Turn rape into love?

[gunhilltrain]

I think it's a little more like Stalingrad. Gettysburg had a clear (if not entirely satisfactory) ending. This one has no end in sight.

Stalingrad went on for over five months. I don't think it would have been possible logistically to have such a long battle in the 19th Century. But it did have a very clear ending: the Germans lost, decisively. Anyway, now we've added World War II to our digressions. And where is JohnSm123 who started all this?

And oh yeah, I wasn't sure we'd break the 200 posts mark, but we did.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I know where you stand. You stand in the blue corner, I stand in the red corner. You celebrate the pen's power to write corrupting and destructive pabulum more destructive than the most maliciously wielded sword, and I will call you out for what you are. It's heartening that you'll fight for my right to call you out.

You now have two brownie points. One for moving from 'no evidence' to ''some evidence, but', the second for celebrating my right to call you out.

I'm guessing that you want to sensor King, Kuntz, Judy Blume, James Patterson, and any other writer who writes about rapists raping someone or minors having sex in detail.

 

[SimonDoom]

That is something I can absolutely agree with. In one of my many posts in this thread, I said that scientific evidence should make us think about where our boundaries lie, at least. Even before Xerxes posted that link, I had listened to some debates and saw some evidence being presented that, as they claim, points to a certain correlation between sexual fantasies and sex crimes.

I agree with this, too. But three points. One is that, as a civil libertarian, I think the party advocating regulation or censorship of artistic expression always bears the burden of proof. I think most people agree with me about that, but there's probably wide disagreement on how heavy the burden of proof should be. Two, to meet the burden of proof, one should frame the important empirical questions in the right way. Three, empirical statements should be supported by evidence of some kind. Statements like "this is obviously icky" or "I'm obviously right" are not valid grounds for limiting expression. They're not evidence, and they're not even arguments. In a free society we don't limit the minority's rights simply on the ground that "we, the majority, don't like what the minority has to say."

For instance, consider your statement that "some evidence . . . points to a certain correlation between sexual fantasies and sex crimes."

That's an empirical statement. There is evidence to support it. I agree. But is it an important or consequential empirical statement for the purposes of our debate? What does "correlation" mean? OK, yes, there's evidence that sex offenders may be more predisposed to read violent erotica. That, by itself is NOT evidence of the reverse: that people who read violent erotica are more likely to be sex offenders, or that they are more likely to harbor criminal desires, or that they are more likely to commit sex crimes after reading thee erotica. It's not even probative of any of that. It's perfectly possible that people who read erotica are no more likely to be sex offenders than the population as a whole AND that sex offenders like to read the stuff more than the population as a whole. So be careful what you hang your hat on in an empirical debate. Again, the burden of proof rests with the person making the assertion, and you can't get away with slippery "well this is just how I feel about this 'evidence'" thinking when the consequence is something very serious: regulating what people can read and write.

 

[XerXesXu]

I'm guessing that you want to sensor King, Kuntz, Judy Blume, James Patterson, and any other writer who writes about rapists raping someone or minors having sex in detail.

Point me to the passages to which you masturbate in those authors' works and I'll be happy to answer you.

 

[XerXesXu]

I agree with this, too. But three points. One is that, as a civil libertarian, I think the party advocating regulation or censorship of artistic expression always bears the burden of proof. I think most people agree with me about that, but there's probably wide disagreement on how heavy the burden of proof should be. Two, to meet the burden of proof, one should frame the important empirical questions in the right way. Three, empirical statements should be supported by evidence of some kind. Statements like "this is obviously icky" or "I'm obviously right" are not valid grounds for limiting expression. They're not evidence, and they're not even arguments. In a free society we don't limit the minority's rights simply on the ground that "we, the majority, don't like what the minority has to say."

For instance, consider your statement that "some evidence . . . points to a certain correlation between sexual fantasies and sex crimes."

That's an empirical statement. There is evidence to support it. I agree. But is it an important or consequential empirical statement for the purposes of our debate? What does "correlation" mean? OK, yes, there's evidence that sex offenders may be more predisposed to read violent erotica. That, by itself is NOT evidence of the reverse: that people who read violent erotica are more likely to be sex offenders, or that they are more likely to harbor criminal desires, or that they are more likely to commit sex crimes after reading thee erotica. It's not even probative of any of that. It's perfectly possible that people who read erotica are no more likely to be sex offenders than the population as a whole AND that sex offenders like to read the stuff more than the population as a whole. So be careful what you hang your hat on in an empirical debate. Again, the burden of proof rests with the person making the assertion, and you can't get away with slippery "well this is just how I feel about this 'evidence'" thinking when the consequence is something very serious: regulating what people can read and write.

