Poll: Is soliciting a prostitute an anti-feminist act/demeaning to women?

[Darken12]

ahahahaha

I'm so fucking tired of people playing up rape like it's "TEH WORST THING EVAR". Rape is horrible. Yeah. Certain situations under which rape occurs can definitely fuck a person up permanently. Other situations can destroy a person. I would know. But lemme tell you: there are worse things. Fuck, maybe to you it IS the worst thing imaginable. You don't speak for everyone.

And I am so fucking tired of people playing down rape like it's as trivial as a scratch and that the "real victims" are those poor people accused (or gasp! even convicted!) of rape.

You too, don't speak for everyone.

Personally, I'd actually rather be violently raped again rather than take a 10 year jail sentence for a crime I didn't commit. At least then I wouldn't be robbed of a decade of my life and then have the rest of it possibly ruined for something I never did. To have people believe I'm a rapist when I'm not. To know my life was destroyed because of someone's selfish, petty desire. That's not even accounting for all the horrible, non-rape related things that could (and probably would) happen to me in jail. That said, I can definitely see how someone would not feel that way about that particular thing. Who knows, maybe rape seems easier to deal with the second time around after you've had a chance to reconcile. Of course, it's ultimately it's a matter of opinion, not some black and white fact.

Are you joking? Do you genuinely believe you might actually go to jail if someone falsely accuses you of rape? You will likely not go to jail even if you actually rape someone. I'm not going to touch the rest of your post out of respect, but let me assure you that you do not represent the majority of rape victims/survivors, or even those who haven't been raped at all. I, for one, would rather get beaten up, tortured and shived in prison than being raped.

*snip*

I live in South America. I know how hideous the prisons down here are. I would still take that over actual rape, and so would everyone I know. And like I said above, what you are purporting is pure, undiluted fantasy. In the extremely rare cases an innocent has been convicted of rape, it was always the will of a political power (and it probably never happened in America or any low-corruption country).

Please, let's stop portraying utter pipe dreams and situations that will never happen as if they were actual risks or situations that might actually happen.

I do not deny the fact that old white men control so much of the world's wealth and therefore power but the nature of the legal system's "beyond reasonable doubt" of guilt is there to PROTECT people against false accusation - men and women alike. That isn't some great big patriarch conspiracy.

I laughed very, very hard at that.

No. The systems are in place to benefit the wealthy elite and those associated with it, first and foremost. There is no such thing as justice or fairness. False accusations will get convicted regardless of innocence if that's what the people in power want, and guilty people will walk away if it's convenient for them. In the vast majority of cases, they just don't care, and let established prejudices (and, to a degree, available evidence) determine whether a person is convicted or not.

I would rather be raped than be convicted on a rape I did not commit. For having been raped can be a private thing that would affect me as much as I allow it to. Being CONVICTED of rape, being sent to prison (and all the joys THAT brings) and then being a convicted criminal for the rest of my life and all the joys that brings someone seeking employment all for something I didn't do? Yeah, I'll take the night of rape thanks. Your mileage may vary but I would prefer something that might be shit for a day but certainly beats years of shit for as long as I can see.

Rape doesn't work like that. Implying that rape victims are affected by the trauma of being rape "as much as they allow it to" is victim-blaming of the most disgusting sort. By that very same logic, going to jail affects you as much as you allow it to. After all, you go there, do your time, spend your time getting a degree or working out, and then you go right back out to insert yourself in society.

You are very fond of double-edged arguments.

You're right at the end that it's illogical - at least in your case. A RAPE ACCUSER is a far smaller minority than half of the world's population and they exist in a fairly unique circumstance compared to most people. Not every man is a rapist, we know that. Not every rapist is a man. Not every rape accuser is sincere in their accusations. We are dealing with the fear of EXCEPTIONS and they must be investigated. There's no reason to investigate every man for rape because a case of rape hasn't been reported against every man. Every man can POTENTIALLY be a rapist and that's why an accused goes to trial. However there is POTENTIAL that the woman accusing a man of rape is doing it just to get him in trouble and that is what needs investigating.

Your comparison holds no water as it requires an event to transpire.

No, you are using a diversion tactic to avoid engaging with the actual point I made (which I spelled out for you).

