I suppose it could depend on the value of the business or the number of employees. While I’m reluctant to extend the higher rates too widely, if a business owner or CEO was basic rate, she’s get raped by a lot of employees - and of course, the law would penalise any retribution against them. This has interesting consequences, because if such a woman didn’t want to get raped regularly by employees, increasing the numbers she employed as opposed to sub-contracting would reduce the number of times she got raped.
Thinking more about other aspects, I strongly feel the victim should be allowed to resist, violently if necessary. This would be a challenge for the rapists. In return, they would not be allowed to use more violence than was necessary to subdue the girl. The rules for both sides would resemble UK rather than US law on hurting burglars, muggers etc: if he’s given up and is running away, hitting him on the head with a hammer could be murder. Actually this ought to reduce major violence against women as currently, a rapist who enjoys beating up his victim has little inducement not to.
Thinking again about my policewoman-interrupts-rape scenario, I guess she’d probably interrupt the action to say “May I see your rape permit, sir?” rather than just grabbing him.
Since policewomen do walk the streets when not on duty or in uniform, and do sleep in their own houses, and doctors etc are not readily identifiable as such except when actively working, I guess when a high-rate woman was attacked, she’d shout some thing like, “I’m a policewoman! I’m gold standard!”, which should deter someone lacking the necessary special permit; but she might find he yelled, “Fine, my permit gives me three gold-standard cunts!”
