Is Rape worse than murder?

[thebeave]

Agreed. The term rape is grossly abused. Even by our president, who blasted a Congressman's nonsense views on rape by saying "Rape is rape.". As if there are no grey areas, distinctions, levels of harm, etc.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I have heard many opinions on how horrible rape is, from both men and women, and those it has happened to and hasn't happened to, varying from annoyance to atrocity. I wonder why the disparity. I have even heard some people tell me that rape is worse than murder.

A few reasons why Rape is bad:

1. It is a violation of your personal space. But then so is me forcing my thumb in your mouth.

2. It exposes you risk of disease. But so does me forcing my thumb in your mouth.

3. It may expose you to risk of pregnancy. So, does purposefully using a faulty condom in consensual sex equate to rape?

4. Sex has social implications and social taboos we have created. I think this is the big one.

I think point 4 varies from person to person and I think that is a big reason why opinions of rape do. But wouldn't that make conservatives see rape as worse than liberals see it? That doesn't seem to be the case.

For some it is, as evidenced by those that have committed suicide because of being raped. I don't think it's necessarily prudent to compare the pain of one person to another.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

For some it is, as evidenced by those that have committed suicide because of being raped. I don't think it's necessarily prudent to compare the pain of one person to another.

Also, if you put a gun to a guy's head and told him to rape a woman or you'd kill him, many men would commit the rape.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I would say murder is worse than rape on the basis that no chance of survival or recovery. But, I don't think it's necessarily useful to say which is worse than the other.

 

[Unbeatable]

How can these degrees be measured? How can it even be determined that a given aspect is negative?

Why do they need to be measured?

So you're saying they can't be measured? How about estimated? How do you estimate them? I know, for you, the answer probably just seems to magically pop into your head via intuition, but do you not have any idea what data your intuition is using to arrive at the answer, what loose heuristics it's employing?

Is it difficult to figure out if you like something, or don't like it?

Sometimes, but "like" versus "don't like" isn't the question at hand, is it?

Is it difficult to determine if one experience was better or worse than another?

Yes, depending on the experiences. I know I have a lot of trouble on any type of psychometric test whose answers run a 5-point spectrum between "disagree strongly" and "agree strongly". It is easy to distinguish "disagree strongly" from "agree strongly", but difficult to distinguish "disagree strongly" from "disagree". It is easy to distinguish an orgasm from a toothache, but difficult to distinguish one orgasm from another, or one toothache from another, especially considering their temporal separation means they won't both be recalled at the same level of detail.

Is it difficult to empathize with someone and deduce whether or not they would like it.

Yes, depending on the person and the experience. But we're not trying to deduce whether or not someone would like something. We're trying to deduce whether, between two things which both fall into the category of "don't like", one would be disliked more than the other.

I've never had trouble with this sort of thing.

I suppose you're like most people-- instead of questioning yourself, you pay more attention to the hits than the misses, creating for yourself the illusion of certainty.

 

[Bronzeage]

Why do they need to be measured?

So you're saying they can't be measured? How about estimated? How do you estimate them? I know, for you, the answer probably just seems to magically pop into your head via intuition, but do you not have any idea what data your intuition is using to arrive at the answer, what loose heuristics it's employing?

Is it difficult to figure out if you like something, or don't like it?

Sometimes, but "like" versus "don't like" isn't the question at hand, is it?

Is it difficult to determine if one experience was better or worse than another?

Yes, depending on the experiences. I know I have a lot of trouble on any type of psychometric test whose answers run a 5-point spectrum between "disagree strongly" and "agree strongly". It is easy to distinguish "disagree strongly" from "agree strongly", but difficult to distinguish "disagree strongly" from "disagree". It is easy to distinguish an orgasm from a toothache, but difficult to distinguish one orgasm from another, or one toothache from another, especially considering their temporal separation means they won't both be recalled at the same level of detail.

Is it difficult to empathize with someone and deduce whether or not they would like it.

Yes, depending on the person and the experience. But we're not trying to deduce whether or not someone would like something. We're trying to deduce whether, between two things which both fall into the category of "don't like", one would be disliked more than the other.

I've never had trouble with this sort of thing.

I suppose you're like most people-- instead of questioning yourself, you pay more attention to the hits than the misses, creating for yourself the illusion of certainty.

I asked "Why do they need to be measured?", which is not a denial of their measurability. I don't believe you answered the question.


