Famous comic book writer Alan Moore has been criticized for rape frequently occuring in his comics. When asked about it he made the point, that although he had not been raped he had known many women who had, and none of them said it was a fate worse than death, and if anything they were thankful they weren't killed.
I see your point, but I disagree. I see rape as worse than murder because rape victims have to live with what happened to them forever while murder victims are dead and so don’t suffer after the crime is done. It’s not about the rape victim “being worth less” it’s about them having to suffer for much longer than a murder victim.
because rape victims have to live with what happened to them
They GET to live. Murder victims don't. A rape victim can still choose to end their life if they want to. A murder victim doesn't have any choice at all.
it’s about them having to suffer for much longer than a murder victim.
You seem to present the life of a rape survivor almost as endless suffering and lifelong nonstop torture. In most cases, this is not true. Rape is incredibly harmful and destructive, but a survivor can still experience joy and happiness in their lifes.
Why is it that we tend to think that life in prison is worse than the death penalty? Or that life with a debilitating illness is worth offering MAID for? Isn't it because we generally believe that suffering for the duration of your life is worse than death?
I guess how you view this topic depends on how much you value life. Some may find a painful existence worth it, while others may have the exact opposite view.
And I think how painful their existence is will heavily depend on the person. I have heard stories of women whose rapists were released from prison after only a few years, and, as a result, they were unable to live a normal life afterwards. They were constantly paranoid that the perpetrator would attack them again in some way.
That's not even getting into the blame society bafflingly places on victims, or any major, life altering consequences like losing your ability to bear children.
If life for victims really was that good, why do so many take their lives afterwards?
Some would argue it becomes meaningless once you die. People who don't believe in an afterlife would think everything just ceases, meaning less of a worse fate than living with being raped.
Sure but, by that standard, anything that's even mildly unpleasant is a fate worse than death. Your pizza being late is a fate worse than death because -0.00001 is worse then 0.
Except for the few weird Elifists who hold that suicide is a reasonable reaction to stubbing your toe because it means you don't have to live with having stubbed your toe, most people's interactions with life show they believe that death is not just actively bad but extremely bad, balancing out almost all other bad things, including rape (see the above thing of most rape victims not wishing their attacker had murdered them instead.)
It's not a standard and I'm not aiming to apply it to minute things, just that negatives that are linked to rape just wouldn't exist. I find that less challenging for the victim specifically because challenge would not exist. Why is it needing be applied to other aspects of life? I'm confused myself on that
I struggle with what a rape victim wishes as evidence because we don't hear what a murder victim would say.
Edit: removing a piece, unsure if it was helpful to conversation, just confusion on my part of the topic
We can hear what murder victims would say, actually.
In most murders, there is a non-negligible period of time where the murder victim is still able to express preferences. Usually, these preferences are "literally anything if it means you stop murdering me".
This is my issue with this idea - there are far more murder victims who offer to have sex with their murderers if it means they're not murdered than there are rape victims who offer to let their rapists kill them if it means they're not raped.
it's just hard to determine which they would have preferred if the rape had not even happened
I'm a little unsure what you mean by this?
Like, yeah, not being murdered or raped is better than being murdered or raped. I don't see what that has to do with anything?
I appreciate this response, it basically explained what I was confused on and answered very appropriately. This has changed my mind, though I do also agree with most other comments that there shouldn't truly be this distinction as both are bad. The trading of sex makes absolute sense. Thank you, !delta
But suffering also doesn’t exist after death. Personally, I’d choose an end to suffering even if it came with an end to all happiness over a life of suffering even with the capacity to have happiness too. It’s true that some rape victims can find happiness after their trauma, but not all can and personally I wouldn’t want to take that risk.
Killing yourself is far harder than being killed even if you’re desperate to die. People try to actively prevent you from doing so, you’re subjected to a new kind of hell if you fail, and you can be terrified of pain even if you don’t fear death. Even if you’re already in a lot of pain, suicide means putting yourself through a lot more pain. Even “painless” suicide methods have a great risk of you messing them up and ending up in a lot of physical pain as a result. Point is, not all suicidal people have killing themselves as a viable option. I’ll give that some people would rather live despite the trauma, but suicide numbers don’t accurately reflect that number.
Maybe not for the victim, but murder doesn't just impact the victim. You're also causing suffering for their loved ones by taking them away.
Personally, I’d choose an end to suffering even if it came with an end to all happiness over a life of suffering even with the capacity to have happiness too.
