Read on Twitter
****TW: rape, sexual assault****
I have a feeling that throughout the general election season, we will start to see people say things like, “My candidate has less sexual assault/rape allegations than your candidate.”
As a survivor, I’m asking you: please don’t do this.
I have a feeling that throughout the general election season, we will start to see people say things like, “My candidate has less sexual assault/rape allegations than your candidate.”
As a survivor, I’m asking you: please don’t do this.
I want to delve into detail about two problems with this argument here.
1. The idea that there are “better” and “worse” sexual abusers is inherently wrong.
2. This argument is very harmful to a lot of people.
Let’s get into the first one.
1. The idea that there are “better” and “worse” sexual abusers is inherently wrong.
2. This argument is very harmful to a lot of people.
Let’s get into the first one.
Sexual assault and rape are somewhat unique compared to other crimes, because unlike other crimes, different circumstances don’t change the nature of the crime.
For example, theres a difference between killing someone in self-defense, and killing an innocent person.
For example, theres a difference between killing someone in self-defense, and killing an innocent person.
With sexual assault/rape, that kind of differentiation doesn’t exist.
Once you commit an act of sexual assault or rape, you are on the same level as every other person who has committed sexual assault or rape, in regards to that specific crime.
Once you commit an act of sexual assault or rape, you are on the same level as every other person who has committed sexual assault or rape, in regards to that specific crime.
They are the same, because every single person who commits sexual assault and/or rape has the same evilness, which is the most evil one could be.
The only character difference between someone who has committed more sexual assault/rape than another offender, is that they’ve just acted on their evilness more times. One acts on their evil more than the other, but they are still the same level of evil nonetheless.
I want to be clear that I understand that from a legal standpoint, they do give different punishments depending on the case(s) from the offender (that is, if they actually find the offender guilty, which is another issue).
I’m talking about in a moral standpoint, as a survivor.
I’m talking about in a moral standpoint, as a survivor.
I was abused by two people, one of them abused me once and the other abused me repeatedly.
I suffer more trauma from the person who abused me repeatedly because they abused me more times than the other, but I still view them as the same evil. They are the same to me.
I suffer more trauma from the person who abused me repeatedly because they abused me more times than the other, but I still view them as the same evil. They are the same to me.
The second problem with using the “my candidate has more sexual assault/rape allegations than your candidate” isn’t necessarily a problem with the argument itself, but rather how it can affect people.
In other words, this argument can and will have harmful impacts.
In other words, this argument can and will have harmful impacts.
Remember in the 2016 election, when people were using the Republican candidate’s & Democratic candidate’s husband’s sexual assault/rape allegations, either completely denying them or saying that one candidate was worse than the other?
I remember. It was retraumatizing.
I remember. It was retraumatizing.
I fear that it will be worse this time around, because last time it was one candidate who had these allegations vs a candidate whose husband had these allegations.
This time, both candidates themselves have these allegations.
This time, both candidates themselves have these allegations.
It sent a message to many survivors, including myself, that people do not care about survivors of any kind of sexual abuse, unless we can be used for their own benefit.
In politics, we’re usually only pawns in a game.
Treat us with dignity, please.
In politics, we’re usually only pawns in a game.
Treat us with dignity, please.
It is one thing when one candidate has these allegations and the other doesn’t.
That’s not to say that if someone uses those allegations against the candidate being accused, that they automatically care about survivors. We’re often pawns for them, too.
That’s not to say that if someone uses those allegations against the candidate being accused, that they automatically care about survivors. We’re often pawns for them, too.
But when the candidates for the two major parties have both been accused of committing or being complicit in sexual assault/rape, we are only used as pawns, that’s it.
When you use this argument, you are saying that some sexual assault/rape cases don’t matter.
When you use this argument, you are saying that some sexual assault/rape cases don’t matter.
To survivors, the argument is insulting and belittling of our trauma.
To people who haven’t been abused, it will send a bad message.
To people who haven’t been abused, it will send a bad message.
Lastly, I want to say that if you genuinely care about survivors, you would not be voting for either of these two candidates. You would be voting third party.
As for the harm reduction argument, there’s no harm reduction in voting for an abuser.
As for the harm reduction argument, there’s no harm reduction in voting for an abuser.
If you find yourself defending either of the abusers, you need to stop and think real hard about what you’re doing.
But if you insist on defending them while claiming that you care about survivors, maybe you’ll listen to me, and not use this argument.
But if you insist on defending them while claiming that you care about survivors, maybe you’ll listen to me, and not use this argument.