You make many suppositions, including the one about me being like most people. I've had toothaches and I have had orgasms. I am thankful the latter greatly outnumber the former. However, I can rank the toothaches in severity of pain, because there are so few of them, each is in easy memory. The ranking of orgasms is a little trickier, but it is still easy to judge against the general experience and if nothing else, be aware when a new one has broken into the top ten. The problem you have with making fine distinctions within 20% are not really pertinent to the discussion.

In any case, I'm sure anyone who contemplates suicide after a rape experience has to decide between "I've had worse than this and I will be better," or, "It's never been worse than this and I will not endure it."

 

[Unbeatable]

I asked "Why do they need to be measured?", which is not a denial of their measurability. I don't believe you answered the question.

There is no answer for me to give, since it's not my position that measurement is necessary. When you spoke of comparing degrees (AKA quantities) of negativity, I inferred that you were engaging in measurement. When you evaded my question in a way which suggested that you don't label what you're doing as "measurement", it became fruitless to continue speaking of measurement.

pain

This appears to answer my question.

 

[Unbeatable]

4. Sex has social implications and social taboos we have created. I think this is the big one.

I think point 4 varies from person to person and I think that is a big reason why opinions of rape do. But wouldn't that make conservatives see rape as worse than liberals see it?

Though I imagine Derec can probably quote us statistics to the contrary, rape is at least perceived mainly as something men do to women. Are there any acts which are both 1)perceived to involve men victimizing women and 2)opposed more by conservatives than by liberals? I can't think of any, but it's late.

 

[Bronzeage]

There is no answer for me to give, since it's not my position that measurement is necessary. When you spoke of comparing degrees (AKA quantities) of negativity, I inferred that you were engaging in measurement. When you evaded my question in a way which suggested that you don't label what you're doing as "measurement", it became fruitless to continue speaking of measurement.

pain

This appears to answer my question.

I am glad you got something out it.

 

[Rhea]

4. Sex has social implications and social taboos we have created. I think this is the big one.

I think point 4 varies from person to person and I think that is a big reason why opinions of rape do. But wouldn't that make conservatives see rape as worse than liberals see it? That doesn't seem to be the case.

I agree that is the big one and the reason why there are varying degrees of reaction.

As for murder, I've pondered this sometimes, and I think for me, murder is not terribly bad for the victim, only for the surviving relatives/friends. The reason I say this is because when I try to think about how it would be "bad" (or "worse") for me, I am instantly plunged into the reality that once I am murdered, there will be no consciousness. No regret, no pain, no things undone; I'm completely and utterly gone. So the murder wasn't bad for me in the sense that I can't lament it at all. I am gone and as far as I'm concerned there is no longer anything to it or about it good or bad. Given this, rape is worse. And so is diabetes. It's only while I'm alive that I can care about being alive.

So that leaves whether it is worse for my survivors. In some societies, because of those taboos and implications, rape _is_ worse than death. In those societies/cultures/churches/families the rape victim has been damaged somehow and those are the ones who will contemplate suicide, or more horribly, murder of the victim, because they don't feel it is possible to recover from the attack (or event if it was not a violent rape).

But for anyone who does feel that a rape victim is still worthwhile (and completely undamaged) then murder is absolutely worse to those non-victims including society as a whole because it prevents that worthwhile person from being here to be worthwhile.

 

[doubtingt]

4. Sex has social implications and social taboos we have created. I think this is the big one.

I think point 4 varies from person to person and I think that is a big reason why opinions of rape do. But wouldn't that make conservatives see rape as worse than liberals see it? That doesn't seem to be the case.

I agree that is the big one and the reason why there are varying degrees of reaction.

As for murder, I've pondered this sometimes, and I think for me, murder is not terribly bad for the victim, only for the surviving relatives/friends. The reason I say this is because when I try to think about how it would be "bad" (or "worse") for me, I am instantly plunged into the reality that once I am murdered, there will be no consciousness. No regret, no pain, no things undone; I'm completely and utterly gone. So the murder wasn't bad for me in the sense that I can't lament it at all. I am gone and as far as I'm concerned there is no longer anything to it or about it good or bad. Given this, rape is worse. And so is diabetes. It's only while I'm alive that I can care about being alive.

Yeah, but by that argument getting a paper cut, missing a bus, or having your local sports team lose a gamer are also all worse than death.
The problem with the argument is that is only considers the negative experiences versus no experiences, and ignores the positive experiences.

So that leaves whether it is worse for my survivors. In some societies, because of those taboos and implications, rape _is_ worse than death. In those societies/cultures/churches/families the rape victim has been damaged somehow and those are the ones who will contemplate suicide, or more horribly, murder of the victim, because they don't feel it is possible to recover from the attack (or event if it was not a violent rape).

