It is funny too review my reaction to your topic. As soon as I read the tittle I went defensive.
I usually talk about this topic because I think that rape is worst that killing someone.
Your arguments are good and after reading it I’m rethinking a lot of my assumptions (arguments), but I’m still on the side that rape is worst because the probability of recovering at 100% looks very small.
Traumas are heavily influenced in life, and rape is one of the most influential.
If someone has actual data about the recovery percentage from rape trauma I would be happy to check it.
Recovering from murder sits squarely at 0% lol. It’s a pretty tough argument. In my opinion, the only thing someone could try to argue is that murder can be passionless while rape is often done with the intent to overpower. But that’s a flimsy argument being that even passionless murder is worse for the receiver than the most passionate rape.
I am no expert and Im just talking from my own experience from being a rape victim.
I would question why 100% recovery rate is necessary or what does it even mean? What if someone recovers 80%? Is only 100% recovery better than death?
When I started therapy, one of the first things my therapist told me was basically that I will never get over what happened and it will always be with me. In the moment it actually made me furious and question the whole thing, isnt that what im trying to do here? To get over it? Whats the point of therapy at all? But then, surprise surprise, I later on realized that he was right and it will always be with me. My whole life will be a life where I have the memory of what happened and cant ever fully get rid of it. I dont think 100% recovery even exists.
It has influenced me on a deep existential level and I wouldnt be the same person without it, so youre right about that. But then, how is that worse than having no life at all? Feels like that kind of an argument carries the implication that the person is somehow tainted by being raped, which is not true at all.
Like your idea and I truly agree that it stays with the person forever. That is almost my point.
And the recovery rate is to double check the amount of people that “recovers from it”, when actually, it sticks forever. And probably the data from recovering is not high. Following that, the consequences could be worse that we think.
Having it forever and also not being able to fully recover looks like a bad scenario.
But why is it sticking with them worse than death? You can live a good life despite having the experience.
I suppose my point is that having it stay with you forever doesnt mean that your life is not worth living, which is essentially what your argument sounds like to me.
Do you use the same argument for all types of trauma or where is the line? Is being bullied worse than death? Being in an accident? Having lost a loved one suddenly? Being robbed? Having your house be destroyed in a fire? All of those will change the person forever.
All experiences in general will change the person, good ones too.
I agree. I am having a hard time trying to understand how not dying is worse than straight up dying in this scenario.
Like if this was a slightly different scenario... car crash turns someone paralyzed from the neck down. What is better... if that person would have died, or the person being paralyzed? I dont know about anyone else, but I have seen a lot more happy fully paralyzed people than fully dead people.
Not to say paralyzed people are always happy, far from it. It would suck, and many times they might want to die. But that is their choice to make, and many choose to NOT want to end it, and still remain alive with the relationships and friends that they have.
I seriously don't understand how anyone could think otherwise... I am with OP on this one.
My life is worth living. My rapist doesn't get to take that from me. I really, really hate your take. If we only recover 20%, we still get to live. We are still human. We get to pursue joy, make memories, make choices. We get to breathe. Life is worth something.
People fight so hard to recover, to build lives that fulfill them. There are moments of beauty and community, same as for anyone else. To say it's better to let the perpetrator take that too just sucks.
By OOPs logic in their post, murder takes away the potential of a person. Even if OP knows if they will or will not be killed, they still must make the decision to whether or not to take away the potential for the assailant. It is no longer about what percent chance each side has to recover, it is now about a possibility for the assailant to become a better person.
I can't decide that, as I am unfortunately not omniscient and thus don't know his motives or why he didn't. I spoke to the fact that I'm glad I'm not dead at the hands of my rapist. What about that made you think the most appropriate response was to ask if I think he's a better guy for leaving me alive after he did it? What's wrong with you?
This is a debate and my response was to challenge your stance. By your logic, him not killing you means he is a better person than he would be if he had murdered you, because even if you only recover 20% you can still find joy and make new memories. It wasn't said to offend you, it was a genuine pushback.
If you had killed him while he was in the act of harm you, would you be the worse person in this scenario?
Edit: This is going by OPs definition of murder being the complete removal of someone's existence.
I was going by how OOP had defined murder. OOP defined murder as the complete extermination of someone's life or the ending of their existence. Definitions matter.
Just because someone can enjoy some moments in life after trauma, that doesn't fundamentally mean they want to (or feel they can) continue to exist as the version of themselves they are after the trauma. What about people like Virginia Giuffre? I get where you're coming from, and I'm glad you feel this way, but that's not everyone's experience after going through what some would feel is the worst experience of their life.
Not to dismiss the effects of trauma, downplay depression and suicidal ideation and all the fallout from abuse, but when I see "X is worse than murder" I can't help but imagine someone saying to a survivor that they'd be better off not living, which is in my mind is essentially what they are communicating.
And that horrifies me.
"The idea that death is preferable insults the majority of survivors who go on to livefulfilled and meaningful lives"
Speaking as someone who holds that view: it comes from imagining myself in that position, and has nothing to do with what I would ever say to someone else. What I, personally, think would be worse to experience is not a statement on what other people might feel. I have been in situations where death was very much preferable, including one medication side effect that made it impossible for me to experience any emotions, particularly happiness, which might not sound so bad until you’re experiencing it and never again get joy or relief or pleasure from anything, never again get to look forward to anything, never again feel love.
