The #MeToo Campaign (Updated)

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Being forced to penetrate can:

• Transmit STDs

Yes, but the risk is lower. For example, male to female transmission of HIV is more effective than female to male transmission during vaginal intercourse. Same with the risk for herpes:

Let’s say you have an infected male and an uninfected female:

If they avoid sex during outbreaks, don’t use condoms regularly, and he doesn’t take an antiviral therapy every day, the risk of transmission is about 10% per year, though there is a large range — from 7 percent to 31 percent — in different studies.

Let’s say you have an infected female and an uninfected male:

If they avoid sex during outbreaks, don’t use condoms regularly, and she doesn’t take an antiviral therapy every day, the risk of transmission is about 4% per year.

Produce a pregnancy the victim doesn't want

Yes, but the victim does not become pregnant, and thus avoids the extra risk of physical or psychological damage, or even death, which may follow from a pregnancy (including risks following from abortion)

Damage the victim and the involved organ

The risks of damage to the insides - vaginal, anal and oral areas - are larger than the risk of damage due to a forced envelopment. Forced penetration also covers a wider situation and more areas with more damage potential, especially forced anal and oral penetration.

so it sounds fairly arbitrary to me

All injury isn't equal. Especially when it comes to pregnancy and the risks which follows.

Basically, what you're subjecting the victim to in one case is

Risk of death for victim, female, sexual assault by penetration which leads to pregnancy:
R > 0

Risk of death for victim, male, sexual assault by being made to penetrate which leads to pregnancy:
R = 0

Claiming that the risks are equal is silly. Claiming that the risk for men is worse is downright uneducated.

ITT "Your problems aren't as important!"

[Gravlen]

Yes, but the risk is lower. For example, male to female transmission of HIV is more effective than female to male transmission during vaginal intercourse. Same with the risk for herpes:

Let’s say you have an infected male and an uninfected female:

If they avoid sex during outbreaks, don’t use condoms regularly, and he doesn’t take an antiviral therapy every day, the risk of transmission is about 10% per year, though there is a large range — from 7 percent to 31 percent — in different studies.

Let’s say you have an infected female and an uninfected male:

If they avoid sex during outbreaks, don’t use condoms regularly, and she doesn’t take an antiviral therapy every day, the risk of transmission is about 4% per year.

Yes, but the victim does not become pregnant, and thus avoids the extra risk of physical or psychological damage, or even death, which may follow from a pregnancy (including risks following from abortion)


The risks of damage to the insides - vaginal, anal and oral areas - are larger than the risk of damage due to a forced envelopment. Forced penetration also covers a wider situation and more areas with more damage potential, especially forced anal and oral penetration.


All injury isn't equal. Especially when it comes to pregnancy and the risks which follows.

Basically, what you're subjecting the victim to in one case is

Risk of death for victim, female, sexual assault by penetration which leads to pregnancy:
R > 0

Risk of death for victim, male, sexual assault by being made to penetrate which leads to pregnancy:
R = 0

Claiming that the risks are equal is silly. Claiming that the risk for men is worse is downright uneducated.

ITT "Your problems aren't as important!"

*sigh*

Try "Your problems aren't the same".

[The Empire of Pretantia]

ITT "Your problems aren't as important!"

*sigh*

Try "Your problems aren't the same".

That's what I said though.

[Gravlen]

ITT "Your problems aren't as important!"

Or rather, are you aware that we treat interpersonal violence differently? That not all violence are the same? That you'll not get the same punishment for slapping someone as for stabbing them?

We do. I know, it's a concept which is difficult to grasp, but we do. Because the problems are different.

[Gravlen]

*sigh*

Try "Your problems aren't the same".

That's what I said though.

No. You add a value judgement. You talk about importance. That's not relevant. We're talking about different acts with different types of damage inflicted. Hence, different problems, not less important ones.

[Ostroeuropa]

ITT "Your problems aren't as important!"

Or rather, are you aware that we treat interpersonal violence differently? That not all violence are the same? That you'll not get the same punishment for slapping someone as for stabbing them?

We do. I know, it's a concept which is difficult to grasp, but we do. Because the problems are different.

Should adultery by a woman be considered worse than adultery by a man?

Since you argue the possibility of some but not all consequences of rape effect women worse, surely the same can be said of adultery in reverse?

The possibility of long-term fraud and loss of finance should, by your standards, mean that adultery by women be considered a civil suit worthy thing, though not for men, even if no child or pregnancy results from it, because the potential for harm was there.

There's also the extra element of additional emotional distress caused in those circumstances where a pregnancy does occur.
It's also arguably child abuse by default to attempt to conceal it, if you believe children have "right" to a portion of their fathers income.

Etc.

Or we could treat actions the same based on the mindsets of the perpetrators, like an actual rehabilitative system.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

ITT "Your problems aren't as important!"

Or rather, are you aware that we treat interpersonal violence differently? That not all violence are the same? That you'll not get the same punishment for slapping someone as for stabbing them?

We do. I know, it's a concept which is difficult to grasp, but we do. Because the problems are different.

