Differing degrees of rape?

[Anomalocaris]

It does matter if the emotional effect upon the victim has an impact on the decision to press charges or support the pressing of charges.

If the victim was unwilling at the time of the act, but subsequently thought it wasn't bad and wouldn't mind repeating the experience, it was most definitely still rape, because ex post consent is no consent at all, and the perpetrator still deserves the same punishment as any other acts of rape. but pragmatically it would be difficult to make rape charge stick if ex post the victim declined the press charges.

The reverse is if the victim is unwilling at the time of the act, but subsequently thought pressing charges would be too ambarassing, or would open the credible possibility of serious retaliation, it would also be difficult to make the rape charge stick, regardless of what the law says.

If rape is an awful enough crime to deserve a lengthy prison sentence (and I think it is), then the law should (and is most places does) provide a lengthy sentence. You may think all rapes should be prosecuted to the fullest, but that will never happen because, whatever the law is, victims will to some extent determine how it is enforced. That is my point. And it's true of most crimes because the victim is usually necessary to prosecution.

Where we differ is in how we feel about the victim's decision not to prosecute. I think, as long as that decision is not made out of fear, that it's a good thing be it a fist fight, rape, stealing a package of gum, or embezzlement. If a man has sex with a woman before getting permission and she decides it a good thing, the law has no business between them unless she's a child or not able to give consent for some other reason. I don't believe in victimless crimes, and a person who does not feel victimized, is not a victim in my view.

Except I don't think a rape where the victim enjoyed it is strictly victimless, nor is the concept of victimlessness as applied to this case strictly the same as that used to argue that a victimless act ought not be considered a crime.

1. It is not strictly victimless because it creates the impression that whether act of rape is a punishable crime is an probabilistic thing whose probability is decreased by the probability of the nonconsenting victim changing his/her mind. This victimizes nonconsenting victims who would never change their mind by increasing the chance they would be raped on the the gamble that They would change their minds.

2. The victimlessness here with respect to the fickle victim is the result of happenstance. A true victimless crime is where the victimlessness is not the result of happenstance, but can be confidently predicted before the act.