But for anyone who does feel that a rape victim is still worthwhile (and completely undamaged) then murder is absolutely worse to those non-victims including society as a whole because it prevents that worthwhile person from being here to be worthwhile.

It is true that societal responses to these events can do as much or more harm than the event itself. It also applies to some cases child abuse. It isn't just religious notions that the victim is now "impure" or has done something shameful, but just the idea that they are victims can do them harm. This is the double edged sword of political victim advocacy. Its core goal is laudable of wanting to prevent the crimes, punish the perps, and treat the victims. But too often the methods entail competing for social and political attention to their cause by trying to label people as victims who otherwise do not think or feel themselves as such, using the same labels to refer to qualitatively and psychology distinct events, and promoting a sense that once you have been victimized, being a victim is now a defining feature of who you are.

 

[Bomb#20]

Are there any acts which are both 1)perceived to involve men victimizing women and 2)opposed more by conservatives than by liberals? I can't think of any, but it's late.

Off the top of my head, pornography, prostitution, and sex-selection abortion.

 

[doubtingt]

Are there any acts which are both 1)perceived to involve men victimizing women and 2)opposed more by conservatives than by liberals? I can't think of any, but it's late.

Off the top of my head, pornography, prostitution, and sex-selection abortion.

But those are not perceived by conservatives as men victimizing women, and they are not opposed by conservatives based on that reason.
Conservatives see women in porn and prostitution as immoral sluts. They would oppose those things, even if there was clear evidence that the women in those professions were not abused are far more empowered and better off psychologically than they would be without those professions as an option.

They do not oppose same-sex abortion in particular. They oppose abortion, period. IF they were to single out sex-selection abortion it would not be to protect women, but only because they view it as against the will of God's authority (interfering with the gender ratio he created). This relates nicely to the thread I just started on conservative morality, which is more about obedience and "sanctity".

 

[Bomb#20]

Off the top of my head, pornography, prostitution, and sex-selection abortion.

But those are not perceived by conservatives as men victimizing women, and they are not opposed by conservatives based on that reason.
Conservatives see women in porn and prostitution as immoral sluts.

That's a stereotype. Lots of conservatives are perfectly aware of human trafficking, drug addiction, children running away from toxic parents and turning to those trades out of desperation, and so forth. But if you mean they are not more opposed by conservatives than by liberals based on that reason, yes, of course that's true -- conservatives have reasons of their own to oppose these things in addition to the reasons liberals have. Examples of conservatives specifically opposing men victimizing women more than liberals do aren't what Unbeatable asked for. That would have been a silly thing to ask for. Nobody opposes men victimizing women more than liberals do, except man-hating female chauvinist pigs.

 

[doubtingt]

But those are not perceived by conservatives as men victimizing women, and they are not opposed by conservatives based on that reason.
Conservatives see women in porn and prostitution as immoral sluts.

That's a stereotype.

i.e., a an accurate generalization that like all factual generalizations (such as gas costs more on weekends) is not always true, but accurately captures the general trends which in this case is all we are talking about since its a group level comparison.

Lots of conservatives are perfectly aware of human trafficking, drug addiction, children running away from toxic parents and turning to those trades out of desperation, and so forth.

First, human trafficking is not the same and prostitution, and conservative have much less of an opposition to human trafficking in general, so long as it isn't for sex, which they oppose more because its dirty and sinful. Also, they tend to view drug addiction as a moral weakness and choice, so that wouldn't evoke sympathy for prostitutes. Liberals oppose such aspects of the sex trade as or more than conservatives. The only part of it that conservatives oppose more is when women are selling sex largely under their own power and choice and could do so in a safe way if legalized. Conservatives oppose legal prostitution because the value keeping the sinful act illegal more than the reduced victimization it could have for women. IOW, prostitution is yet another example of an area showing conservatives lack of regard for female victimization.

But if you mean they are not more opposed by conservatives than by liberals based on that reason, yes, of course that's true -- conservatives have reasons of their own to oppose these things in addition to the reasons liberals have.

Correct, for example their own reasons include opposing human liberty for the sake of obedience to norms, tradition, and authority. That is the core value of social conservatism.

Examples of conservatives specifically opposing men victimizing women more than liberals do aren't what Unbeatable asked for. That would have been a silly thing to ask for. Nobody opposes men victimizing women more than liberals do, except man-hating female chauvinist pigs.

