprisonment. I like the idea

To take this in a somewhat different direction....what is to be done when it is so ingrained into a cultural mentality that it is seen as 'traditional' and thus shielded from rational criticism (as many traditions are wont).

Abduction of marriage-age women was common during the Liao dynasty. Khitan men of all social classes participated in the activity, and the abductees were both Khitan and Han. In some cases, this was a step in the courtship process, where the woman would agree to the abduction and the resulting sexual intercourse, and then the abductor and abductee would return to the woman's home to announce their intention to marry. This process was known as baimen (拜門). In other cases, the abduction would be non-consensual and would result in a rape.

Notwithstanding how abduction could be even considered 'consensual', is there any social recourse when all of society is in on the same tangent? The implication being, there are still quite a few that function this way, and the tragedy that there's no easy way to rectify a process of enculturation that values women as inherently lesser. Because that's still a very real problem today

Fenrick said:
There are a multitude of reasons that we care more about the well-being of other humans than animals. If you consider all of them to be "arbitrary," then... honestly, what planet must you be from?

Lies. When an old male human dies in a movie, you'd give less of a shit than if an old male dog died in a movie ;3

CuteCoughDeath said:
The only acceptable punishment for all types of rape is....
Life in prison with hard labour. All proceeds of their labour should be given to the victim and to help support women groups.

I hear allot about rehabilitation; but the same people will forget to tell you that people who commit sexual assault have the highest recidivism rate among all categories of crime.

Rapist should not be set free, ever, period.

Why specifically women's groups?

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
Why specifically women's groups?

Duh, because men can't get raped!

Munkelzahn said:
Duh, because men can't get raped!

Pretty much. English doesn't distinguish between rape of men and rape of women - But they are inherently different things.

Biologically speaking sex cost men nothing. Sperm are created in their billions and are easily replenished. Also men can both reproduce well into their senior years and can sire hundreds of offspring.

Sex for women on the other hand is increasably biologically expensive. Apart from one in four (estimates varies) women dieing during childbirth pre-modern era and the very limited biological clock women have. Women can only pass genetics along a limited number of times. Pregnancy lasts 9 months and child rearing several years.

This is why all societies prize omens sexuality above mens. And this is why specious where the female bares fewer biological burdens tend to be more sexually amorphic.

CuteCoughDeath said:
Pretty much. English doesn't distinguish between rape of men and rape of women - But they are inherently different things.

Biologically speaking sex cost men nothing. Sperm are created in their billions and are easily replenished. Also men can both reproduce well into their senior years and can sire hundreds of offspring.

Sex for women on the other hand is increasably biologically expensive. Apart from one in four (estimates varies) women dieing during childbirth pre-modern era and the very limited biological clock women have. Women can only pass genetics along a limited number of times. Pregnancy lasts 9 months and child rearing several years.

This is why all societies prize omens sexuality above mens. And this is why specious where the female bares fewer biological burdens tend to be more sexually amorphic.

Did
Did you just

Did you just say men can't be raped

Hold on. What?!

By your fucked up logic, infertile women can't be raped and infertile men can't rape.

CuteCoughDeath said:
Pretty much. English doesn't distinguish between rape of men and rape of women - But they are inherently different things.

Biologically speaking sex cost men nothing. Sperm are created in their billions and are easily replenished. Also men can both reproduce well into their senior years and can sire hundreds of offspring.

Sex for women on the other hand is increasably biologically expensive. Apart from one in four (estimates varies) women dieing during childbirth pre-modern era and the very limited biological clock women have. Women can only pass genetics along a limited number of times. Pregnancy lasts 9 months and child rearing several years.

This is why all societies prize omens sexuality above mens. And this is why specious where the female bares fewer biological burdens tend to be more sexually amorphic.

Rape is unwanted sexual intercourse against the will of the victim.

I, a male rape victim, am frankly appalled at what you have just said.

Besides that, I'd be inclined to suggest that as long as the women births a child in a hospital, male rape victims have it worse than female rape victims.
Keep in mind that female rape victims can abort their babies and while yes that may be very traumatic and terrible, they're showered with therapy, shelters, money, friends, help, and the police will be at their side in seconds.

Meanwhile, look at how male rape victims are treated. You wanna know what they call a male rape victim shelter in America? Prison. The male rape victim can be sued by (and most cases are won by) the female rapist for child support. Guess what? They have to pay. If they don't, they go to jail. Now, what kind of funds are available to male rape victims? Lets see here, i'll make a list:
*None
*None
*Oh, and what's that last one? Oh yeah, NONE.
And guess how everyone treats male rape victims?
"He had a boner, it wasn't rape."
"Fucking weak ass bitch wasn't raped, that chick is hot as fuck"
Et-fucking-cetera.

And just watch as they get immediately laughed out of police stations.

CuteCoughDeath said:
Biologically speaking sex cost men nothing.

Or you know, a female with an STD/HIV can rape a male and give him the incurable disease.

God-dammit, no. Fuck this shit. CuteCough, AKBAR, do not turn this very serious issue into some idiotic fucking pissing contest between different sects of 'fedorable' cults. No victim of sexual assault has it "worse" or "better" than any other, regardless of their gender. For fuck's sake. Each one is a victim of a violent sexual crime and each has their own different obstacles in the justice system and in the world around them in general because of current-day societal norms.

Let me make something very clear for the both of you:

You DO NOT diminish the suffering of any victim regardless of their gender, race, whatever. If you do, you are fucking useless to the entire cause of prevention, public education and law enforcement when it comes to the problem of rape as a whole. While one gender may be much more predominantly affected (and that is true), you DO NOT divide the struggle against it for any reason or you are complicit in its perpetuation by your own petty, selfish attempts to keep primary focus on whomever you feel is "more important". In even thinking that way to begin with you work against everyone. While many experiences vary, everyone who experiences rape suffers. Nearly every one of them (including myself) has felt that lingering and harrowing shame, heard doubters that accuse them of lying, and are scarred mentally and, in some cases, physically. Yes, there are many unfairnesses levied against men and women respectively. But that is why we can't fucking afford to separate them as somehow being different struggles when they are one and the same. If you can't see that, then god help you. Just stay out of the way of the people who are actually serious about all of this.

It's quite clear to me that barely any of you can even make the attempt talk about this in any sort of adult fashion, so after this post I will not be visiting this thread again. All it's done for me so far is make me angry at most of you for your immaturity, cognitive dissonance and general ignorance. In hindsight, I don't think I should've expected much more and the fact that I did is my own failing.

Though I communicate harshly, try not to kneejerk too hard that you can't at least ponder the point I'm trying to convey.