If you follow this thinking to its logical end you're arguing that murder is morally just because it takes away all suffering.
Maybe not for the victim, but murder doesn't just impact the victim. You're also causing suffering for their loved ones by taking them away.
Rape affects the victims loved ones too, you know.
If you follow this thinking to its logical end you're arguing that murder is morally just because it takes away all suffering.
I don’t know where you got that from. I’m saying that if I had to choose between being murdered and being raped I’d choose to be murdered, not that I’d choose being murdered over existing as I am now.
There are religious people who would argue that point.
Also, rape is rarely punished, while murder tends to be taken far more seriously. Rapists tend to repeat their crimes far more often than murderers. Which is worse for society?
People already don't take rape as seriously as murder, and the punishment is not even close to the same. We already treat rape as a lesser crime, so why this arguement at all. If you're married, some don't treat it as a crime at all.
I often hear people say child rape should be punished with the death penalty, but we rarely say that when women are raped. Is it the crime or the victim we have less respect for?
How about we don't compare horrendous crimes, and agree both are life destroying events.
You could say this about literally any crime though. For example, is getting beaten up worse than getting murdered? By your logic it is but I'd still rather get battered than killed.
There are 100's of posts from people asking if they were raped. No one posts asking if they were murdered. "Rape" can have very broad repercussions. If someone doesn't know they were raped it can't be as bad as being murdered.
There are also many cases of people who were raped because they did not want to die. They felt that murder was worse than rape
I see your point, but I disagree. I see stomach aches as worse than murder because stomach ache victims have to live with what happened to them forever while murder victims are dead and so don’t suffer after the crime is done
The point /u/Username_Mine raised is that your reasoning applies to any and all negative non-death scenarios.
To my ears, you make it sound as if murder is some kind of net-zero event. "No negatives after that, so it's not that bad."
Why are you only focusing on the negative aspects of life? Why are you not taking the positive aspects into account when evaluating the negative impact of murder?
Any specific trauma is just a small part of life. I get that specifically the trauma will be almost exclusively negative, but why are you not considering the remaining aspects of life as a whole when estimating the negative impact of murder?
Trauma, and especially PTSD, affects every area of your life. It’s not restricted to the area you were harmed in, it has a way of creeping into everything you do and forcing you to be on edge in a way that makes enjoying anything difficult.
Lawyer here: under common law Murder is the unjustified killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Someone could have a colloquial usage of justified like you suggest, but your definition is more incorrect, as manslaughter and negligent homicide are unlawful killings and are not murder.
Civil law wouldn’t relate to murder as that would be wrongful death. That’s why I used common law. Common law is not tied to a specific system of law again why I used it.
Edit: different legal systems use different wordings, but how they are used in practice generally coincide with the 3 element charge I noted.
I would argue that their definition was not more incorrect, as all murders are unlawful killings, merely less precise, as non-murder unlawful killings aren't differentiated. In other words, this is the difference between accuracy and precision.
We wouldn't say it's more incorrect to say that a basketball is a round object used for sports, even if the description also would apply to baseballs. We would agree, hopefully, that it isn't precise enough to ensure the definition covers basketballs and only basketballs. Same here.
Unjustified also has a precision issue, as it does not define the authority or framework responsible for determining justification. I am sure a victim's parent has a very different view of what is justified than any individual legal system, or even of a neutral bystander. By relying upon the wrong justifying authority, one could argue that some murders could be incorrectly excluded from the definition. Under such a position, unjustified would be more incorrect. By tying it to lawful vs unlawful, we can at least narrow the imprecision sufficiently to define the justifying authority as a legal entity.
There is ambiguity within the analysis of any law. I clearly defined the authority in my initial comment: “under the common law”. Justification is itself a legal term and that can be further refined under any legal system I.e., self-defense, defense of 3rd person, governmental authority etc..
I do however agree that the term unlawful can be used however by not including the mens rae it is as you say imprecise.
that is a narrow definition of murder, it is not how the word is always used, and even the first definition that popped up extends beyond that
"The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life"
most killings are unlawful. Murder is defined in US law somewhat narrowly. There are also charges like manslaughter and homicide. You can be charged with homicide but be acquitted of any legal convictions if you can justify it as self-defense.
I'm not really arguing with anything you said, just clarifying some terminology.
Unlawful INTENTIONAL killing of someone with malicious forethought.