I'm pretty sure that Unbeatable meant acts opposed more by conservatives because they are a victimization of women, not things conservatives oppose in order to oppress women and promote their misogynist sex-hating religion, but that happen by accident to relate to female victimization. Conservative opposition to legal prostitution is a cause of victimization within prostitution, but they don't care because reducing victimization is not their goal.

 

[Bomb#20]

That's a stereotype.

i.e., a an accurate generalization that like all factual generalizations (such as gas costs more on weekends) is not always true, but accurately captures the general trends which in this case is all we are talking about since its a group level comparison.

Oh, is that what stereotypes are? Curious, then, that so many of them look like slander people spread among their ingroups in order to share a feeling of superiority and reinforce hostility against their outgroups.

... conservative have much less of an opposition to human trafficking in general, so long as it isn't for sex,

Do you have evidence for that, or are you just vilifying your enemies?

I'm pretty sure that Unbeatable meant <snip>

I'm pretty sure we should let that question be settled by Unbeatable, if he cares to clarify what he meant. As for the rest, we should probably take it to the other thread.

 

[doubtingt]

i.e., a an accurate generalization that like all factual generalizations (such as gas costs more on weekends) is not always true, but accurately captures the general trends which in this case is all we are talking about since its a group level comparison.

Oh, is that what stereotypes are? Curious, then, that so many of them look like slander people spread among their ingroups in order to share a feeling of superiority and reinforce hostility against their outgroups.

Many stereotypes are in fact nothing but hostile untrue slander. But as in this case, some things labeled as "stereotype" are factually true statements that capture what is generally and typically true of the members of the category. Just because a general fact happens to involve a quality judged as negative from some perspectives, doesn't make it false or any more of a "stereotype". Blacks live in higher crime areas. This is a negative thing from some perspectives, but it doesn't alter that it is an objectively accurate generalization about group level differences. In the current context, it doesn't even matter if most social conservatives view prostitutes as immoral sluts. All that matters is that among the people who view prostitutes as immoral sluts, most of them are conservatives. Are you going to deny this fact? Because this fact is sufficient to explain why conservatives have stronger opposition to prostitution, and it is a more misogynistic motivation than a motive to prevent female victimization

... conservative have much less of an opposition to human trafficking in general, so long as it isn't for sex,

Do you have evidence for that, or are you just vilifying your enemies?

Conservative opposition to min wage and support for corporations using slave labor abroad. Conservative opposition to OSHA and other regulations that prevent companies from abusing, victimizing, and causing serious harm to employees who often share the desperation and lack of options that allow sex traffickers to victimize.

I'm pretty sure that Unbeatable meant <snip>

I'm pretty sure we should let that question be settled by Unbeatable, if he cares to clarify what he meant. As for the rest, we should probably take it to the other thread.

No, I think this part that you ignored is quite critical to your claims and mine.

Conservative opposition to legal prostitution is a cause of victimization within prostitution, but they don't care because reducing victimization is not their goal.

Do you deny this? Do you contend that conservatives usually argue against prostitution on the grounds that prostitutes employers and customers assault and abuse them? Do you claim that conservatives support minimal punishment for prostitutes themselves (since they are the victims)?
All relevant evidence suggest that conservative opposition to prostitution has no regard for the victimization of women (in fact they promote policies that increase such victimization), and instead is rooted in a general authoritarian desire to control private sex lives, especially those of women.

 

[Bomb#20]

Many stereotypes are in fact nothing but hostile untrue slander. But as in this case, some things labeled as "stereotype" are factually true statements that capture what is generally and typically true of the members of the category. ... In the current context, it doesn't even matter if most social conservatives view prostitutes as immoral sluts. All that matters is that among the people who view prostitutes as immoral sluts, most of them are conservatives. Are you going to deny this fact?

If that's all you think it takes to support the theory that "Conservatives see women in prostitution as immoral sluts." is a factually true statement that captures what is generally and typically true of the members of the category, you have an interesting standard of evidence.

Because this fact is sufficient to explain why conservatives have stronger opposition to prostitution,

No doubt; but I was answering the question as asked, not the question you're saying was intended.

and it is a more misogynistic motivation than a motive to prevent female victimization

It's not necessarily misogynistic -- conservatives who see prostitutes as immoral sluts typically also see the johns as immoral fornicators. Conservative women tend to be just as down on prostitution as conservative men, if not more so.

... conservative have much less of an opposition to human trafficking in general, so long as it isn't for sex,

Do you have evidence for that, or are you just vilifying your enemies?