I will repeat myself: Your point is that false rape accusers make the entire feminist movement (or women in general) look bad. My point is that if you are going to use the "you can't blame the entire group for the actions of a few" argument every time a man does something awful, you should be using the same argument whenever a woman does something morally reprehensible. Or, conversely, apply the same argument to the male side as well and start demonising everyone equally.

No. It is biased in favour of the ACCUSED. In EVERY case and EVERY crime. No matter what. This isn't about getting rapists off Scott-free, this is about preventing people from being convicted for a crime they didn't commit.

Let's just agree to disagree, as I don't hold those idealistic views and we're unlikely to convince each other.

It has NOTHING to do with their gender. Why you thought it was the only time this type of thing happens is beyond me.

Almost every group is demonised for the actions of some of them. We already have mentioned Christians. Not every one of them wants to see gay marriage prevented but since those who call themselves Christians do it then all Christians are considered to probably do it.

It is a scenario, not a default state of being.

Yes, that is exactly my point. If we're going to be parroting over and over that "the handful of crazies/assholes aren't representative of the whole group" rationale ad nauseaum, then why don't we give feminism the same treatment?

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

It depends.

A woman who freely entered the profession and practices safe sexual practices? Then no, that's fine.

A woman who has been forced into prostitution and whose pimp takes her earnings and keeps her in the profession through intimidation or addiction? Then yes, you have helped to subjugate that woman.

Sadly, in the USA, the later is more common than the former. Which is why I support legalized, regulated, and overseen prostitution in the USA.

Edit: And, in case anyone brings it up, gender doesn't matter. If one went to a male prostitute in the later example, one would be helping to subjugate that man.

 

[spartan231490]

As long as the prostitute is in it of her own accord and she has full control over who she has sex with, paying her for sex is not an act that is "demeaning to women".

Now, pimping and forcing women into prostitution, that's a crime and one should at least be slapped around a bit with a large trout for it.

Also, I like (making) a good understatement.

so, why are we still here, post 1 and done, right there: thread over.

 

[spartan231490]

Um.

*scrolls through first page*

Seems no-one, on the first page at least, made the obvious counter argument.

You find me a prostitute who is totally and utterly willing to do what she is doing and has not been exploited in any way and I will find you a Unicorn. snip

See, this is where you went wrong where I'm concerned, because if you can find me a human being that hasn't been exploited in any way, I will find you a unicorn. Being exploited isn't the end of the world, it happens to all of us, many of us get exploited by our jobs, it doesn't even make us less willing to do them.

 

[J Tyran]

*snip*

I live in South America. I know how hideous the prisons down here are. I would still take that over actual rape, and so would everyone I know. And like I said above, what you are purporting is pure, undiluted fantasy. In the extremely rare cases an innocent has been convicted of rape, it was always the will of a political power (and it probably never happened in America or any low-corruption country).

Really? Its so fantastical that specialist solicitors [http://www.falselyaccused.co.uk/] exist to help victims of false accusations in appeal cases. So fantastical that one man was cleared [http://www.gcnchambers.co.uk/news/appeal_judges_quash_rape_conviction] in 2009. I just use my own country as its a legal system I know best, you don't need corruption to get people falsely convicted of crimes. Incompetence, a convincing witness or idiotic Jurys will do the job just fine.

People accusing others of rape falsley should get the same kind of sentence as a rapist would, not only do they destroy the lives of their victim they hurt the cases of real rape victims.

 

[Aslyn]

Prostitution and pornography support human trafficking. Tell someone (man, woman, or child) that you will *insert horrifying act here* if they don't prostitute themselves, they will most likely prostitute themselves. And if you ask "Hey, are you being trafficked?" they will most likely lie. Because they are afraid of *insert horrifying thing here*

So, since there's no good way to tell if someone is being coerced or not, it should just be avoided.

And as for all the "It should be legal" advocates, Netherlands has a HUGE problem with human trafficking. The only thing that changes is "Here, sign these papers saying you want to be a prostitute or *insert horrifying thing here*" The government there is considering outlawing it again. Although that might not help much.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Assuming said prostitutes is in his his/her right mind and is willing being a prostitute, no. Forced prostitution, and prostitutes while not in charge of one's faculties is an issue though not really a feminist one.

