Why not legalize prostitution?

Originally Posted by Bath House Pang House

The victim may not even remember the actual rape or derive any direct harm from the experience; it's the violation that horrifies.

Tamburlaine is an idiot and I don't want to defend him, but I think you're shooting yourself in the foot with this sentence. How can the sex act be a "violation" unless there's something special about genital contact? Otherwise, it's no more a violation than drugging someone and, say, putting your finger in his/her mouth. The fact that a given individual might personally feel one to be more icky than the other would have no legal weight if the majority of America didn't share Tamburlaine's sentiments. Otherwise, the law would focus on the element of coercion/sedation instead of the sex.

See also: sexual abuse of children. I know it's a separate issue (and probably irrelevant to the behavior of adults), but the prevalent belief is that there's something special about sexual experiences that will addle a child's brain.

Anyway, since legalizing prostitution would make for a good experiment to see how much of America's sex-is-damaging attitude is cultural (as if Deni's post isn't enough), I can only assume that Tamburlaine is not only painfully paternalistic but also anti-science.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by a lurker

There are physiological differences between fingers and penises, and between mouths and vaginas. You'd have to put your finger in her mouth in such a way that causes physical damage, that can cause disease, and can risk pregnancy.

I was hoping I didn't have to mention that, because Pang specifically focused on the loss of control. But yes, obviously.

Originally Posted by a lurker

The intent of rape is to terrify and violate a person. If the perpetrator knew his victim before the assault, why would it be inappropriate to treat this as any other form of domestic violence with increased sentencing and with measures taken to protect the victim from the perpetrator after he serves his time (restraining orders, etc)?

It wouldn't be, of course.

Also:

Originally Posted by YOU MAD

It's the loss of control, the loss of the power, a stranger (or relative/acquaintance) dominating them and their space, the penetration of foreign objects without consent, and the ever present doubts about who they can trust.

I'm not saying rape isn't that bad, or that it shouldn't be that bad, or that it wouldn't be that bad with the right attitude or whatever. My point is just that America's legal and social response to rape is disproportionate to the actual severity of the "physical" elements of the crime--loss of control, invasion of personal space, bodily harm, etc. The finger example was just a silly thing to show it's not solely about lack of consent. So, how about, say, being tied up and stabbed, or held down and beaten? Terrible, traumatizing events, but well below rape in terms of social and legal sanctions, right?

And of course the reason is because rape, due to its sexual nature, is assumed to have a stronger psychological impact. But this does show that people think sex is special--magical--and not just meat sliding around. It's a particular kind of right to privacy and consent, a particular (worse) kind of violation, and for more reasons than just the risk of pregnancy and disease. That boundary would not exist unless most people believed sex is not quite so ordinary.

Pang stated that rape law is not a good indicator of such attitudes, and I disagree. To use an close analogy: indecent exposure laws are actually a quite good indicator that America thinks there is something damaging about the sight of genitalia.

It's a minor point, but I think the logic is on Tamburlaine's side for that one thing. That's all I was trying to say.

There's nowhere I can't reach.