Rapists

[DeistPaladin]

Are you arguing that murderers aren't less sociopathic than rapists or that murder is less dangerous to society than rape?

That rapists are more sociopathic and more often repeat offenders and therefore more dangerous to society.

I agree, mostly. I'd like to see some amount of rehabilitative efforts thrown in there with far less emphasis on punishment.

Sure but that's another issue and the topic of specific better strategies for rehabilitation is one I'm not qualified to discuss. I'm advocating longer sentences more for the purpose of keeping them away from society.

There's a lot of gray area in rape, as much as we might not like to admit it, especially when drugs or alcohol are impairing the judgement of people involved.

This is true and something I wasn't thinking of. I assume you refer to the target drinking or using drugs and not the perp, right?

If the target is incapacitated or incoherent, they clearly aren't able to give consent and I would agree they need to be protected by the law. Rape isn't determined by the "no" but the absence of a "yes". The problem it's hard to come up with an objective blood/alcohol measure of when that line is crossed. Some people are knocked out with only a few drinks where others have a higher tolerance.

Some may feel, my wife included, that lesser degrees of intoxication should also remove the ability to give consent. By this, I mean still able to walk about, speak clearly, etc but their judgment is impaired. Though this may not be a popular opinion, I find this logic to be faulty on two counts.

First, I find it inconsistent that if such a person decides to get behind the wheel of a car and drive, they are held responsible for their choices. You can't use a defense of "oh, sorry, I was drunk and not in my right mind". Yet if they have sex that they wouldn't normally have if they were sober, they're not responsible for this choice and it should be considered forced upon them? Why are they responsible for one choice and not another?

Second, not all sex involves the man seducing the woman. Sometimes women will aggressively take the lead and jump his bones. Additionally, some people, myself included, are "mellow drunks" who don't give off noticeable signs of intoxication in their behavior. Do we push her away and ask for a Breathalyzer test first?

Some state laws are so severe that ANY alcohol in the system renders one incapable of giving consent. One of my favorite seduction rituals, once the time is right in a relationship, is to invite my romantic interest over to my place and cook him or her a meal. Typically, a glass of wine is served, if he or she chooses to partake. Assuming that glass of wine wasn't completely metabolized by the time we get to the bedroom, does that make it rape? That seems pretty extreme to me.

One other concern with drugs and alcohol are drugs designed as "rape drugs". They render a target incoherent and vulnerable to the power of suggestion. This is obviously rape and treated as such by the law.

Statutory rape can certainly be a gray area as well, because, let's face it, we don't ask for photo ID of sexual partners before we get down and dirty and it's entirely possible for someone to lie about their age.

Agreed and also a point I hadn't considered. Of course, statutory rape is treated differently than 1st or 2nd degree rape.

Many people can confuse the non-verbal cues we use for a lot of our communication and think someone is into it when they aren't.

That's true. In my dating experience, I've had plenty of misunderstandings on a wide variety of subjects, ranging from whether there were any "commitments" made to what the future prospects were. Sometimes our partners make the assumption that what they want is also what we want (see wishful thinking, confirmation bias and psychological projection). However, when it comes to sex, I should think any misunderstandings would be made clear before the full blown act itself.

Really? You're more comfortable with someone who had a temporary lapse of judgement than you are with someone who planned out a crime for maybe months in advance?

When it comes to rape, yes.

Speaking personally, I was in a situation once making love to my then girlfriend. Apparently, something she ate earlier that night had made her ill. Right in the middle of sex, and by that I mean as we were going at it, she said she needed to stop. And so I ended it there. My dick wasn't happy about it but we stopped right then. ...we both needed to use the bathroom for different reasons...

So when I hear some rape defendant whining about how she was leading him on and he just couldn't control his passions, I don't want to hear about it. If I can stop in the middle of sex on her request, it proves to me that men can stop before they even start to have sex if she says to.

If anything, this only strengthens my case that there's gray area with rape and some rape, like child rape, is worse than others.

To be clear, pedophilia is something that needs a life sentence because we're starting to suspect it's a sexual orientation, not just a predatory behavior. This means it can't be cured and the perp can't be rehabilitated. Hence, they need to be locked up forever.

But even in cases of child rape there can be gray areas. There are places where it's a crime for a 19 year old to have sex with a 17 year old

That's not pedophilia. Child rape concerns a prepubescent victim.

But yes, the 19/17 year old couple, that's a situation that should not be prosecuted. I've sometimes thought a caveat should be in the law where if the age difference is less than four years, it doesn't count as statutory rape.