 

[Darken12]

Really? Its so fantastical that specialist solicitors [http://www.falselyaccused.co.uk/] exist to help victims of false accusations in appeal cases. So fantastical that one man was cleared [http://www.gcnchambers.co.uk/news/appeal_judges_quash_rape_conviction] in 2009. I just use my own country as its a legal system I know best, you don't need corruption to get people falsely convicted of crimes. Incompetence, a convincing witness or idiotic Jurys will do the job just fine.

People accusing others of rape falsley should get the same kind of sentence as a rapist would, not only do they destroy the lives of their victim they hurt the cases of real rape victims.

Yes, it is incredibly fantastic because actual rapists still get freed despite their culpability, so you will forgive me if I do not think for the slightest moment that the justice system has the slightest tendency to convict the wrongfully accused of rape. Also please note that the news report you linked at no point establishes the man's innocence. Plenty of guilty people have had their convictions overturned. All it takes is to cast sufficient doubt over the evidence/testimony presented in the trial, or on the procedure itself.

As for the "false accusation should carry the same sentence as actual rape", just no. Absolutely not. First of all, an accusation is not the same as a conviction (and I repeat again that the odds of an innocent person convicted of rape are zero. I would say "less than zero" if it was mathematically possible, even), so in that case, the falsely accused get absolutely no repercussions in their daily lives, especially after the accuser gets demonised by the entire community. Secondly, even if by some miracle the innocent dude gets jailed, it's still not as bad rape unless he actually gets raped while in prison. THEN his circumstances it will be just as bad as being raped. Because he was actually raped. And even in that non-existent case, the wrongful conviction will be overturned pretty damn quick, as the lawyers who are eager to release rapists will jump at the chance of freeing someone who was actually innocent.

So no. Let's not kid ourselves here, because I am quite tired of hearing the white middle-or-upper class, cis straight males playing the victims and assuming the world is out to get them when they're the ones that are most likely to get away with any crime.

 

[Abomination]

So no. Let's not kid ourselves here, because I am quite tired of hearing the white middle-or-upper class, cis straight males playing the victims and assuming the world is out to get them when they're the ones that are most likely to get away with any crime.

Clearly you have an agenda and seem to draw your own conclusions based on the gender or race of those you are having a discussion with.

You are responding in an emotional manner only and can not seem to understand that other people would prefer things different to you. Perhaps there is a language barrier but almost everything you have responded to has ignored particular tenses, terms, definitions or prepositions of language and has skewed what you have read into being what wasn't said.

Nobody has said that what happens is how things should happen. It has been stated that when a woman makes an accusation of rape against someone when no actual rape occurred and she knows no actual rape occurred, she is simply doing it to attempt to ruin the person she is accusing, THOSE accusations harm ACTUAL rape accusations for real rapes that did happen.

The feminism parallel was-- no actually I am not going to repeat myself. It is there in black and white. Read the entire thing because I have already had to explain what a parallel is and even how it is a parallel.

How things SHOULD happen and how they DO happen are two different things. Living in a fantasy world and only behaving in accordance to how things SHOULD happen is embracing insanity.

 

[axlryder]

And I am so fucking tired of people playing down rape like it's as trivial as a scratch and that the "real victims" are those poor people accused (or gasp! even convicted!) of rape.

You too, don't speak for everyone.

well guess what? I'm not the one trying to speak for everyone or for the objective reality of something inherently subjective. I'm saying "perhaps to you it is the worst thing, but that isn't necessarily the case for everyone" and "it's a matter of opinion and personal experience". Also, I'm the one acknowledging how horrible rape is as someone who's gone through it, not the one trying to speak for exactly how horrible a false rape conviction is when they haven't had to experience it. I KNOW what rape like, but I imagine its effects are different for everyone. The circumstances under which it occurs also vary WIDELY. What's more, I'm not going to try and speak for others who have had to live through a decade of bad treatment in prison on top of having their lives ruined. I just know that rape did not break me, but that sounds like it just might. Maybe it's the knowledge that the world would believe I'm the very thing that fucked me up. Maybe it's knowing that I may never be able to accomplish anything of significance because of it. Maybe it's just the prospect of being put in a cage for a decade, and not knowing what horrible thing might befall me at any time. Different people are tempered differently and react differently to different stimuli. That's just a reality.