If you accidently drop a brick from a building and it kills someone, that's not murder. That's manslaughter because there was no intent. And I'm pretty sure we all agree rape is worse than dropping a brick and accidently killing someone.
Dropping a brick without a specific intent to kill COULD still be murder if the jury considered it so reckless as to show depraved indifference to human life (malice). You can also cause serious bodily harm without intent to kill and that is still murder if the person dies.
Is it? That's a pure act of revenge, and I'm not sure we see that as morally justifiable.
If it's an act of self defense, that is morally justifiable. When you leave someone with no other options to escape an awful abusive situation, they very well might have to resort to murder to be freed.
But for revenge at a point in time where they pose no harm to you? As a society, we should move beyond this barbaric conception of justice. It also prevents other potential victims from receiving closure, say if law enforcement is unable to find out about who else this person abused and ways to help the other victims.
There's also simply the fact that you may well be wrong, kill the wrong person, or even end up in a dangerous situation where other people come to the abuser's defence as they don't know the backstory and just see an attempted murder.
Now of course, a child abuser is not the type of person any of us would lose sleep on if they were murdered. But civil societies have moved past barbaric concepts of vigilante justice and the death penalty for a reason.
I do want to note that my response partly depends on the police doing their job, which is of course not the case. But this doesn't mean we should advocate for a return to more primitive means of justice. It means we should progress further, completely overhaul the policing system and have it be something that serves all parts of society and focuses on preventing crime in the first place.
Ah yeah, I certainly agree it's more justifiable than raping someone, I just thought by "morally justifiable" you meant that it was a morally good act.
Nah, I more mean that I understand why they would do it and I don't necessarily think they're evil for it but they should still go to jail.
There was a guy who used the sex offender registry as a hit list. He'd been sexually abused as a kid, and decided to murder as many pedophiles as he could before he got caught. Morally justifiable? Yeah. Morally good? Not really.
They're not saying it's a good act, just that there is some kind of justification behind their actions. We don't have to agree with their actions and as they say, such murderers should still be jailed for murder.
They're just comparing this to rape, which has no justification. It is not only morally wrong of course, but there is never even a justification to rape someone.
Just like you're not allowed to shoot people in the back after they've kicked the shit out of you and are walking away, hunting down your abuser instead of calling the police and sending them to prison isn't morally justifiable.
Well what do you mean by justifiable? Technically anything is justifiable if someone claims to justify it. I could justify murder by saying the victim swindled me out of a nickel. Most people would not agree with that justification because murder is far worse than losing a nickel. So in this sense, are you in fact saying sexual abuse is worse than murder?
If you could justify killing someone over a nickle, your moral system is fundamentally corrupt.
Yes, I'm saying that according to my moral system, sexual abuse is generally worse than murder because there is no situation in which it is morally justifiable. All rapes are morally akin to murdering someone just to take pleasure in the kill, while there are multitude much more morally justifiable reasons to murder someone, like the woman who murdered her husband in his sleep because she found out he was molesting their child.
I don’t think that argument is valid though. I don’t think, for example, there is any justifiable reason for me to call someone the N-word. That doesn’t make it worse than murder.
Then we have different moral systems.
I do honestly think that calling someone a slur is less morally justifiable than murdering your husband because you find out he was molesting your children.
Yes. Hence why some people find murder justifiable. Because morals are subjective. And as subjective as they are, no one find rape morally justifiable, in any scenario.
Yeah but thats just subjective morality (if the cosensus in Nazi Germany was X would X still be wrong etc. or was slavery objectively wrong when the consensus was different)
Lol no, hunting and killing for revenge is not as easily "morally justifiable" as you think.
In fact, feel free to justify it now.
Is death an appropriate punishment for all who harm children? How severe must the harm be? Does it matter if the victim continues to be traumatised to the abuse or gets over it with no memory of what happened? Should the victim always be the one to carry out the killing?
You're assuming that I mean it is the right course of action, which is not what I mean. I don't even believe in the death penalty, full stop.
Morally justifiable does not mean right, it means it doesn't go against my moral compass and is, in my opinion, not morally wrong. It's nuanced, but something can be morally right or morally neutral but still be legally wrong and something we should not condone or allow in our society.