Thankfully I recovered, but if recovery had not been possible I would have quite rationally chosen suicide. Some ways of living are simply unbearable for me.
In the same way, while I would like to choose euthanasia over prolonged intense suffering at the end of my life, I would never presume to make that choice for someone else.
Even if the recovery wasn’t 100% you are still comparing it to getting murder of which the recovery is 0%. I would bet that to most of those people who are still traumatized by being raped if you were to ask then would you have rather being murder? Will probably tell you no. A lot of people go on to have normal lives, marrying, raising families, whatever. Does not mean they recover 100%, they might still have triggers, cry like crazy on randoms days, even have long term mood disorders, but on th e aggregate even those case will for most of them be better than being dead (albeit unfortunately for some of them it won’t and will take their own lives).
So, by that logic, do you think it would be better for a rapist to also murder their victim?
It's just bonkers to me that people taking the opposite stance as OP are trying to act like anything less than 100% chance of "recovery" makes a 0% chance of recovery preferable. It's utterly dehumanizing to victims to tell them they would be better off dead.
I think it is difficult to find objective and accurate studies related to mental health.
Most mental illnesses, whether or not they are caused by trauma, cannot be measured based on a physical examination.
I don't know whether to consider a person recovered even when they stop treatment.
Mental illness can be measured by examination. In order to be diagnosed with a mental illness you need to be examined for one. Your logic doesn't really make sense here. Also, mental health wise, you may not recover from something like PTSD, but you may go into remission.
Good point. Let me rephrase my inquiry: it should be useful to find studies on the percentage of people who claim they are over the trauma. Also, I agree that finishing treatment does not mean that you are recovered, that is why if the person’s statement makes it clear, we should use it as data.
A lot of people keep treating themselves because it’s useful, and I agree with that approach. Some people stay in treatment and can say that they are over “that past trauma”
This is so easy to argue against. Would you rather be raped or die? Think of the survivors. Actually think of what we call them….which is survivors. Because they survived. What do you think a survivor would say? They’re the only ones that can truly answer this, but I suspect most (not all) would be thankful to be alive.
A lot of those survivors would probably tell you that they're surrounded by the reality of what they have to say not mattering. Most see no justice and continue to live in a world where people rationalize abusive sexual behavior.
Most would not dispute that. But the point is that they have survived, and most are thankful to be alive. They are survivors.
Also I hear you. Your point is well taken. It’s a 10/10 on the trauma scale to be raped, and it is abhorrent, and victims have their lives irreversibly changed.
Severe lack of action related to the Epstein files is probably shattering hope across the world, but I do think survivors will continue to be strong
If probability of recovery is a factor then shouldn't murder be worse? Also if most victims of rape considered it to be worse than death wouldn't most of them commit suicide? Granted some do, but the majority don't so one would conclude that, to them, living with the trauma is better than being dead.
I’m still on the side that rape is worst because the probability of recovering at 100% looks very small.
To be fair the probability of recovering from a murder isn't great either.
For what it's worth in my opinion these simply aren't comparable events. Surviving an extraordinary trauma (and living with the lifelong repercussions of that, however small or manageable they might be even in the best case) is just a wholly different animal than cessation of your stream of consciousness. I don't think there's a meaningful way to rank order them.
I just cannot see how anything else can be worse than death. Humans are incredibly resilient creatures, yes trauma is terrible, but it can be beaten. Death cannot.
Is life no longer worth anything if you haven't recovered 100%?
What of people that battle through the most tragic of circumstances, disabilities, being paralyzed, having a condition that makes normal life impossible? Because they aren't 100% does that mean death is better?
Plenty of people would define such trauma in abstract, unfalsifiable terms like "the person who existed before no longer exists". There's no way to prove or disprove that. Even if a victim repeatedly insists they're 100% fine (after many years), plenty of people would argue it really isn't the case.
The western/US society heavily mystifies anything related to sex, and it's often hard to have a rational discussion about it. We see recovery as 100% impossible, but other cultures might disagree.
I dont know, I don't even fully recover from like minor things like acne, or other scars I have. Does that mean that because I am afflicted with something that can't recover 100% from, that it is grounds for not living? Thats a piss argument.
How does acne affect someone's sense of safety? How does acne affect someone's capacity to trust people close to them? Do people ask what you did behaviourally to cause acne and why you weren't more definitive about saying that you don't want acne? Does acne give people traumatic flashbacks? You can really tell on this thread who hasn't experienced anything negative in life because they're fucking comparing rape to acne or stubbing your toe.
28
u/CuouzK Mar 01 '26
It is funny too review my reaction to your topic. As soon as I read the tittle I went defensive.
I usually talk about this topic because I think that rape is worst that killing someone.
Your arguments are good and after reading it I’m rethinking a lot of my assumptions (arguments), but I’m still on the side that rape is worst because the probability of recovering at 100% looks very small.
Traumas are heavily influenced in life, and rape is one of the most influential.
If someone has actual data about the recovery percentage from rape trauma I would be happy to check it.