The point is that what you THINK is the end all be all to suffering isn't necessarily the case for everyone, and you HAVEN'T been through it all. You attempting to speak as though it factually IS the absolute worse thing is marginalizing the atrociously horrible things other people have gone through and the subjective pain others have experienced. I've had a cousin who killed himself over the things that happened to him in the military. I have a brother who was physically tortured before. Legitimately tortured. I close to certain that you didn't go through the things he did, because if you had, you'd know how fucking traumatic it is and probably wouldn't be talking like there is nothing worse than rape. There was a time in my life where I was made to believe I was responsible for someone's death due to my own incompetence at the time. That guilt was worse than whatever sick, vile, disgusting things I felt after being violated. I had a friend with quadriplegia who said her life was a living hell. I'm not going to be so arrogant as to belittle the things that happened to other people by attempting to definitively say "Rape is the worst". You clearly have no qualms with that though.

Are you joking? Do you genuinely believe you might actually go to jail if someone falsely accuses you of rape? You will likely not go to jail even if you actually rape someone. I'm not going to touch the rest of your post out of respect, but let me assure you that you do not represent the majority of rape victims/survivors, or even those who haven't been raped at all. I, for one, would rather get beaten up, tortured and shived in prison than being raped.

You said "falsely convicted". CONVICTED is the term explicitely used in your comment. We're speaking of a hypothetical fucking scenario; it doesn't matter what is and isn't likely, so this point from you is fucking pointless. I'm already aware of the statistics. If it was merely an accusation then no, I would NOT choose rape over it. That issue is moot though. Stop wasting my time with bad points.

I couldn't give less of a fuck if you think I represent the majority, or what you think would be "worse", I just know that your points are spoken like someone who thinks their opinion is far more definitive than it is. Get over yourself.

 

[Darken12]

Clearly you have an agenda and seem to draw your own conclusions based on the gender or race of those you are having a discussion with.

You are responding in an emotional manner only and can not seem to understand that other people would prefer things different to you. Perhaps there is a language barrier but almost everything you have responded to has ignored particular tenses, terms, definitions or prepositions of language and has skewed what you have read into being what wasn't said.

Everyone has an agenda, even you, so saying "you have an agenda" as if it was a bad thing doesn't speak very well of you when you wouldn't be arguing with me if you didn't have one as well.

Secondly, I could say the exact same thing about you. You keep ignoring the actual things I'm saying in favour of arguing your indefensible position.

Nobody has said that what happens is how things should happen. It has been stated that when a woman makes an accusation of rape against someone when no actual rape occurred and she knows no actual rape occurred, she is simply doing it to attempt to ruin the person she is accusing, THOSE accusations harm ACTUAL rape accusations for real rapes that did happen.

The feminism parallel was-- no actually I am not going to repeat myself. It is there in black and white. Read the entire thing because I have already had to explain what a parallel is and even how it is a parallel.

How things SHOULD happen and how they DO happen are two different things. Living in a fantasy world and only behaving in accordance to how things SHOULD happen is embracing insanity.

And you keep missing the point I'm making. What I'm saying (and I will repeat myself yet again) is: you are using a double standard. You are applying two different rationales for the same actions and trying to pass the whole thing off as logical and rational when it isn't. If you subscribe to the point that "what a few lunatics/assholes do should have no impact in how the whole group is perceived" then you have no right to criticise the false rape accusers because they are just bad people whose actions should not impact your views on the group as a whole. And if you think that the actions of a few crazy/bad people SHOULD impact the views of the group as a whole, then I don't want to hear a single complaint when I say all members of X group are bad because I found a news article saying a member of that group did a horrible thing.

*snip*

First of all, do you really want to compete in the Suffering Olympics with me? Because I assure you, there are no winners in the Suffering Olympics.

Secondly, you lost the right to claim that I'm trying to force my opinions on other people the moment you started an argument with me because you didn't like what I had to say. I didn't seek you out to shove my opinions down your throat.

