You will have to explain this to me.
They are both an imposition. Inasmuch as rape involves the vagina only marketing is worse of an imposition by its very structure : all people have eyes and ears, only half the people (roughly) have vaginas. Consequently, inasmuch as legislation and the use of public force aims towards the greater good of the population without bias or discrimination then that effort should be directed towards controlling marketing first.
Inasmuch as rape involves vagina, anus, mouth, armpits and even vague things such as "not being nice on the Internet", marketing is a violation of the mind whereas rape is a violation of the body. I can appreciate the retarded point of view of rednecks who consider their body more sacred than their mind, but obviously I don't agree. Mind over matter, bitches. Get with the programme.
They are both "vaguely defined" crimes. Laws against marketing couldn't be easily enforced ? No laws are easily enforced. It's always going to be vague. She was wearing a skirt, she flirted with the guy, she had him buy her drinks, she sucked his cock, they were married, whatever the hell.
Inasmuch as the copulation is pretty much the only physical purpose of human life, rape is always going to be a contentious argument, in any and all circumstances. Yes, even if a bunch of dudes gangrape some teenager.i Inasmuch as lying to people (and all, ALL marketing is lying, that's structurally what it is, no matter how white you wash it) is not in any way shape or form the purpose of human thought, marketing is always going to be a plain case of abuse.
So in short the vague in rape comes from the vague of the situation of fact compounded by the vague of the states of mind. The vague in marketing strictly comes from the first category, there's absolutely nothing vague about marketing being pernicious, inhuman and demeaning (to both perpetrator and victim, for that matter).
They both have their fans. There's actually clubs of women looking to be raped, there's private arrangements for the consumation of this apparently recreative activityii. None of this makes rape itself any less of a prosecutable offence. As best anyone can determine, it's the marketeers and the marketeers only claiming marketing is a pleasurable, beneficial or respectable activity. Why would this make rape any less of a prosecutable offence ? I mean sure, nine out of ten people participating in a gangbang are having a great time, but so what of it ?
In point of fact there can be brought no argument whatsoever that marketing is less of an ill, and less deserving of state prosecution than rape. The only explanation for the currently absurd state of affairs, where the lesser evil is grandiosely pursued while the much, much greater evil is quietly tolerated is simply myopia.
That is to say, the state imagines it's making money out of marketing, and fails to see any way to make money out of rape (the states that do don't prosecute it, for the record). This is sadly false, more is lost through the waste of time and resources brought about by marketing than any tax it ever brings or could conceivably ever bring. Much like smoking (which also has its fans).
This intolerable state of affairs can no longer continue. I am quite frankly sick of being a victim. Brothers and sisters, we need to get organised.———
- Look up Duke lacrosse sometime. [↩]
- It's a dirty little secret that genetically speaking the arousal mode for women is a lot closer to rape than any "women's studies" pretend-scholar has yet discovered. What are you people studying, play-duh models ? Of course rape is sexy, it happens to have been the way to get laid for far longer than "dinner and a movie". [↩]