No, they're the exact same problem: sexual exploitation of Innocents.

[Ostroeuropa]

Or rather, are you aware that we treat interpersonal violence differently? That not all violence are the same? That you'll not get the same punishment for slapping someone as for stabbing them?

We do. I know, it's a concept which is difficult to grasp, but we do. Because the problems are different.

No, they're the exact same problem: sexual exploitation of Innocents.

This.
There's no rehabilitative reason to focus on the effects compared to the action and the mentality that caused it.
Gravlen is conveniently punishment focused instead of rehab focused when it allows them to fuck over men comparative to women, but at no other times, it would seem.

Arming ones self and attacking is not equivalent to mere attacking. The thought process behind it is not the same.
But rape is rape.

[Gravlen]

Or rather, are you aware that we treat interpersonal violence differently? That not all violence are the same? That you'll not get the same punishment for slapping someone as for stabbing them?

We do. I know, it's a concept which is difficult to grasp, but we do. Because the problems are different.

No, they're the exact same problem: sexual exploitation of Innocents.

And slapping someone and stabbing them is both the same problem. Right.

[Ostroeuropa]

No, they're the exact same problem: sexual exploitation of Innocents.

And slapping someone and stabbing them is both the same problem. Right.

Attacking someone /=/ arming yourself and attacking someone.
The actions are different and the mental process behind them is different.

But rape is rape.
Both envelopment and penetration without consent have the same process behind them.

Your analogy doesn't fly.

If it's to punish, then the mental process is what counts, the doing of wrong, and that should predominate sentencing.
If it's to rehabilitate, then the mental process is what counts, as nothing else is relevant to rehabilitate.

You are arguing for arbitrary sentencing based on biological differences, in a manner that is neither productive for punishment nor rehabilitation, but only serves a lust for vengeance among sexists in the community.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No, they're the exact same problem: sexual exploitation of Innocents.

And slapping someone and stabbing them is both the same problem. Right.

>This fucking argument.

The difference is those two are different, while in this topic relevant crime there is no distinction.

[Gravlen]

And slapping someone and stabbing them is both the same problem. Right.

>This fucking argument.

The difference is those two are different, while in this topic relevant crime there is no distinction.

There is. Which was just pointed out above.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

>This fucking argument.

The difference is those two are different, while in this topic relevant crime there is no distinction.

There is. Which was just pointed out above.

You never made a point because your argument fell flat.

[Proctopeo]

Being forced to penetrate can:

• Transmit STDs

Yes, but the risk is lower. For example, male to female transmission of HIV is more effective than female to male transmission during vaginal intercourse. Same with the risk for herpes:

Let’s say you have an infected male and an uninfected female:

If they avoid sex during outbreaks, don’t use condoms regularly, and he doesn’t take an antiviral therapy every day, the risk of transmission is about 10% per year, though there is a large range — from 7 percent to 31 percent — in different studies.

Let’s say you have an infected female and an uninfected male:

If they avoid sex during outbreaks, don’t use condoms regularly, and she doesn’t take an antiviral therapy every day, the risk of transmission is about 4% per year.

A risk is a risk mate

Produce a pregnancy the victim doesn't want

Yes, but the victim does not become pregnant, and thus avoids the extra risk of physical or psychological damage, or even death, which may follow from a pregnancy (including risks following from abortion)

However, due to how other laws function, the man is highly likely to be forced to pay child support, which can, on top of the rape itself, induce financial and psychological damage that may cause suicide.

Damage the victim and the involved organ

The risks of damage to the insides - vaginal, anal and oral areas - are larger than the risk of damage due to a forced envelopment. Forced penetration also covers a wider situation and more areas with more damage potential, especially forced anal and oral penetration.

However, if someone goes out of their way to cause damage...

so it sounds fairly arbitrary to me

All injury isn't equal. Especially when it comes to pregnancy and the risks which follows.

Basically, what you're subjecting the victim to in one case is

Risk of death for victim, female, sexual assault by penetration which leads to pregnancy:
R > 0

Risk of death for victim, male, sexual assault by being made to penetrate which leads to pregnancy:
R = 0

Claiming that the risks are equal is silly. Claiming that the risk for men is worse is downright uneducated.

Both risks are greater than zero bucko, although the cause of death for the male is less direct. Besides, financial ruin is generally a bad thing on its own, and both situations carry that risk. Only in the male's case, it's state-mandated.

[Gravlen]

There is. Which was just pointed out above.

You never made a point because your argument fell flat.

Nope.

[Proctopeo]

>This fucking argument.

The difference is those two are different, while in this topic relevant crime there is no distinction.

There is. Which was just pointed out above.

There is no necessary distinction.
Like stabbing someone in the inner thigh versus stabbing them in the outer thigh. They're different, sure, but it's still the same crime. I don't get why stabbing someone in the outer thigh should only be a misdemeanor.

[Ostroeuropa]

There is. Which was just pointed out above.

There is no necessary distinction.
Like stabbing someone in the inner thigh versus stabbing them in the outer thigh. They're different, sure, but it's still the same crime. I don't get why stabbing someone in the outer thigh should only be a misdemeanor.