You said "falsely convicted". CONVICTED is the term explicitely used in your comment. We're speaking of a hypothetical fucking scenario, it doesn't matter what is and isn't likely, so this point from you is fucking pointless. I'm already aware of the statistics. If it was merely an accusation then no, I would NOT choose rape over it. That point is moot though. Stop wasting my time with bad points.

I couldn't give less of a fuck if you think I represent the majority, or what you think would be "worse", I just know that your points are spoken like someone who thinks their opinion is far more definitive than it is. Get over yourself.

Yes, because people have been treating this hypothetical scenario as if it was something that actually happened, and you gave me no indication of thinking otherwise. Sorry for the miscommunication, I guess.

As for the rest, I'm not going to argue with you about it. If you didn't like the way I phrased my ideals, sorry for anything I said that made you feel upset, and sorry if you thought my way of speaking was too forceful. However, I'm not going to apologise for my actual ideas. I respect that you feel differently and I'm not going to try to change your mind, so in the spirit of accepting your critique, I am willing to let it drop.

 

[Abomination]

Secondly, I could say the exact same thing about you. You keep ignoring the actual things I'm saying in favour of arguing your indefensible position.

No, I am serious in my assessment that you are incapable of understanding certain nuances of the English language. I suspect it is because you are from a non-English as the primary language speaking country and likely do not frequently have to engage in such a specific method of English language communication - I could be wrong, that is why I said "suspect".

Essentially you are not discussing this in a rational manner, are incapable of understanding things after they have been explained in a very specific way and have failed to understand exactly what a parallel represents.

 

[Darken12]

No, I am serious in my assessment that you are incapable of understanding certain nuances of the English language. I suspect it is because you are from a non-English as the primary language speaking country and likely do not frequently have to engage in such a specific method of English language communication - I could be wrong, that is why I said "suspect".

Essentially you are not discussing this in a rational manner, are incapable of understanding things after they have been explained in a very specific way and have failed to understand exactly what a parallel represents.

A couple of years ago, I would have been extremely offended by what you're saying, but now I find it so utterly ridiculous it just makes me laugh.

You know, saying "you probably can't understand my point because the nuances of the English language are above your grasp" is pretty much an automatic sign that you cannot defend your position and are defaulting to the most far-fetched of diversion tactics. Since, you know, again you are not acknowledging anything I'm actually saying and are attempting to discredit me by appealing to some imaginary flaw I might have that makes me unsuitable to continue the conversation. And, of course, you are ignoring the fact that I could be right. But you don't want to contemplate that, no sir.

I get exactly what you are saying. You are saying that women who falsely accuse men of rape are harming the legitimacy of actual rape accusations. I get that, I just think you are engaging in a double standard. That's what you aren't getting (or, more likely, you get exactly what I'm saying but you'd rather bend over backwards and grasp at straws and diversion tactics rather than admitting it).

 

[Abomination]

I just think you are engaging in a double standard[/i].

There is no double standard.

You compared the situation to all men being rapists by default. It is on the exact opposite end of the spectrum and even directly counters the men being rapists by default.

The suspicion raised by the fact that there are women who do lie about accusations about men does noting but discredit the idea that all men are rapists, it doesn't suddenly make a double standard - it does the exact opposite in that circumstance. This is also because of the way the judicial system operates - innocent until proven guilty - which means that there would be no situation that a man is automatically assumed to be a rapist because the burden of proof is not on the defendant.

The double standard WOULD occur if there was a situation where men levied accusations against women but there were false accusations by men in order to harm women and in THAT situation those accusations didn't weaken other mens' legitimate accusations.

The situations have to be comparable. Men automatically being assumed rapists is not comparable to people lying about the very accusation against men - they are actually in direct conflict.

Perhaps the reason I didn't get what you meant by a double standard is because you do not seem to understand what is required for there to BE a double standard.

 

[Mudze]

No, but assuming a prostitute is female -is- sexist.

 

[Darken12]

Perhaps the reason I didn't get what you meant by a double standard is because you do not seem to understand what is required for there to BE a double standard.