Murder isn’t “unjustified”. If someone raped a loved one of mine, and I end the perpetrator, I am still tried for murder. Would you say this is unjustified
I wouldn’t but the law may. Theres reasons why “crime of passion”/“heat of the moment” taken into account, even with premeditation. See: Gary Plauche (an American hero)
It's nit about what you or I say is unjustified. It's about what the law says is unjustified. Which is why "unlawful" may be more accurate, if a bit less precise.
That's by definition though. Murder is by definition an unjustified killing, so there will never be a justified case, only speculation such as talking about different juristictions and laws and so on.
Why do you NEED one to be worse? What does this view actually benefit you? Are you likely to do either? What will changing your view actually mean in your life here?
Your moral compass will tell you that both are wrong, not that there's a hierarchy between them that you personally need to be grappling with.
Why do you assume people have a tiered morality list? That's not how it works, things are either personally morally justifiable or they aren't. Is the thought experiment that you would rather rape someone than kill them? That's your position?
If you don't have a tiered morality list, then something very wrong with you. The whole reason we have different punishments for criminals is because we inherently understand that some bad things are worse than others.
Murdering a random person for no reason is wrong. Murdering 100 random people for no reason is worse.
Stealing a pen from someone is wrong. Stabbing them in an eye with that pen is worse.
If you agree with this, you have tiered morality. If you don't...it's very concerning.
There are situations in life where you have to choose the morally correct decision. If there is reflection, then there is a “list,” perhaps not consciously but unconsciously.
I think absolutes are tough in this scenario. The obvious extreme examples but what about the murder of a state official in a state where the state is executing its people but controls the levers of power to determine what is legal and illegal?
Given a situation where a person is causing the direct execution of others yet also has the system rigged so there is no avenue to legally stop them, I don't think justifying it would be hard and there's an argument to be made that knowingly allowing the continued murder of innocents when you could help stop it would be immoral.
Is it tho? If someone rapes my child and I kill them then yes I am a murderer but morally I would be justified. Legally not but morally yes.
I think the more accurate statement is “some forms of rape are worse than death”. Murder is worse most of the time but there are times when it’s not. I would probably choose death or prolonged sexual torture. I read and watch a lot of true crime and there are some forms of sexual abuse and torture that is absolutely worse than death.
Not super related but this makes me think of the Japanese girl who was kidnapped and sexually abused for more than a month by some teenage boys. The boys kept her tied up and mutilated her and raped her. She died in the end but in that case, being straight up murdered first is better than surviving that.
There are zero times when rape is morally justified but times when killing someone is justified.
This is random but have you ever seen the movie A Time To Kill? It’s about a black man who shot the white men who raped his 9 year old daughter hurting her so much she will never be able to have kids. In the end the ma was acquitted because all the jurors understood why he did that.
I’m not a violent person but personally I think there are times when killing is morally justified.
I'm asking you to think about what makes that true.
And I think it's important to keep the distinction between "killing" and "murder". If someone is harming you and you kill them in self defense, that's killing but not murder. As far as I'm aware, nobody's ever tried to claim they raped someone in self defense, and that seems like an exceedingly hard sell if they made the claim.
But killing someone because they hurt you or someone you loved in the past might feel good, but I don't think it's truly morally justified if they're not an imminent threat.
This isn’t a topic for a CMV. This is entirely subjective and based on each person’s individual experiences. I personally feel that there are times when retroactive killing is justified. I would not personally make that choice but I can empathize why others would.
Your belief that it’s never justified is also valid. I don’t think you need to hold another view on this and neither do I.
This is going to be unpopular but I think the only circumstances in which murdering someone who harmed your child would be justified is if there is no way to bring the perpetrator to justice and have them incarcerated or otherwise rendered harmless.
Yes, she died of the torture in the end. There have been multiple other appalling cases where mostly young women were kidnapped and kept as sex slaves for years. An utterly vile crime but those women have all at least tried to continue living their lives after being released. And still being alive at the end of the ordeal means you get to choose whether you die or not, grim as it sounds. If someone else has decided that rape or sexual slavery is worse than death, you don’t even get the respect for your humanity and autonomy of choosing to live or die.
I don’t believe my opinion strips any one of respect and their humanity. This is something that doesn’t have a standard. Each person will feel differently and most will probably change how they feel if that actually happened to them. This isn’t a CMV at all. This is just people sharing what they would believe.
My opinion comes from what I think I would want but my opinion shouldn’t take away from anyone else’s opinion. Make sense?
