Yes it is. All rape is equal. There are not “degrees” of rape. Rape is rape is rape. There are no mitigating circumstances.
But that’s the intention of course. To contrive an obfuscatory hypothetical where a guy is confused about consent, or manipulated or falsely accused in order to dismiss all claims of date rape as illegitimate and a “different degree” of rape. It does confuse the issue and ignore the real question, which is, whether it’s less bad for a guy to rape a woman he knows than to rape a woman he doesn’t know.
Are there any exacerbating circumstances?
It could also be argued that a date rape, or a rape by someone the victim trusted could be even more emotionally traumatic because of the betrayal and disorientation involved, not to mention the possibility of still having to see and interact with the rapist, or people the rapist knows.
A stranger is probably more likely to use a weapon, but that doesn’t really make a date-rapist any better of a person.
Yes, but that wasn’t the question, nor are exacerbating circumstances specific to whether the victim kniows the rapist or not.
It seems to be a mirror-image. If there can be exacerbating circumstances, then it logically follows that not all rapes (and not all rapists) are equal. Some are worse than others.
Admittedly you make a good point that the psychological harms can in some cases be worse because the victim knows the perp. OTOH, the reason people tend to believe that stranger rape is worse, is the perception (again, an assumption which may or may not be true) that a stranger is more likely to use violence as their tool for rape - thus putting the victim in (often justified) fear for their life.
Rape is wrong by definition because the term “rape” means “wrongful sexual congress”, the same way that “murder” is wrong because the word literally means “wrongful killing”.
But the OP’s question is fair because we recognize levels of unlawful killing. In particular, premeditation seems to make killing far more heinous. Perhaps the debate could advance if we considered something like “premeditated rape”–which I think is closer to what the OP means by “stranger rape”–versus “non-premediated sexual violence” (I agree with DtC that there’s no such thing as “non-violent rape”, but I also want to avoid the semantic associations of the word, so I’m stuck with the pretty weak circumlocution).
Some witty commentor will no doubt call it the ultimate “crime of passion”, but still, does pre-meditation affect the degree of immorality in sucha a sex crime as it does with killing?
There are. Rape varies from misdemeanor sexual assault to felony sexual assault and all manner in between. Statutory rape is not the same as forcible rape which is not the same as “rape” only because of intoxication. Cite Another Cite Third Cite
ETA: and whether the rapist is known to the victim or not has nothing to do with what type of rape has been committed. First degree sexual assault (forcible rape) is the same whether the victim is on a date or not, and non-violent rape only because the woman was too drunk to legally consent could happen with a stranger.
I would say that the per se rape is a separate and equal crime from aggravating factors, which are aggravating but not defining. It’s rape v. rape plus. Culpability is not lessened by not using a weapon.
Legal distinctions are irrelevant to the thread, and not all sexual assault is rape.
Rape is forcing someone to have sex with you against their will. There are no “degrees” of badness for that. It’s all equal.
There’s no such thing as non-violent rape.
Legal distinctions are exactly what is being discussed. The OP is making a comparison only between forcible rape while on a date (her definition of “date-rape”) and forcible rape by a stranger.In that case, they are equally wrong, same crime. The other areas of “date-rape” are different than forcible rape, and the legal distinctions also happen to be the distinctions between the actions in a non-legal sense.
Not all sexual assault is rape, but all rape is sexual assault.
Rape is also having sex without explicit consent. If someone is under the influence of alcohol their judgment is impaired and they legally they cannot consent. Therefore consensual sex with a drunk woman is rape and also (probably) non-violent. That kind of “rape” is far, far less “bad” than forcible rape of anyone.
Having sex with a woman who is too incapacitated by alcohol to give or deny consent is forcible rape and is a violent crime.
I’m not asking less wrong in the legal sense. I’m asking less wrong as in is a guy who commits a date rape less of a bad person to you? Is he less likely to be a bad father compared with a man who commits a stranger rape?
Still too hard to tell, outside of a case-by-case basis. Are the details of the rape a matter of public record? Has he been convicted, or just accused? WAG – if there is a history between the rapist and his victim, if she’s a friend or an ex, it will be much easier for people in his social circle to explain it away in order to retain their view of a friend. I guess either could be good or bad fathers – hell, serial killers have been known to be decent fathers. But it’s hard to see someone who targets someone who knows or trusts him over a complete stranger as less of a threat.
Both have a propensity for criminal behaviour, and a lack of empathy for and contempt for the rights of others, all bad from the POV of fitness to be a parent.
To the extent that stranger rape is more associated with violence of the knife-to-a-neck variety, a stranger rapist also displays (on average) a willingness to use violence in furtherance of their ends, which is a yet worse sign for parenthood on top of all the others.
Obviously, this is a case-by-case issue; for example, a “date rapist” sorta implies that the target of his rape is a person of the age of consent who would otherwise be a suitable “date”; lots of “non-stranger” rapists target family members, and such a person is ging to be more of a danger to their own kids than a “stranger rapist” who only targets adult strangers.
Cite?
Bad, sure, and possibly in some opinions would make a “bad” parent. But having contempt for the rights of others does not make one “unfit” all by itself.
This was discussed on the thread that spawned this one…there are lots of personality traits that I would not want in the father of my children, but having a disagreeable (to whom?) personality does not preclude one (all by itself) from being a “good” parent.
And this is what has been said (and is being argued) all along. It must judged upon a case by case basis before anyone can conclude the degree of “wrongness” or how “bad” it might be, in an ethical sense, in a moral sense, and in a legal sense.
I missed the edit window, but probably should have clarified this. The cite I am seeking is that it is a violent crime to have sex with a woman who is intoxicated (not to the point of being passed out or anything which would be “forcible rape” or first degree sexual assault).
But I would like to see any cite proving that a woman who has been drinking, but still consents (non-verbally even) to sex is a violent crime. As far as I know it can be and has been defined as “date-rape” and is a misdemeanor crime…where is the violence?
I don’t have time for a detailed response right now, but there is a whole world of difference between “incapacitated” as in comatose, passing out drunk, and had a few too many to drink, legally too drunk to drive.
Where would YOU draw the line?
“A few too many,” or over the legal limit is not "incapacitated. “Incapacitated” means something, which is why I used that specific word.
As I said before, any ambiguity at all means no.