No, I think you are deliberately obfuscating the issue by wilfully missing the crystal-clear point I'm making. You are fixating on my specific example even though I have long-since stopped referring to it and instead have been speaking in broad general terms. It's an example I picked randomly. I could have well picked the aforementioned Westboro Baptist Church as a representation of all Christianity (as someone else mentioned before), or any other extremist or wrongdoer as a representation of their group. Furthermore, you seem to assume that a double standard can only exist on exact same situations that are gender-swapped. While that is but one of the many cases in which a double standard can take place, you will find that any time you apply a standard for group X but apply a different standard for group Y when the underlying situation is the same (as is this case), you are guilty of a double standard. In this case, your assertion that false rape accusers harm real rape accusations (or feminists/women as a whole) is a double standard unless you also assert that you allow extremists to affect your views of every other group out there. Regardless of what groups we're talking about (whether they are gender, sexuality, religion, race or ideology based), if you apply one standard to one group and another standard to another group, you are engaging in a double standard. They don't have to be opposite specular images of one another in order for the double standard to be labelled as such.

 

[Abomination]

Perhaps the reason I didn't get what you meant by a double standard is because you do not seem to understand what is required for there to BE a double standard.

No, I think you are deliberately obfuscating the issue by wilfully missing the crystal-clear point I'm making. You are fixating on my specific example even though I have long-since stopped referring to it and instead have been speaking in broad general terms. It's an example I picked randomly. I could have well picked the aforementioned Westboro Baptist Church as a representation of all Christianity (as someone else mentioned before), or any other extremist or wrongdoer as a representation of their group. Furthermore, you seem to assume that a double standard can only exist on exact same situations that are gender-swapped. While that is but one of the many cases in which a double standard can take place, you will find that any time you apply a standard for group X but apply a different standard for group Y when the underlying situation is the same (as is this case), you are guilty of a double standard. In this case, your assertion that false rape accusers harm real rape accusations (or feminists/women as a whole) is a double standard unless you also assert that you allow extremists to affect your views of every other group out there. Regardless of what groups we're talking about (whether they are gender, sexuality, religion, race or ideology based), if you apply one standard to one group and another standard to another group, you are engaging in a double standard. They don't have to be opposite specular images of one another in order for the double standard to be labelled as such.

WBC calls themselves WBC. They might be Christians but they identify themselves as WBC and confusing them as representing all Christians would require a terrible lack of awareness. They are self segregating.

Women who intentionally accuse innocent men of rape do not label themselves as such and thus the comparison is not a double standard. That is because they identify themselves as the same group as legitimate rape accusers. Both will claim to be legitimate due to the very nature of their goals, to do otherwise would be detrimental. The whole issue is a combination of a lack of identification of cause or intent while calling oneself part of a group that possesses a diversification of members.

The malicious false rape accusations do harm the cases of legitimate rape accusations because both sides are called the same thing and differentiating between the two is only revealed after investigation - sometimes an investigation that doesn't always reveal the malicious intent of a false accuser.

The parallel with feminism is the more extreme groups of feminists will continue to call themselves feminists and nothing else, and the more moderate feminists call themselves feminists and nothing else. The stances taken by the more extreme feminists tend to ruin the reputation of feminism and drive away those who would side with them. Just as the actions of the false rape accusers give cause for folks to not trust the word of a woman who claims to have been raped. The actions of a few can ruin the image of a larger group - especially when those groups depend on being able to convince others of their intentions and the truth behind their claims.

The reason for the issue is that there is next to no publicising of self-sub-defining branches of feminism. Religion is excluded because they DO self-sub-divide, many ideologies sub-self-divide and those that do not suffer the same issue as feminism or rape accusers.

Also, extremists DO affect public opinion of certain groups. Those groups, however, tend to self-sub-divide to segregate the more extreme views of members of the whole group. That's why the KKK doesn't represent all white people, that's why Black Power doesn't represent all black people, that's why the Yakuza doesn't represent all Japanese people, that's why WBC doesn't represent all Christians, that's why the Taliban doesn't represent all of Islam, that's why the Chicago Bulls don't represent all basketball players and so on.

The fact you mentioned the WBC as a negative element only proves my case. What do extreme feminists identify themselves as? What do non-extreme feminists identify themselves as? What do false accusers of rape identify themselves as? What do legitimate accusers of rape identify themselves as?

