Quote:
|
Originally Posted by traceur
Interesting. Why? Why would a transgression (Non consensual sex) need a special sub category with it's own unique loaded word for female victims?
|
I'm not saying it needs it. You're saying it
has it, and I'm saying I don't necessarily object to that as long as it's consistent.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by traceur
if we redefine rape for women because they might get pregnant should we redefine physical assault on women because they might already be pregnant and abort the baby in the process?
|
We already do--if you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach, it's physical assault on her but it is also legally the murder of the baby.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by traceur
Would it then not count as rape if the rapists used protection, if the woman was too old to conceive or not count as statutory rape if she was too young?
|
It's not that it would "not count," it's that it has the potential to be called something else. I'm certainly not suggesting that raping is fine as long as there is a condom involved, I'm just saying nuance is better than lack of nuance, when trying to define involuntary punishments that are to be handed down by the state.
There could just as easily be a new term for women forcing themselves on men for the express purpose of impregnating themselves--seed theft, for example, which might earn a punishment equivalent to those currently given for rape, or not, but the point is that calling everything by one term almost never improves things.