[ Why is rape considered evil?]

A variety of factors. Part of it is reasonable, modern female empowerment. Part of it is ancient, outmoded "Sacred Feminine" bullshit. Yet another part is even more outmoded, frankly offensive 'Sacred virginity' tradition.

I really, really hate this discussion, because my opinion on it makes it seem like I hate women or something, and I really don't. But I don't think rape is nearly as heinous a crime as people think it is. It's awful, certainly, but for some reason we've elevated it to one of the worst things a person can do, and I think that reputation that it has ends up making it's victims suffer more than if it were considered only slightly worse than normal assault.

[So you see it as society trying to make a crime especially heinous because society says it is a especially heinous crime?]

Basically, yes. I think it persists via cultural inertia going back a long, long time. The reasoning behind it has changed, but the cultural meme has remained largely the same. For whatever reason, we've essentially declared vaginas sacred and we see those who "Desecrate" them as a special kind of evil; it's the kind of emotional response we usually reserve for people who hurt children, or who torture people.

I honestly think it's a sexist idea. That women are these precious, fragile jewels that need harsh laws and big strong men to protect their sacred genitalia.

Yes, rape is absolutely wrong. But the degree of emotional response we have for it is completely out of proportion to the actual severity of the violation. And I think it hurts women.

[How many people suffer life long psychological trauma from getting punched or kicked a few times?]

I imagine if you were told your entire life that punching you in the face was the most awful act anyone could do to you, you'd find it pretty traumatic if you ended up getting punched in the face.

You're also missing the point; there are many different situations in which rape is entirely non-traumatic. A date rape victim could go their entire life not knowing they'd ever been raped, but if they found out about it, it's still treated with as much vitriol as if they'd been bludgeoned, held down, and violated in the street.

[Your inflicting pain and suffering on some one for a sex /power kick.
You can't come up with any justification for it.]

And all the various kinds of rape where the victim doesn't suffer, and may in fact be entirely unaware of what happened?

Granted it'd be hard to justify those either, but not all rape is sadistic, or violent. It's a generalization people have made for some reason.

The most common drugs used in these assaults cause either complete unconsciousness or anterograde amnesia. Plenty of date rapists use lubrication and condoms, and even if they don't, the suffering of the victim is clearly not their intended goal, or they'd have left them conscious.

It's just moronic to assume that every rape MUST be motivated by sadism and power fantasies.

[So date raping someone is a less severe crime because they don't remember it?

That's some quality bullshit right there.]

that depends entirely on your own view of how justice is supposed to work.

As a sometime utilitarian, I think Justice is supposed to punish people with a severity scaled linearly to how much suffering they cause. If nobody actually suffers as a result of your crime, it isn't a very severe crime in my eyes.

[Please tell someone who suffered date rape that they didn't really suffer. Then let me know how that went for you.]

Anecdotes aren't evidence, this argument is not, has never been, and will never be persuasive. I'd also argue that they wouldn't suffer near as much if we didn't treat their vaginas like the arc of the covenant.

The fact of the matter is, if nobody told them, they'd go on with their lives without a worry in the world. They would be completely unharmed by the experience right up until the moment you chose to hurt them by giving them the knowledge of what had happened.

[Forcing someone down and raping or sodomizing them against their will, possibly giving them a disease in the process that could change how they live for the rest of their life, violating a person's privacy and body for simple physical pleasure is just sick.]

So I must ask, again, what about nonviolent rape with lubrication and protection?

[Fell, what is your suggested position on the punishment of someone who has been convicted of drugging women for the purpose of having sex with them while they are unconscious?]

It should directly correspond to the suffering, inconvenience, and loss of security felt by the victim. As a general rule of thumb; more than groping someone, less than sexually assaulting them while they're fully awake and aware.