This will come as news to you only:
In the USA the burden of proof does fall on the prosecution, the prosecution does have to provide evidence, and the standard of proof in criminal prosecutions is 'beyond all reasonable doubt.' The jury is your friend, you can explain whatever you like to them.

 

[gunhilltrain]

I don't know how to explain this, but the OP's thread title "Turn Rape Into Love?" makes me think of these:

 

[gunhilltrain]

Point me to the passages to which you masturbate in those authors' works and I'll be happy to answer you.

Hm, are you projecting perhaps?

 

[XerXesXu]

Hm, are you projecting perhaps?

No, I'm asking a 'real world' question. I'm not familiar with the works of any of those authors, so, if I'm pointed to the passages in question I'll review them and give an opinion. If you're in a position to help, please do. To what passages in those books does, let's say, your 'friend' masturbate?

I'm currently into a rape book suggested by an AH member, The Flame and the Flower - a bodice ripper. I generally only read Law Reports, but I've taken it out to read a female rape fantasy and better inform myself in this important debate. I'm on page 117 of 609. The poor girl is to be married to the tall, handsome, virile, wealthy bastard, to whom she warmed at the first touch of her lips, and whom, at one point she reflected, could be the man of her dreams. He has told her that it is she who has made him her prisoner, but she's not the sort of girl to fall for that sort of bullshit. She is dressed in a wedding dress gifted to her by Lady Hampton and is about to be led to THE CATHEDERAL to be married. Will it be by the Bishop? I can't wait to find out. She feels she has little choice because, in improbable circumstances, whilst believing her to be a prostitute servicing him, he has impregnated her with one virile shot.

There's a lot of ducking and diving for her to do to string this out for another 450 pages, but unknown to her, but known to the reader from an info-dump in Ch 1, he has to be saved from a fate worse than death. In his home town of Charleston, he is engaged to the richest and most beautiful woman in town. She's a tremendous fuck, even his mates agree, but he doesn't love her. He feels honour bound to marry her because his father would want him to marry her to retrieve a small parcel of land he sold to her parents. And, of course, he's an honourable man.

Suffice it to say, even at this early point in the story, I've noticed significant differences between this rape fantasy and those of my male rapist clients, seeking to be discharged by Parole Boards and Mental Health Tribunals, which seemed to trouble the psychiatrists, social workers and, of course, the tribunals themselves.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I agree with this, too. But three points. One is that, as a civil libertarian, I think the party advocating regulation or censorship of artistic expression always bears the burden of proof. I think most people agree with me about that, but there's probably wide disagreement on how heavy the burden of proof should be. Two, to meet the burden of proof, one should frame the important empirical questions in the right way. Three, empirical statements should be supported by evidence of some kind. Statements like "this is obviously icky" or "I'm obviously right" are not valid grounds for limiting expression. They're not evidence, and they're not even arguments. In a free society we don't limit the minority's rights simply on the ground that "we, the majority, don't like what the minority has to say."

For instance, consider your statement that "some evidence . . . points to a certain correlation between sexual fantasies and sex crimes."

That's an empirical statement. There is evidence to support it. I agree. But is it an important or consequential empirical statement for the purposes of our debate? What does "correlation" mean? OK, yes, there's evidence that sex offenders may be more predisposed to read violent erotica. That, by itself is NOT evidence of the reverse: that people who read violent erotica are more likely to be sex offenders, or that they are more likely to harbor criminal desires, or that they are more likely to commit sex crimes after reading thee erotica. It's not even probative of any of that. It's perfectly possible that people who read erotica are no more likely to be sex offenders than the population as a whole AND that sex offenders like to read the stuff more than the population as a whole. So be careful what you hang your hat on in an empirical debate. Again, the burden of proof rests with the person making the assertion, and you can't get away with slippery "well this is just how I feel about this 'evidence'" thinking when the consequence is something very serious: regulating what people can read and write.