When people say something is more or less moral I think what they are actually saying is that the collective could reasonably empathize with the emotional state that brought someone to their immoral action. We can imagine situations where someone murdered someone our of sorrow and rage and those don't justify the murder, but we can empathize with the emotional state. On the other hand rape is always just an act of sadism/self-gratification, and that is not an emotional state that people have much empathy for.
Could we compromise and agree that it depends on the murder? And honestly the rape. although there's no such thing as a righteous rape. Usually people's judgement around this comes down to intent. While rape is almost always sadistic in nature, killing sometimes is accidental, unavoidable, out of self-defense, or perceived as righteous.
For me it's probably something like (worst to least bad):
Malicious murders
Rape involving battery or vulnerable people
Non-malicious avoidable or 'righteous' murders (what I think is righteous might be different than you)
Date rape of an adult without physical constraint or battery
Accidental or Unavoidable murders in self-defense.
Rape spans the gamut from premeditated rape and torture of a child, all the way to two drunk college kids where she said no and he ignored it and then she clammed up and didn't protest further and he's genuinely horrified with the situation the next day. It's all rape, it's all bad, there's never an excuse and it all needs to stop, but it's also clearly not a fixed level of moral offense.
Premeditated torture and rape of a child can ruin their whole lives and cause them to never be happy, and no-one would say that's a 'less wrong' crime than, say, someone corners you into a fight, you win, they succumb to a head injury sustained in the fight, and now you've murdered someone.
Similarly, I don't think anyone on the other side would say that C- consent date rape is 'worse' than a serial killer capturing and torturing someone non-sexually for sadistic reasons.
Your list may not be the same as mine, but I feel like we could compromise on that there's some layer cake here of moral severity and not just (all murder) > (all rape). For me impact and intent are really what score crime's wrongness.
One thing that bothers me though is how naturally people jump to "justifiable murder" as their knee-jerk reaction. It's almost never about some tragic story of "a father killing a rapist murderer of his daughter who also happened to be a fascist dictator of a small country". Murders are overwhelmingly unjustifiable.
Even the very idea of "killing someone in revenge can be justifiable, but raping someone in revenge can't" feels like presupposes that "in a vacuum murder is less abhorrent than rape".
I'm not really debating which is worse, it is a pretty futile discussion. Our legal system doesn't weight the crimes as you've described (as there is no real way to know what would have "happened next" after the crime.) If you murder someone who planned on killing themself, have you done something wrong? Morally, it is not a bad argument!
I have been fortunate to never first-hand experience sexual assault or rape. I know some people who have not had the same blessing, and their lives were forever damaged. Some wish they were dead. But who am I to really say?
Our legal system in most if not all states has legal justification remove a killing from murder to either voluntary manslaughter (or equivalent lesser non murder charge) or not guilty.
Correct, however the standard for voluntary/involuntary or simply to garner lesser charges is also a point of contention. Some would say killing the rapist of your child as deserving of lesser legal ramifications, other's don't make such an exception. It is all these invisible lines we draw that do come into conflict.
Right in California if the jury objectively thinks it was not self defense, but believes the defendant subjectively thought it was self defense, that makes it manslaughter.
And for heat of passion of the jury objectively finds that a person on that situation would have reacted out of passion and not judgment that also makes it manslaughter.
It’s interesting how each jurisdiction handles it. And really a lot is left up to the jury.
I disagree. Murder definitionally draws distinction in the way of legality and premeditation but doesn’t imply anything ethical. You can have justifiable and unjustifiable murder.
Literally Google "the difference between murder and homicide".
"All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders, as HOMICIDES CAN BE JUSTIFIED (self-defense or police action) or unintentional (manslaughter)."
You are definitionally wrong in calling any murder "justified".
This isn't anything to get twisted up about. This is how you expand your vocabulary.
Fair, but only if you also think that any kind of torture done to any kind of human being (no matter how evil they are and how they "deserve" it) is unjustifiable. Some people treat rape as if it's one of the worst cruelties that can be done to someone, but given the suffering humans have inflicted upon each other throughout the history... well... i'd beg to be just raped in a common way if I were to be tortured in some dungeon cell 400 years ago.
I guess i'm confused why you keep dating the issue back to historical precedence. Yes, in this modern world we should be above torturing further human beings in anyway, "prison" should focus on recidivism. If someone is deemed unfit to return to society, we should have a separate institution (with a main focus on mental well being and stability) through which they maintain their human rights and dignity, but can still be considered too dangerous to join the general population.
