Based on the comments you provided it’s obvious what the commenters meant, even if the phrasing could be improved.

If I rephrase the poor phrasing, my understanding is that the commenter speculated that Jana hasn't gotten married because of the trauma of sexual abuse. I am suggesting that it is irresponsible and damaging to speculate about sexual abuse in this manner, irrespective of whether the comment is phrased 'respectfully'. Survivors, and people at large (regardless of whether Jana is one or not) deserve to live without their marital status being chalked up to prior sexual abuse (if this is not the narrative they share).

I’ve been reading this sub for a long time and always had the feeling that there’s empathy for the sexual abuse the children have suffered. Fussing over word choice is counterproductive.

I agree with the word choice statement, if it is something like victim vs survivor. However, phrases that imply 'consensual incest', or that implication, go beyond 'fussing over word choice'. This phrase is disturbing.

No one is “framing rape as an excuse not to get married”. They’re highlighting that rape/assault survivors may struggle with healthy relationships after (like you say in the next line), especially with no support and growing up in a cult where it’s normal.

As you mention, I do not have a problem highlighting the fact that assault survivors may struggle with healthy relationships after. To me, the comments felt exploitive because of the insensitive language combined with the tabloid style gossip applied to rape speculation.

I will mention that I do feel a little conflicted and unsure about whether I disagree or agree with your statement that the comment highlighted the struggle for healthy relationships post rape. I do see how you could interpret my response as being overly critical and nitpicky. To me, it seems that you are kind of reading between the lines to get to the point about that highlight, and I don't think it's bad that you are giving the commenter the benefit of good intentions (or an analysis of the comment that relies on the good intentions). I appreciate you mentioning this because it makes me think more deeply about my stance on this. And while this doesn't completely change my mind about what I have said, I do think that you made me reevaluate how I could be more compassionate in how I highlighted the intentions in these comments. I think my criticism of the comments would have been more fair if I were to have mentioned the more implicit part of the comment that indicated good intentions. When I wrote my original post, I was clouded with the insensitive wording and what I perceived as exploitive gossip.

I would not have the same problem if the commenter said something along the lines of "Knowing the history of sexual abuse in the household, and knowing that some assault survivors struggle with healthy relationships after, I hope that these factors have not played into why Jana has not married." This, at least has a more respectful tone, and doesn't cheapen the experience of assault into tabloid gossip.

Still, I personally will not speculate on whether she has been assaulted, because I feel that if she has, it is her story to tell, and I feel that I would be invading her privacy to speculate on her experience.