I agree on all accounts. There should be no restrictions on freedom of speech unless there is conclusive proof, and that burden falls on those who want to restrict that freedom. Personally, I am mostly concerned about the part where potential offenders can get "disinhibited" by reading non-con fiction. That means that reading those stories can make them think that the behavior in the stories isn't so abnormal and bad. In the paper, it is said that there is proof of that. I am out of my depth there in the sense that I would need to get properly acquainted with the methodology and scientific approach used in order to judge for myself, so yeah, I kinda need to take that statement at face value. That doesn't mean that I am taking it for granted. I am just saying it should make us think about where our lines are drawn. Rape is a despicable crime that damages its victims in so many ways and that should make us extra careful, and although I do believe in everything I've said about the burden of proof, in this particular case, I wouldn't mind erring on the side of caution. I realize that is my personal bias but it is the one I am holding on to gladly.

 

[gunhilltrain]

No, I'm asking a 'real world' question. I'm not familiar with the works of any of those authors, so, if I'm pointed to the passages in question I'll review them and give an opinion. If you're in a position to help, please do. To what passages in those books does, let's say, your 'friend' masturbate?

I'm currently into a rape book suggested by an AH member, The Flame and the Flower - a bodice ripper. I generally only read Law Reports, but I've taken it out to read a female rape fantasy and better inform myself in this important debate. I'm on page 117 of 609. The poor girl is to be married to the tall, handsome, virile, wealthy bastard, to whom she warmed at the first touch of her lips, and whom, at one point she reflected, could be the man of her dreams. He has told her that it is she who has made him her prisoner, but she's not the sort of girl to fall for that sort of bullshit. She is dressed in a wedding dress gifted to her by Lady Hampton and is about to be led to THE CATHEDERAL to be married. Will it be by the Bishop? I can't wait to find out. She feels she has little choice because, in improbable circumstances, whilst believing her to be a prostitute servicing him, he has impregnated her with one virile shot.

There's a lot of ducking and diving for her to do to string this out for another 450 pages, but unknown to her, but known to the reader from an info-dump in Ch 1, he has to be saved from a fate worse than death. In his home town of Charleston, he is engaged to the richest and most beautiful woman in town. She's a tremendous fuck, even his mates agree, but he doesn't love her. He feels honour bound to marry her because his father would want him to marry her to retrieve a small parcel of land he sold to her parents. And, of course, he's an honourable man.

Suffice it to say, even at this early point in the story, I've noticed significant differences between this rape fantasy and those of my male rapist clients, seeking to be discharged by Parole Boards and Mental Health Tribunals, which seemed to trouble the psychiatrists, social workers and, of course, the tribunals themselves.

I'm not sure I know anymore what we're talking about. I almost eliminated my post above because it seemed a bit silly, but djrip liked it, so I'm leaving it.

1. JohnSm123 seemed to be asking if Lit would accept his story idea, which it might not. He could have been a bit clearer about exactly what he meant, but he wasn't.

2. We've established that there are outlets in various countries to depict virtually any kind of activity, whether sexual or not. When I say "depict," I don't mean filming or photographing illegal acts (say pedophilia) as they occur with real people. That will get one into trouble with the law. Certain computer-generated images are getting more realistic, so maybe the day will come when we can't tell the difference between real photos and created ones.

3. I can't prove this, but probably most people who have such fantasies (or even write about them) are not going to commit such acts. There are likely exceptions, but probably (?) that doesn't justify censorship. A specific outlet, like Lit, can do as it pleases, however.

Is there anything left to say about this? I shouldn't present such a challenge, because somebody will say something!

 

[XerXesXu]

Lest anyone be left with the mistaken impression that the contribution of obscene material on vulnerable persons who’ve committed sexual offences hasn’t been the subject of research, I post these two articles. They give a flavour of the types of study that are possible. The classic, experimental double-blind trial, is clearly impossible, the research must be observational. The data can’t be hard data, that which can be measured or weighed, because no one can access another person’s cognitions. It must be qualitative, that is, reports by persons of their experience of their own cognitions.

The first, analyses reports of reports to experienced professionals who work with sex offenders. It’s readily accessible in the sense of being rendered in plain English.