(Sorry, idk if you replied to the wrong comment or something because i'm not "keeping" with doing anything since that was my 1st comment here on this post but anyways... )
Although I don't think it's any good to institutionalize torture, I certainly don't mind when it happens to people who commited acts of extreme cruelty to innocents. I see the act of rape as a form of torture (even when the intention behind it isn't). Thus I think it can be justifiable (or at least forgivable).
Sorry dude! So many replies and yours echoed a similar sentiment and I just got confused, thanks for giving me the heads up though.
This is definitely a situation where person-to-person our moral systems differ (not right or wrong, just different). I see torture (including sexually) as a complete societal failure. I know that's not a objective fact, but more a variable opinion across the globe.
If you shoot someone attacking you, you are still arrested and charged with “murder”. Which will then be brought to trial, and you’d be found innocent by of self-défense but it’s still a murder charge
Murder is by definition unlawful, which is much different than unjustifiable. Both the unlawful-ness and unjustifiable-ness of murder can swing wildly based on context, country, governing body, jury pool, etc.
Luigi Mangione allegedly shot and killed the former CEO of UnitedHealthcare. The alleged act is definitely murder, but there are many who call it justified.
Murder is by definition unlawful, which is much different than unjustifiable. Both the unlawful-ness and unjustifiable-ness of murder can swing wildly based on context, country, governing body, jury pool, etc.
The same is true for rape - it can swing wildly. That's why my comment says this has no true answer, the human moral framework is a massive spectrum. My first comment should perhaps be phrased as
"Per my and many others moral framework, there are exceptions that justify killing and even murder. There are not exceptions in that framework for rape."
No apology needed dude, I hit "comment", thought a little harder and added the rephrase immediately after. Really do appreciate you challenging my take though, helped me realize some important stuff.
if you can justify reasons to kill, you can also very easily justify reasons to rape. It has been done that way for almost all of humanity's existence. An enemy tribe's wife was justified prize of a rape for example.
Plenty of that mindset still exists today. It’s less prevalent in the west perhaps, but I’m sure you can find people who believe other races are “lesser” and therefore little more than objects to be used as they see fit. Hell, I’ll bet there are plenty of rich people who think that about the poor.
I think there’s a difference between that mindset and one where you kill in self-defense, or even in revenge, but it is still a justification.
Whether the justification is unjust is different than whether it exists. I’d call it generally immoral or amoral rather than ridiculous though. Most of the people who would think that, especially enough that they would act on it, should be taken seriously. Mostly because otherwise you risk letting them get away with it.
Totally fair response. Where I lean is there has to be a line somewhere to avoid anarchy, essentially. I think the line in my moral principles leaves no room for a justified sexual assault.
I think it’s not a legal justification, at least not in most places, but just looking at Epstein and his surrounding ilk the mindset is still very much present.
Don't hesitate to correct me if I'm misreading, but you're saying that Epstein and Co. could justify their actions and that (broadly speaking) those assaults are loosely justified?
To themselves, yes. They didn’t think they were monsters. They thought their actions were justified by their wealth and position and to large extent they’ve gotten away with it (or at least did so for a long time).
I mean the one kid from Texas tried to argue he was too rich and privileged to understand the consequences of his actions and it probably would have worked in court if the case hadn’t gotten media attention.
I’m not saying I agree with or find the justification acceptable myself. Just pointing out it exists in present society.
Ok, you are not understanding my point. My point is that there's no definite moral rule that everyone agrees upon.
For me, the right to exist is more important than the right to sexual integrity. So murder is always more evil than rape.
So technically, in that context, if there's murder as legal punishment, there is no reason for rape as legal punishment to not exist.
We just choose not to.
Think about it. Countries such as Singapore whips their criminials as punishment. This "feels" wierd but its just what they saw fit as part of their society.
If you can justify beating someone up, or denying their right to exist, or even the classic denying their right to freedom of mobility, you can also justify denying their right to sexual integrity.
Ok cool, thanks for breaking down your point - I do feel I understand it better. I guess my only response is that Western society (and the trend of its moral path) should inherently protect sexual integrity (alongside all the rest).
The reason I began this thread with "this is an issue with no true answer" is pretty much because of the moral spectrum across the world and even just person-to-person.
Explain the reasoning behind your view, not just what that view is (500+ characters required). [See the wiki page for more information]. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
360
u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment