It depends. You're giving the best possible type of rape: a short, low-violence, non-consensual sexual encounter; or encounter that is coerced in some nature.
Now, take a look at the Pakistani Grooming Gangs in the UK. Children were being treated as sex slaves and 'child prostitutes' for years on end. And after all that the children were treated as racial and religious inferiors, while being lambasted by government institutions.
Rape can also destroy your life, cost you your job, become unemployable, ruin your reputations, break up your family, and get you locked in prison if stuff goes awry. Especially if it is particularly violent, or protected by law enforcement, socially acceptable, or done to children which leave long lasting damage.
Rape can also be done violently by an abusive boyfriend, or under threat of the above by coercive effort, or be combined with confinement and torture. Even in the best case, it does often cause serious psychological trauma.
This is why we consider rape to be "grievous bodily harm", justifying lethal force in order to prevent it from happening.
You can stand there and say that's not the case because women are just valued; but there is no sex distinction in the event that the victim is a man. Lethal force is just as necessary. A co-worker of mine was male, was actually raped on his way back from work. The 3 men that attacked, beat him violently, kidnapped him a short distance, raped him, then sodomized him with a crowbar, and proceeded to bludgeon him within an inch of his life, and left him to die. He was discovered barely alive the following morning unable to call for help by a local. Legally, we understand that lethal force is absolutely required to stop such an extreme attack, and it is not often done just because someone is horny, but as a way of brutalizing and degrading a victim to the most extreme possible extent.
Your creation of a false dichotomy is, frankly, unhelpful. The worst version of something terrible, being compared to the best version of something terrible, is a dishonest contrast.
Especially if it is particularly violent, or protected by law enforcement, socially acceptable, or done to children which leave long lasting damage.
The 3 men that attacked, beat him violently, kidnapped him a short distance, raped him, then sodomized him with a crowbar, and proceeded to bludgeon him within an inch of his life, and left him to die.
Well sure, but you're also adding plenty of crimes other than rape in that too. That's not just rape anymore, it's brutal assault + pedophilia + kidnapping + murder attempt. Remove the rape part in your example, and anyone would still be scared for life after such an event.
Sure 5 minutes of rape is "very optimistic", but even if it's longer, if it's "just" rape and nothing else, it would still be the better choice.
Since when is it "just rape"? At any police stop, the chance you'll get charged with one crime is pretty remote, because criminal acts come in piles because that's how criminal behavior works. If you're going to break the law, you're not going to regard each law, you're going to disregard all of them.
A false allegation is not one thing either. It's a false police report, it's slander, it's libel, it's perjury, it's doctored evidence, it's conspiracy, it's fraud.
This is a false dichotomy to get the result OP likes, and it's silly.
The rape I posited is by far the most common type.
The vast majority of rape is the "date rape" variety without violence, from someone the woman knows.
You ranting on & on about extreme outlier cases with extreme aggravation really isn't relevant at all to the point I was making, & is a dishonest attempt by you to change the subject.
I didn't change the subject, you made a false dichotomy.
Your very statement is also extreme:
If you had your life destroyed, lost your job, became unemployable, reputation ruined, family gone, wrongly sentenced to 10 years in prison...
This, in and of itself, is a rare outcome. Many of the very same worst case scenario rape allegations that we've seen (like that baseball player), don't end up with 10 years in prison and the collapse of his career, and the abandonment of family.
That's true; that's the upshot of the massive increase in rape reporting. If it happened, they didn't used to report it. If it didn't happen, they didn't used to report it. Now, they report it all the time. I dont' know what if anything changed.
We now get more reports of this kind of violence, but I assume it's much the same as it always was.
As with a lot of violent crime; it probably went down. However, you do have to wonder if the instances of prison rape skewed statistics.
Even with reported rapes, I think the numbers are still down overall. I've seen NYC's rate of rapes, and it was still significantly worse in the 1970's.