Conservative opposition to min wage and support for corporations using slave labor abroad. Conservative opposition to OSHA and other regulations that prevent companies from abusing, victimizing, and causing serious harm to employees who often share the desperation and lack of options that allow sex traffickers to victimize.

Where by "slave labor" I take it you mean the practice of Guatemalan employers making conditions only good enough to attract Guatemalan workers instead of following U.S. labor law. You're just vilifying your enemies -- the things you list are not what the term "human trafficking" means. Or do you have evidence that conservatives generally support corporations using actual literal held-prisoner-by-force slave labor abroad? That would qualify as human trafficking.

Conservative opposition to legal prostitution is a cause of victimization within prostitution, but they don't care because reducing victimization is not their goal.

Do you deny this?

Reducing victimization isn't their number one goal. And it's not that they don't care, any more than leftists don't care about the people who find themselves unemployable because the minimum wage got raised too high for their skill set, with the consequence that hiring them won't increase any business's income as much as it will increase its expenses. They do care, but they also believe their preferred policy is correct. So they reconcile their feelings by deluding themselves into believing their preferred policy simply doesn't cause the harm unbelievers can see it causing.

Do you contend that conservatives usually argue against prostitution on the grounds that prostitutes employers and customers assault and abuse them?

Sometimes. I couldn't say about "usually".

Do you claim that conservatives support minimal punishment for prostitutes themselves (since they are the victims)?

Huh? This whole business of classifying groups of people as victims or oppressors and defining their rights and obligations and desserts on that basis is not really a conservative thing. Certainly, if a particular prostitute can convince them she was forced to do it against her will then they won't want her punished. They'll want the charges against her pimp upgraded to rape.

To bring this back onto the thread topic, conservatives, just like people who aren't cartoon villains, grade their judgmentalness about others based on how good a reason the person being judged has. "I had to run away from home; I had to eat; taking it from strangers was better than taking it from my father." will strike them as a better reason than "I wanted to buy a Prada purse." Lots of conservatives are okay with abortion in cases of rape. It's not necessarily that having to carry to term is punishment for going against their authoritarian desire to control women's private sex lives; and it's not necessarily that they think abortion is murder but rape is worse than murder. It's just that "I don't want to" and "I'm scared of being a parent" don't impress them as being very good reasons to want an abortion, compared to "I was raped." (Conversely, "I don't want to" and "I'm scared of being a parent" probably impress them as being far better reasons than "I wanted a boy and I'm carrying a girl.")

 

[Unbeatable]

I'm pretty sure that Unbeatable meant <snip>

I'm pretty sure we should let that question be settled by Unbeatable, if he cares to clarify what he meant. As for the rest, we should probably take it to the other thread.

Yours is a fair interpretation of the letter of my words, while doubtingt's interpretation accurately captures their spirit. What I was getting at is that conservatism, or at least social conservatism in the US, is so patriarchal, and rape is so gendered an issue, that the "men v. women" frame seems like a better predictor of conservative views on rape than Jolly_Penguin's 4th point. I don't even understand what line of reasoning led him from "Sex has social implications and social taboos we have created." to "conservatives would see rape as worse", rather than to, say, "conservatives would have a narrower definition of what counts as rape and less sympathy for the victim".

 

[Ojuice5001]

(Conversely, "I don't want to" and "I'm scared of being a parent" probably impress them as being far better reasons than "I wanted a boy and I'm carrying a girl.")

However, the motives behind a sex-selective abortion are supported by whole cultures, by most of the non-Western cultures of the world. And for them, our reasons for an abortion are the bad ones: at least for a married man or woman, they would see it as quite cowardly to wish to abort a baby just because you would rather not take care of it.

And the non-Westerners will likewise find it persuasive to worry about arguments like that "if abortion is legal, then men will just feel that much less qualms about impregnating a woman without taking responsibility for the baby." Hardly an unrealistic worry, after all. This argument appeals to both kinds of conservative, Western and non-Western; and it is showing a real concern for the victims of a deadbeat dad.

Within these non-Western cultures, a "conservative" is someone who most strongly identifies with the goal of a large family of boys, and a "liberal" is someone who wants a family that does a better job of meeting the needs of all individuals including the mother and daughters. Of course, these "conservatives" aren't the same as the mainstream American conservatives; but from here, the only question is, how far from mainstream Western culture do you have to get before you start finding a subculture sexist enough to feel that the sex-selective aborters have the right idea? Don't underestimate the potential of the mind to find this idea appealing.