philosophy meta-forum

Why is rape punished more severely than battery?

Wendy

11 day(s) ago

When you whoop someone's ass, there is no consent, just like there isn't in rape.

Furthermore, whooping someone's ass involves concrete damage to bodily parts whereas rape typically doesn't.

So what's the justification for punishing rape more severely - besides the ick factor?

The people who argue that Christians who oppose gay sex and sodomy are confusing ick factor with morality. Will these people bite the bullet in the case of rape?

Akos

11 day(s) ago

Which would you prefer not happen to you? Being, say, forcibly raped by a man or getting your jaw and nose broken in an ass-kicking?

When you whoop someone's ass, there is no consent, just like there isn't in rape.

Furthermore, whooping someone's ass involves concrete damage to bodily parts whereas rape typically doesn't.

So what's the justification for punishing rape more severely - besides the ick factor?

The people who argue that Christians who oppose gay sex and sodomy are confusing ick factor with morality. Will these people bite the bullet in the case of rape?

Wendy

Wendy

11 day(s) ago

Former. But it's not from rational calculation of utility, but from emotional response to the ick factor, which is exactly my point.

Akos

11 day(s) ago

You're a idiot if you think the moral wrongness of rape is the product of lack of consent and physical damage.

Wendy

11 day(s) ago

You're a idiot if you think the moral wrongness of rape is the product of lack of consent and physical damage.

Akos

The whole point of my original comment is that moral wrongness is at least partly a product of "ick factor", you retarded two dollar whore.

Akos

11 day(s) ago

You think the thing that makes rape bad is the ick factor? Or that the people ok with gay anal sex have no resources to explain the wrongness of rape? Wtf are you even saying?

Wendy

11 day(s) ago

You think the thing that makes rape bad is the ick factor? Or that the people ok with gay anal sex have no resources to explain the wrongness of rape? Wtf are you even saying?

Akos

I'm saying it's no objection to Christians who oppose gay sex to say they are confusing morality with ick factor. Because in order to justify punishing rapists more severely we have to bring in ick factor, pretty much. You moronic poop infested whore.

David

11 day(s) ago

Being raped is much more psychologically traumatic than getting beaten up. It's more like being tortured in that respect. If you want to call that "the ick factor", okay, but it's not clearly an unreasonable justification for more severe punishment.

Wendy

11 day(s) ago

Being raped is much more psychologically traumatic than getting beaten up. It's more like being tortured in that respect. If you want to call that "the ick factor", okay, but it's not clearly an unreasonable justification for more severe punishment.

David

I was waiting for some second rate intellect to bring up the psychological damage point. Are you suggesting that if someone sneaks into a woman's bedroom and rapes her in her sleep and leave no trace (basically, Bill Cosby) and she never found out - are you saying this person's action is okay? You cheap, cheap dirty whore.

Thierry

11 day(s) ago

Because it’s sexual. Sex isn’t a recreational activity. It’s deeply intimate, self-giving and built on trust. I mean, the man is literally inside the woman. It’s hard to get much more intimate, private and close than that.

So rape perverts sex, twisting what is intimate and beautiful until it is disfigured and evil. That's an affront to the good, the beautiful and decent. What’s more, it doesn’t just abrogate consent, but forces an intimacy, a sort of bodily invasion onto the person. It also denies their human dignity by treating them as a thing, an object to get off on rather than a person to whom we owe respect.

Wendy

11 day(s) ago

Good, I agree with everything. This is the correct way to explain why rape is especially wrong, not some "psychotically harm" utilitarian bullshit. (Only reservation is about "treating as an object". The rapist is definitely *not* acting like the woman is an object - he would get zero kick out of it if he doesn't think that he's violating a real person).

In any case, the point I'm making is that once you see the form the explanation in the case of rape must take, and that it cannot take a utilitarian form, you see that to object to Christian opposition to butt sex on utilitarian grounds, is utterly retarded.

Leonard

11 day(s) ago

You think the thing that makes rape bad is the ick factor? Or that the people ok with gay anal sex have no resources to explain the wrongness of rape? Wtf are you even saying?

Akos

I'm saying it's no objection to Christians who oppose gay sex to say they are confusing morality with ick factor. Because in order to justify punishing rapists more severely we have to bring in ick factor, pretty much. You moronic poop infested whore.