When the negative has the same identification as the positive then YES public opinion will be swayed.

is a double standard unless you also assert that you allow extremists to affect your views of every other group out there

Who said anything about MY views? This isn't about MY views this is about the view that actually matters - the public's.

This is what I have been saying from the start, this is why I mentioned you haven't been paying attention to the terms, definitions, tenses and prepositions of the language being used. People stated that being CONVICTED of rape when it isn't true would be worse than rape but you turned it around and said being ACCUSED of rape isn't worse than rape. We know that, nobody said being just accused of rape would be worse. Accused and convicted are two different things. The difference is quite significant, especially when it comes to the justice system.

 

[JonnyHG]

And I am so fucking tired of people playing down rape like it's as trivial as a scratch and that the "real victims" are those poor people accused (or gasp! even convicted!) of rape.

You too, don't speak for everyone.

well guess what? I'm not the one trying to speak for everyone or for the objective reality of something inherently subjective. I'm saying "perhaps to you it is the worst thing, but that isn't necessarily the case for everyone" and "it's a matter of opinion and personal experience". Also, I'm the one acknowledging how horrible rape is as someone who's gone through it, not the one trying to speak for exactly how horrible a false rape conviction is when they haven't had to experience it. I KNOW what rape like, but I imagine its effects are different for everyone. The circumstances under which it occurs also vary WIDELY. What's more, I'm not going to try and speak for others who have had to live through a decade of bad treatment in prison on top of having their lives ruined. I just know that rape did not break me, but that sounds like it just might. Maybe it's the knowledge that the world would believe I'm the very thing that fucked me up. Maybe it's knowing that I may never be able to accomplish anything of significance because of it. Maybe it's just the prospect of being put in a cage for a decade, and not knowing what horrible thing might befall me at any time. Different people are tempered differently and react differently to different stimuli. That's just a reality.

The point is that what you THINK is the end all be all to suffering isn't necessarily the case for everyone, and you HAVEN'T been through it all. You attempting to speak as though it factually IS the absolute worse thing is marginalizing the atrociously horrible things other people have gone through and the subjective pain others have experienced. I've had a cousin who killed himself over the things that happened to him in the military. I have a brother who was physically tortured before. Legitimately tortured. I close to certain that you didn't go through the things he did, because if you had, you'd know how fucking traumatic it is and probably wouldn't be talking like there is nothing worse than rape. There was a time in my life where I was made to believe I was responsible for someone's death due to my own incompetence at the time. That guilt was worse than whatever sick, vile, disgusting things I felt after being violated. I had a friend with quadriplegia who said her life was a living hell. I'm not going to be so arrogant as to belittle the things that happened to other people by attempting to definitively say "Rape is the worst". You clearly have no qualms with that though.
Thank you for this post.

 

[axlryder]

First of all, do you really want to compete in the Suffering Olympics with me? Because I assure you, there are no winners in the Suffering Olympics.

It wasn't meant to be a competition. I was just providing some context for my frustation and providing examples of people's situations that I feel would be undermined by such a definitive claim. As if one could objectively say "yeah, that's shitty, but at least they've never been raped, that would be worse than what they're going through".

Yes, because people have been treating this hypothetical scenario as if it was something that actually happened, and you gave me no indication of thinking otherwise. Sorry for the miscommunication, I guess.

To me it seemed as though you were already speaking about the scenario hypothetically, and I was just continuing the conversation in a similar vein. I'm sure there was a communication break down somewhere in there though.

As for the rest, I'm not going to argue with you about it. If you didn't like the way I phrased my ideals, sorry for anything I said that made you feel upset, and sorry if you thought my way of speaking was too forceful. However, I'm not going to apologise for my actual ideas. I respect that you feel differently and I'm not going to try to change your mind, so in the spirit of accepting your critique, I am willing to let it drop.

I wouldn't even want you to apologize for your core views about this. That would be arrogant on my end. Just including a caveat next time would be appreciated though. I'll admit I overreacted. It's an ironically touchy thing for me.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

If the prostitute doesn't think it is, how could women that are not in that line of work think otherwise? Technically they can, I know. But they don't have a valid, well reasoned argument.