I don't think prison rape gets reported usually. They don't prosecute people for what happens in there if they can get away with looking the other way. That's the internal code vs what society thinks they're supposed to do.
It depends. You're giving the best possible type of rape: a short, low-violence, non-consensual sexual encounter; or encounter that is coerced in some nature.
Now, take a look at the Pakistani Grooming Gangs in the UK. Children were being treated as sex slaves and 'child prostitutes' for years on end. And after all that the children were treated as racial and religious inferiors, while being lambasted by government institutions.
Rape can also destroy your life, cost you your job, become unemployable, ruin your reputations, break up your family, and get you locked in prison if stuff goes awry. Especially if it is particularly violent, or protected by law enforcement, socially acceptable, or done to children which leave long lasting damage.
Rape can also be done violently by an abusive boyfriend, or under threat of the above by coercive effort, or be combined with confinement and torture. Even in the best case, it does often cause serious psychological trauma.
This is why we consider rape to be "grievous bodily harm", justifying lethal force in order to prevent it from happening.
You can stand there and say that's not the case because women are just valued; but there is no sex distinction in the event that the victim is a man. Lethal force is just as necessary. A co-worker of mine was male, was actually raped on his way back from work. The 3 men that attacked, beat him violently, kidnapped him a short distance, raped him, then sodomized him with a crowbar, and proceeded to bludgeon him within an inch of his life, and left him to die. He was discovered barely alive the following morning unable to call for help by a local. Legally, we understand that lethal force is absolutely required to stop such an extreme attack, and it is not often done just because someone is horny, but as a way of brutalizing and degrading a victim to the most extreme possible extent.
Your creation of a false dichotomy is, frankly, unhelpful. The worst version of something terrible, being compared to the best version of something terrible, is a dishonest contrast.
Well sure, but you're also adding plenty of crimes other than rape in that too. That's not just rape anymore, it's brutal assault + pedophilia + kidnapping + murder attempt. Remove the rape part in your example, and anyone would still be scared for life after such an event.
Sure 5 minutes of rape is "very optimistic", but even if it's longer, if it's "just" rape and nothing else, it would still be the better choice.
Since when is it "just rape"? At any police stop, the chance you'll get charged with one crime is pretty remote, because criminal acts come in piles because that's how criminal behavior works. If you're going to break the law, you're not going to regard each law, you're going to disregard all of them.
A false allegation is not one thing either. It's a false police report, it's slander, it's libel, it's perjury, it's doctored evidence, it's conspiracy, it's fraud.
This is a false dichotomy to get the result OP likes, and it's silly.
The rape I posited is by far the most common type.
The vast majority of rape is the "date rape" variety without violence, from someone the woman knows.
You ranting on & on about extreme outlier cases with extreme aggravation really isn't relevant at all to the point I was making, & is a dishonest attempt by you to change the subject.
I didn't change the subject, you made a false dichotomy.
Your very statement is also extreme:
This, in and of itself, is a rare outcome. Many of the very same worst case scenario rape allegations that we've seen (like that baseball player), don't end up with 10 years in prison and the collapse of his career, and the abandonment of family.
Stop trying to blame me for what you're doing.
I don't care if he's a faggot or not, the comparison still stands.
That's true; that's the upshot of the massive increase in rape reporting. If it happened, they didn't used to report it. If it didn't happen, they didn't used to report it. Now, they report it all the time. I dont' know what if anything changed.
We now get more reports of this kind of violence, but I assume it's much the same as it always was.
As with a lot of violent crime; it probably went down. However, you do have to wonder if the instances of prison rape skewed statistics.
Even with reported rapes, I think the numbers are still down overall. I've seen NYC's rate of rapes, and it was still significantly worse in the 1970's.
I don't think prison rape gets reported usually. They don't prosecute people for what happens in there if they can get away with looking the other way. That's the internal code vs what society thinks they're supposed to do.