The relationship between pornography use and harmful sexual behaviours - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

The second, reviews studies of the sexual fantasies of sex offenders. It contains considerable amounts of psychobabble, but it evidences the processes by which a person becomes vulnerable, becomes reliant on sex fantasies to self-medicate, becomes addicted, and how exposure to the fantasies of others in their extended cognitive domain, can contribute to their distorted cognition.

Running Head: SEXUAL FANTASIES OF SEX OFFENDERS (lincoln.ac.uk) 2013

Vulnerability is a consequence of socialisation and the context in which socialisation takes place, it can also be the consequence of ‘events’, and events can occur at any time in a person’s life. No one is born vulnerable; vulnerable persons, both child and adult, are made.

Now, back to my bodice-ripper-female-rape-fantasy, where, for hundreds and hundreds of pages there's no sex between wife and husband, but the pages are filled with detailed descriptions of beautiful, expensive clothing.

 

[djrip]

typo?
contribution of obscene material on vulnerable persons who’ve committed sexual offences?! I'm confused by this - do you mean people who were led astray by pornography are considered 'vulnerable'? An odd perspective and use of language.

I'd recommend people read the 1st link. No surprises to me, but it knocks the wind of the sails who claim there's no link between porn and sexual aggression towards women.

Vulnerable to suggestion/influence of the material, I believe.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Point me to the passages to which you masturbate in those authors' works and I'll be happy to answer you.

I don't masturbate to any works of fiction, mainstream, or erotica. So if you masturbate to rape or pedophilic content, it would appear to be your problem. Writers aren't responsible for what you do with what they write any more than a car manufacturer is responsible for someone plowing into a crowd of people, or a grocery store is responsible for you keeping meat for six weeks past its expiration date, then cooking and eating it. You're holding an artist responsible for your response to his work where you don't for others.

Therefore, the flaw is in you, not the writer.

By your reasoning, nine eleven is a direct result of Die Hard.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'd recommend people read the 1st link. No surprises to me, but it knocks the wind of the sails who claim there's no link between porn and sexual aggression towards women.

Not so fast. Let's look closely at the study.

1. The study consists of interviews with 20 "Frontline workers," who are people from a variety of professions who deal with sexual offenders.

2. So this study has nothing to do at all with the impact of pornography on the population as a whole. It's limited to sexual offenders. In fact, this article admits, "the clients discussed are not typical of the general population." This is a group of people who are ALREADY predisposed to commit sexual offenses, for all sorts of reasons, including many that have nothing to do with pornography.

3. Pornography is not online written erotica. There's no obvious reason why we should think that the impact of pornography would be the same as written erotica. Literotica does not offer pornography. This study is irrelevant for purposes of determining what kinds of written stories should be allowed.

4. For statistical purposes, 20 is a very small sample size.

5. The results relating to the relevant population of sexual offenders is being intermediated by the views of the Frontline workers, who may have their own biases. We have no way of knowing from this article.

6. One has to ask, regarding second hand reports that clients report that pornography was a contributing factor in influencing their sexual offenses, how reliable is that? Is it possible the sexual offenders are trying to deflect responsibility for their conduct by blaming pornography?

7. Even if we accept that this research convincingly demonstrates that some sexual offenders were influenced by exposure to pornography to commit sexual offenses, it fails to delve into the broader picture: what if it's possible that among other groups of people exposure to pornography had other influences, such that there's no NET increase in harmful activity as a result of exposure to pornography? What if for some people it has a cathartic effect? There's significant reason to doubt whether increased exposure to pornography has resulted in a net increase in harmful behavior in part by the fact that, in the USA at least, the rapid increase in the availability of pornography created by the Internet in the mid-1990s coincides with a remarkable drop in the violent crime rate in the USA. The crime rate in the USA today is significantly lower than it was in 1993, when it peaked.


So my conclusion is no, you can't say based on this article that it's knocked the wind out of the sails of those who question the harmful effects of pornography. It doesn't do anything of the sort. And more to the point for our discussion, it has no bearing on written erotica.

 

[MillieDynamite]

There are a great many things that are bad for specific people, but we don't outlaw these things because some are allergic or at a higher risk than others. There is such a thing as personal responsibility.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I don't masturbate to any works of fiction, mainstream, or erotica. So if you masturbate to rape or pedophilic content, it would appear to be your problem. Writers aren't responsible for what you do with what they write any more than a car manufacturer is responsible for some plowing into a crowd of people, or a grocery store is responsible for you keeping meat for six weeks past its expiration date, then cooking and eating it. You're holding an artist responsible for your response for his work where you don't for others.

