Rape investigations and imprisonments shall be stopped for ever.

The very fundamental flaw in the con's rebuttal is that it simply disregards the utter truth that the current fallacious criminal law regarding rape is based on the erroneous, indefensible principle that rape is a crime. A crime is a crime only because you "think" of it or "regard" it as a crime. That means, the judgment as to what is or not a crime is only a subjective decision, not an objective one. We see numerous examples in history regarding this: In the past, it was a crime if a black person even tried to be equal to white people, if a slave tried to be free from his/her master or if a person was homosexual. All of these were actually enforced and punished by criminal in the past, only because these were "thought" to be crimes. However, developed rationality and human reason have since removed them from the list of crimes in the modern society. As lots of evidence from actual human world and its history incontrovertibly proves, what is against or not against the law changes over time, as always have; laws, even constitution, are not absolute, immutable constants; they are changeable. Rape is not an exception to this progressive flow of human history, especially when punishment for rape is indefensible. The second point of the Con shows a typical fallacy of pretending to be a victim. Actually, if we think of rape rationally and critically, by using our human rationality, it is easily discovered that there is no "victim" in rape whatsoever. During and after rape, the raping male obtains pleasure and satisfaction, which are hardly horrible for one to feel. Meanwhile, the raped female has done a good deed to the raping male by facilitating herself in order to provide him pleasure and satisfaction - all for free. This is totally similar to an act of charity and volunteerism. Also, what is lost in rape? In murder, a human life is lost. In theft or arson, there is a loss of physical property. However, what is specifically lost in rape? Usually a raped female's vagina is rather intact in the raped female's body after experiencing rape. Her breasts or nipples do not fall off of her chest. There is no significant, physical, material loss to a raped female. Losing some virginal fluids is never some crucial or significant loss, it should be noted. It is clear that the notion that a raped female is a "victim" is nothing but a product of social construction that have terribly indoctrinated and misguided people to such nonsense. In actuality, what are called as "rape victims" or "rape survivors" are merely "rape participants". It would be both interesting and amusing to see the con calling his/her mother, sister, daughter or a female friend "a rape victim" or "a rape survivor" in their face, which will help them to commit suicide, if not further their depression and trauma. The con misses the point that wasting the limited police force, money and time - resources - by forcing them to focus on rape inevitably brings about the consequence in which the police cannot adequately spend their resources on catching and punishing true criminal dangers and threats to public safety, such as murderers, violent thieves or arsonists. The con would rather see murdered bodies lying on the streets and kindergarten on fire than a couple of raped females. It is very doubtful whether the con holds a proper sense of morality in the first place. It must also be added that our precious taxpayers' money is wasted on pointless rape investigations and proceedings, when such money can be redirected to meaningful tasks for society, for example - public welfare. Judging from the undeniable fact that raped females often seek for or use privileges such as therapies, counselling and, sometimes, monetary remuneration, it is clear that raped females like them. As for how we can better handle and process these raped females, I have posted another argument in support of euthanizing women in the past. The raping males, as human beings they are, just like me and the con, are indeed entitled to such privileges that must be provided when or if demanded or deemed necessary. Equality is meaningful when it works both ways, not only in one direction. The con has presented so far a terribly weak argument for his/her position. The con also lacks the basic understanding of the fundamental human right of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression (free speech). Hopefully, the con does not forfeit like a worthless coward.