Wendy

Leonard

11 day(s) ago

Even if everything you say is true (protip: none of it is) nothing you want to follow from it does. Even if what makes rape extra wrong is the ickyness to the person it's being done to nothing at all follows about the moral permissibility of acts that are perceived as icky by non-participants.

Julien

11 day(s) ago

Don't feed the troll.

Zou

11 day(s) ago

This thread is like "who's who in mental illness."

Wendy

11 day(s) ago

Even if everything you say is true (protip: none of it is) nothing you want to follow from it does. Even if what makes rape extra wrong is the ickyness to the person it's being done to nothing at all follows about the moral permissibility of acts that are perceived as icky by non-participants.

Leonard

Where did I argue butt sex is morally permissible? All I argued is that a particular objection to an argument that butt sex is impermissible is a bad objection. You filthy two-bit whore.

Zeno

11 day(s) ago

A good part of the difference might be explained by the fact that the relevant moral rules and laws come from the time when there was no easy way to prevent childbearing from forced sex. And now of course our attitudes align with longstanding norms that carry the weight of tradition. Which does not mean that they cannot be revised, and reasonably so.

Muhammad

11 day(s) ago

A good part of the difference might be explained by the fact that the relevant moral rules and laws come from the time when there was no easy way to prevent childbearing from forced sex. And now of course our attitudes align with longstanding norms that carry the weight of tradition. Which does not mean that they cannot be revised, and reasonably so.

Zeno

shh... the wimmins do not like to hear that.

Aleksei

11 day(s) ago

Because it’s sexual. Sex isn’t a recreational activity. It’s deeply intimate, self-giving and built on trust. I mean, the man is literally inside the woman. It’s hard to get much more intimate, private and close than that.

So rape perverts sex, twisting what is intimate and beautiful until it is disfigured and evil. That's an affront to the good, the beautiful and decent. What’s more, it doesn’t just abrogate consent, but forces an intimacy, a sort of bodily invasion onto the person. It also denies their human dignity by treating them as a thing, an object to get off on rather than a person to whom we owe respect.

Thierry

A disturbing fact about sex in general, unless it's constrained by a lot of Christian-y, old fashioned, uptight rules: it involves treating a "person" as "an object to get off on". Not only as that, perhaps, but certainly _as_ that. That's just how lust works, especially for men. Human nature. So this is a good objection to rape only if also it's a good objection to most of the sex we now regard as morally permissible and healthy. (There are other good objections of course.) But why can't a person also be an object to get off on? What's wrong with treating x as an F, when x is in fact an F?

Evander

11 day(s) ago

Even if everything you say is true (protip: none of it is) nothing you want to follow from it does. Even if what makes rape extra wrong is the ickyness to the person it's being done to nothing at all follows about the moral permissibility of acts that are perceived as icky by non-participants.

Leonard

What a stupid response.

The relationship between moral responses to a situation and the moral judgment is what is in contest here. Whatever emotions and desires are involved in moral evaluations don't have to be relegated to a first-person stance in order to have salience for moral judgments. I can judge that your act is a shitty action because I saw you be rude to an old lady, and you saw that you were rude but didn't have the appropriate response. You are still shitty and rude even if you don't have the feeling.

Your argument is a stupid argument. You question-begging piece of shit.

Leucippus

11 day(s) ago

Just let the victim decide on the punishment. Problem solved.

Debendranath

9 day(s) ago

When you whoop someone's ass, there is no consent, just like there isn't in rape.

Furthermore, whooping someone's ass involves concrete damage to bodily parts whereas rape typically doesn't.

So what's the justification for punishing rape more severely - besides the ick factor?

The people who argue that Christians who oppose gay sex and sodomy are confusing ick factor with morality. Will these people bite the bullet in the case of rape?

Wendy

How about you first get clear about whether you are talking about the justification for punishing it more severely or about its moral status? And if the first, its being punished by whom exactly?

...Or how about not and you just go back to Reddit? Since you are clearly nothing but an over excitable edgelord sophomore with nothing interesting to say.



Allowed tags: 'p', 'b', 'em', 'blockquote'. URLs are automatically linkified.
posts per page.