Who do you respect more?

Let us say there are three types of men. Each type is mutually exclusive. One type of man obtains women "normally". Another type can only go to prostitutes. The final type is the rapist. Ignore the first type. Who do you respect more, the guy who goes to prostitutes or the rapist?

I'll answer a related question.

Q: Which activity is better, rape or sex with a prostitute?

A: Rape.

Why? Because rape adds a special dimension. In fact, you can think of rape as a kind of sex with a prostitute where prostitute doesn't really want to serve you. The fact that you have to force her to obey you is what makes it more fun than your regular sex with a prostitute (where you have to use force merely to control her exaggerated sexual behavior.)

If you're physically weak, you won't like rape.

If overpowering female strangers is way too easy for you, you will see very little difference between rape and sex with a prostitute.

But if you're none of the above, you will like it much better.


Now, is a man who rapes women more respectable than a man who goes to prostitutes? How the fuck can I answer such a question? It can be anybody lol (well, except for rapists, who are, last I heard, generally suffering from psychological issues of some sort.)

"Who do you respect more, the guy who goes to prostitutes or the rapist?"

The whoremonger.

He treats his appetite as something to be transacted.  He conducts his business, and then goes about his business.

The rapist creates a stir for himself, and -- in creating that stir -- digs a hole for himself. More than likely if he'll dig a hole for himself (to satisfy a poor excuse for an appetite) then he won't think twice about diggin' a hole for the fella next to him (which could be me).

Fuck that, and fuck him.

Trust is tied in with respect in this way:
Respect is a form of anxiety towards what we perceive to threaten us by taking away or withholding something we value.
In the case of withholding what we value respect becomes a matter of trusting the source of what we need/desire. Trust built over consecutive, consistent, fulfillment of said need/desire. The source is respected so as to not deny us what it has consistently offered of great value to us. If it denies us what we value – for whatever reason – we lash out in anger, losing trust, as an indication of our displeasure.
We respect and trust a source of insight only after it has consistently proven to be accurate and/or useful – tested personally and privately; we distrust and disrespect what has consistently failed to offer anything of use and/or of value.
‘Value,’ of course is a product of triangulation, between subjective, objective, and effort/distance necessitated. Value drops/increases in proportion to the attainment/experience of the objective, and the overestimation or underestimation of it, and/or of the subjective, and/or the effort/distance necessitated.
Respect for the subjective is adjusted accordingly, viz., respect increases inversely proportional to the overestimation/underestimation of either the objective or the effort/distance necessary to attain it – the former being far more decisive than the latter. Therefore, an overestimation of an objective can never be validated if the objective is unattainable, and the effort/distance is inflated to justify why it is unattainable. In this case the subjective can never lose respect because the value of the unattainable objective is extraordinary, necessitating extraordinary efforts/distances to be overcome. Such an overestimated objective remains valuable in proportion to the subjects unfulfilled need/desire; respect becoming submissiveness.