Therefore, the flaw is in you, not the writer.

By your reasoning, nine eleven is a direct result of Die Hard.

I think the point of his post was that many people do masturbate to the stories we post on Lit, which includes rape stories. Lit stories have strong sexual content, while writers whose names you mentioned are mainstream writers who maybe do write about rape, but that rape isn't put in a sexual context the way it is on Lit. There are plenty of nuances in this discussion, and even though Xerxes comes across as argumentative, there are some good points he is making and they should be considered, as triggering as his posts can be

 

[MillieDynamite]

I think the point of his post was that many people do masturbate to the stories we post on Lit, which includes rape stories. Lit stories have strong sexual content, while writers whose names you mentioned are mainstream writers who maybe do write about rape, but that rape isn't put in a sexual context the way it is on Lit. There are plenty of nuances in this discussion, and even though Xerxes comes across as argumentative, there are some good points he is making and they should be considered, as triggering as his posts can be

I don't think those who rape need a reason to do so. Nor do the erotic stories they read cause the flaw or instigate the action. They use porn when they can't do the rape, not the other way around. It's a release for them and it is possible, it keeps them from acting as often.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I don't think those who rape need a reason to do so. Nor do the erotic stories they read cause the flaw or instigate the action. They use porn when they can't do the rape, not the other way around. It's a release for them and it is possible, it keeps them from acting as often.

Yeah, see you made a strong claim there, which is your right of course, but you didn't provide any proof for your claim. These papers that were linked in this thread actually claim that there is scientific evidence that supports the opposite claim, which is that rape stories do increase the chance that some potential rapist might commit such a horrible act. I understand that we all have our convictions and preferences that influence our stances towards certain things, but we should rely on scientific evidence to make actual conclusions, otherwise, this is all just a pointless back-and-forth argument. These papers present some scientific evidence. Is this evidence enough to make a definitive conclusion? Probably not, but it is something to think about. Maybe there will be more evidence in future research that claims the opposite, but for now, we shouldn't just dismiss the evidence we do have because it contradicts our convictions.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think the point of his post was that many people do masturbate to the stories we post on Lit, which includes rape stories. Lit stories have strong sexual content, while writers whose names you mentioned are mainstream writers who maybe do write about rape, but that rape isn't put in a sexual context the way it is on Lit. There are plenty of nuances in this discussion, and even though Xerxes comes across as argumentative, there are some good points he is making and they should be considered, as triggering as his posts can be

What is the significance of masturbation, in this context? Who cares whether people masturbate to particular content?

Some people insist that rape has nothing to do with sex--that it's a crime of violence, pure and simple. So if that's true, then what does it matter what people masturbate to? Violent content may have a bad influence, but does it really matter whether people are masturbating to it? Isn't there an inconsistency here?

This gets back to my previous point: Why doe we treat things that have to do with sex so differently from everything else? With the click of a button you can get access to horrific, terrible violence on TV, and there are no widespread calls for censorship, but my God, if somebody somewhere is masturbating to something nasty, we have to ban it.

Does that make sense?

 

[KeithD]

I'm of the "take personal responsibility for your own reading and don't poke your nose into what others chose to write and read" school, and I leave it up to the website owners as to what they will accept to their story collection here.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Some people insist that rape has nothing to do with sex--that it's a crime of violence, pure and simple. So if that's true, then what does it matter what people masturbate to? Violent content may have a bad influence, but does it really matter whether people are masturbating to it? Isn't there an inconsistency here?

"Some people insist"
It is not a real argument, and you know it. Personally, it doesn't make any sense to me that rape isn't about the sexual gratification of the assailant. Maybe in some cases, but in all of them? Either way, I will not pretend that what I just wrote is a solid argument, it is just something that makes sense to me. Scientific evidence is all that matters here, and that is all that should hold any worth in this huge conundrum of personal biases we presented in this thread.
Edit: When it comes to all other non-sexual yet violent content, all the stories and movies that contain war, murder, rape, and all the other lovely things that mankind does on a regular basis, in the spirit of my post, I will say I have no idea. Research needs to be done. Is there any reason only for the sexual content to have a bad influence while the non-sexual doesn't? Your question makes a lot of sense and all I can say is that I have no idea. Research, science and hard proof is what this discussion needs.