There's no distinction in the mindset of the perpetrators, which is the key point for both rehabilitation and punishment.
The only reason to crack down harder on one is prejudice.

Conversely, hitting someone V arming yourself and stabbing them has a difference in mental process and mindset that warrants harsher punishment or more vigorous rehabilitation.

Gravlens comparison falls flat as a result of this. Her analogy also reveals a sexist outlook.
She compares men being raped to a relatively harmless activity (slapping) and women to being stabbed. This is done in an appeal to get us to excuse the discrimination at play and accept this is a valid way of framing the issue of women not being rehabilitated or punished adequately for rape, if they are even prosecuted in the first place.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You never made a point because your argument fell flat.

Nope.

Yep.

Admit it, forced penetration is forced sex is rape.

[Gravlen]

Yes, but the risk is lower. For example, male to female transmission of HIV is more effective than female to male transmission during vaginal intercourse. Same with the risk for herpes:

Let’s say you have an infected male and an uninfected female:

If they avoid sex during outbreaks, don’t use condoms regularly, and he doesn’t take an antiviral therapy every day, the risk of transmission is about 10% per year, though there is a large range — from 7 percent to 31 percent — in different studies.

Let’s say you have an infected female and an uninfected male:

If they avoid sex during outbreaks, don’t use condoms regularly, and she doesn’t take an antiviral therapy every day, the risk of transmission is about 4% per year.

A risk is a risk mate

A higher risk is a higher risk, friend.

Yes, but the victim does not become pregnant, and thus avoids the extra risk of physical or psychological damage, or even death, which may follow from a pregnancy (including risks following from abortion)

However, due to how other laws function, the man is highly likely to be forced to pay child support, which can, on top of the rape itself, induce financial and psychological damage that may cause suicide.

We're talking about direct risks following an illegal act. If you wish to talk larger consequences of being a victim of rape, and how society deals with that, it's a whole other topic.

The risks of damage to the insides - vaginal, anal and oral areas - are larger than the risk of damage due to a forced envelopment. Forced penetration also covers a wider situation and more areas with more damage potential, especially forced anal and oral penetration.

However, if someone goes out of their way to cause damage...

Yes? Something which might happen in any criminal situation?

All injury isn't equal. Especially when it comes to pregnancy and the risks which follows.

Basically, what you're subjecting the victim to in one case is

Risk of death for victim, female, sexual assault by penetration which leads to pregnancy:
R > 0

Risk of death for victim, male, sexual assault by being made to penetrate which leads to pregnancy:
R = 0

Claiming that the risks are equal is silly. Claiming that the risk for men is worse is downright uneducated.

Both risks are greater than zero bucko, although the cause of death for the male is less direct.

No. It is physically impossible for a male to die from pregnancy related issues, sonny. The fact is that there's a difference in reproductive organs, ol' bean.

Superman Vs. Batman was a bad movie, but that doesn't mean the risk of death for watching it is greater than 0, no matter how much it makes you want to kill yourself, Jimbo.

[Gravlen]

Nope.

Yep.

Nope.

Admit it, forced penetration is forced sex is rape.

Admit it, forced penetration is forced sex is sexual assault.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Yep.

Nope.

Admit it, forced penetration is forced sex is rape.

Admit it, forced penetration is forced sex is sexual assault.

But that's wrong. You can't just lie like that.

[Gravlen]

There is. Which was just pointed out above.

There is no necessary distinction.

It's not necessary, but it's one that lawmakers made - one I understand, but, and I'll repeat myself, one I disagree with.

[Gravlen]

Nope.


Admit it, forced penetration is forced sex is sexual assault.

But that's wrong. You can't just lie like that.

I can, it's a soft bed I've made.

[Proctopeo]

A risk is a risk mate

A higher risk is a higher risk, friend.

If a significant risk is present, it's a concern, even if a different situation has a higher risk.
Just because you're more likely to die by approaching an active volcano doesn't mean it's a good idea to drive drunk.

However, due to how other laws function, the man is highly likely to be forced to pay child support, which can, on top of the rape itself, induce financial and psychological damage that may cause suicide.

We're talking about direct risks following an illegal act. If you wish to talk larger consequences of being a victim of rape, and how society deals with that, it's a whole other topic.

So because the risks for a male victim are less direct, they shouldn't be discussed here?

Both risks are greater than zero bucko, although the cause of death for the male is less direct.

No. It is physically impossible for a male to die from pregnancy related issues, sonny. The fact is that there's a difference in reproductive organs, ol' bean.

Superman Vs. Batman was a bad movie, but that doesn't mean the risk of death for watching it is greater than 0, no matter how much it makes you want to kill yourself, Jimbo.

The impacts of being forced to pay child support to your rapist are still "pregnancy related issues", and it's possible to die from said impacts, and not just by your own hand.

[Proctopeo]

There is no necessary distinction.

It's not necessary, but it's one that lawmakers made - one I understand, but, and I'll repeat myself, one I disagree with.

It's kind of odd that you seem to be defending their logic despite disagreeing with it.