 

[SimonDoom]

"Some people insist"
It is not a real argument, and you know it. Personally, it doesn't make any sense to me that rape isn't about the sexual gratification of the assailant. Maybe in some cases, but in all of them? Either way, I will not pretend that what I just wrote is a solid argument, it is just something that makes sense to me. Scientific evidence is all that matters here, and that is all that should hold any worth in this huge conundrum of personal biases we presented in this thread.

We agree about that. But many don't. When it comes to sex, ideological commitment often gets in the way of looking at evidence.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Yeah, see you made a strong claim there, which is your right of course, but you didn't provide any proof for your claim. These papers that were linked in this thread actually claim that there is scientific evidence that supports the opposite claim, which is that rape stories do increase the chance that some potential rapist might commit such a horrible act. I understand that we all have our convictions and preferences that influence our stances towards certain things, but we should rely on scientific evidence to make actual conclusions, otherwise, this is all just a pointless back-and-forth argument. These papers present some scientific evidence. Is this evidence enough to make a definitive conclusion? Probably not, but it is something to think about. Maybe there will be more evidence in future research that claims the opposite, but for now, we shouldn't just dismiss the evidence we do have because it contradicts our convictions.

I said, "I don't think." There is no way to prove causality between the two. There is a way to show a link to their entertainment proclivities relating to their actions, but it is a chicken-and-egg scenario. I gave no supporting documentation because none exists. Nothing exists to prove which causes the other, either. They only can say they rape, and they like stuff about rape.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Ooooooooh, all so serious. I'll go back to TP's stats, and the ones I looked at, which all point to a majority of women having "forced sex" fantasies. Research into the subject has found between 31 and 62% of women have rape fantasies. To break it down from one survey (but the results are typical of such surveys), 52% of the women had fantasies about forced sex by a man; 32% had fantasies about being raped by a man; 28% had fantasies about forced oral sex by a man; 16% about forced anal sex; Of the women who reported having the most common rape fantasy, ''being overpowered or forced by a man to surrender sexually against my will,'' 40% had it at least once a month and 20% had it at least once a week. The authors conclude these results indicate rape fantasies play a significant role in the sexual fantasy lives of many women.

It's important to note that while headline writers may focus on the fact women have sexual fantasies about coercive sex, this research finds it's an occasional daydream, not a preoccupation. It would be similarly unfair to tar men with the brush of an occasional fantasy they may have. When these female fantasies are erotic in character, the male protagonist is always described as highly attractive or otherwise desirable.

A notable finding is that women who reported being less repressed about sex were more likely to have rape fantasies, but were also more open to fantasy in general, more likely to have consensual fantasies, and more likely to report a higher level of arousal to rape fantasies. Fantasizing about being a stripper also predicted a tendency to fantasize about rape. Another intriguing result is women who report rape fantasies were more likely to have high self-esteem. These results suggest that having fantasies about things we would never endorse or choose to do in reality, are not necessarily signs of psychological disturbance. In fact, according to this research, women who have rape fantasies also tend to have more positive attitudes toward sex, high self-esteem, and more frequent consensual sexual fantasies.

Interesting, no? But the common theme is it's a fantasy, where women fantasize about attractive or desirable men. Other common women's fantasies include BDSM (a big one, witness the appeal of 50 shades, sex with multiple men, sex in exchange for money. Now, lets spell out FANTASY as opposed to reality. A lot of women fantasize about forced sex - they don't fantasize about the reality of rape, which is a very different thing in almost all cases, and it's important to distinguish that. Just as with Incest fantasies, which are very big on LIT - and again, the reality of incest is far far different from some of the idealized stories on Literotica.

You can write stories about rape and forced sex and make them as erotic as you like, but that doesn't equate to the reality of rape in any way, shape or form. And, speaking purely for myself, I enjoy those forced sex womens romances, unrealistic as they are

 

[MediocreAuthor]

How many personal freedoms should I be forced to relinquish, because psychopaths might be inspired to do evil because of my choices?

"It's her fault the rape occurred. Just look what she was w̶e̶a̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ writing!"