quote:

---

auntie's questioner is offended to hear the word "rape" being used about everything from an unfair exam to the despoiling of the environment. She wants to know if she's over-reacting and seeks auntie's opinion.

---

I have no problem with it when someone uses the word "rape" as a metaphor for something serious and terrible. But I also think it just sounds stupid and offensive to use it as the new "that sucks" term.

But then again, that's probably why it's popular. The search is always on for one degree more punch to a phrase than the last one. Especially, in some circles, if it's politically incorrect, all the better. Shows what a rebel you are or something. It's dumb, but it probably isn't going away until the next language fad comes along to replace it. And, we feminists not really being the "coolmakers", we're probably not going to be the ones to replace it.

[ 11 September 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

I recall when I played online video game playing, whenever one player would completely outplay, outsrategize and humiliate another player, very often they'd say they "raped" each other. It was particularly bad when there was a recording of the match. Oh well, can't expect great maturity from fourteen year old boys. All they know about rape is that it's taboo.

[ 11 September 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
In the residence I live in, were actually barred from using the word "rape" in vain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Not if you are a rape victim who happens to overhear your rape being put down to something so totally silly as a failing grade in school. I don't agree with the illegal part but I certainly agree that equating trivial rubish with rape is seriously poor taste and shows a complete lack of character and empathy. (Like we have such an abundance of those traits already eh? )

---

I agree with you on the critique of making it illegal.

But, there would be a whole host of words that we would want to eliminate "in vain" use of:

Jesus, that test was a killer!!! (insensitive to those who have had a loved one killed).

Wow!! That race was absolutely murder!!! (see above).

He was screwed!!! (see "rape"--use of "screwed" implies involuntary violation).

Well, she was basically fucked from the start (see above).

Their team just beat the shit out of our team!! (insensitive to those who have been physically assaulted).

That solo absolutely stole the show!! (insensitive to those who have been victims of theft).

The bargains at Lowe's are a real steal (see above).

Essentially, any metaphor that may hurt someone's feelings should be avoided if someone might interpret the metaphor as belittling some horrible event in that person's life (when, in fact, the usage of the metaphor has absolutley nothing to do with, literally, being raped, killed, murdered, screwed (involuntarily), fucked (involuntarily), beaten, stolen from or a variety of other bad things.

Should the following (common) phrase be avoided because it might offend a person who (unfortunately) feels bad or ashamed that they had an abortion: "If XYZ happens, we'll have to abort the mission", when the speaker, with virtual certainty, was not even thinking about the abortion of a fetus?

Should saying "Jesus Christ" or "Allah" in vain be avoided because it deeply offends many Christians and Muslims?

I know this isn't the feminist forum, but it's really challenging to be having these kinds of conversations repeatedly.

Sven, your set of ridiculous examples is not what's being discussed here, the thread title question says it all.

Here's a thought for unsupportive posters who just happen to be men regarding the question of this thread: why have only the women's voices been in favour of having a sensitivity towards the overuse and misuse of the word rape? How about you ponder that for a while?

Michelle's post says it all for me: this is a fad, it will pass, and we must endure it while it's still with us. Launching any "slippery slope" arguments about "how sensitive do we have to be" and "where do we draw the line" gives it more authenticity than it deserves.

Using the word is offensive inappropriate in the contexts mentioned above and in the letter to auntie.

It will soon be off the radar. Too bad we can't say the same thing about rape, in all its forms.

[ 12 September 2006: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]

BCG, after this topic was posted last night I thought 'why is it mainly men who want to defend the use of this word?' My guess is, they have no experience with rape and most likely haven't really thought of rape to be the complete domination and expression of hate towards females. If they have and they don't care...well that says way more than I need to know.

[ 13 September 2006: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

quote:

---

'why is it mainly men who want to defend the use of this word?' My guess is, they have no experience with rape and most likely haven't really thought of rape to be the complete domination and expression of hate towards females.

---

"Rape" itself did not originally have a sexual connotation. It is the pluperfect of the Latin word for "take by force".

That's why the Toronto Raptors are referring to egg-stealing dinosaurs, rather than to sexual assault, in the name of the team.

And that's why people may give "rapt" attention to the opinions of other Babblers.

"Rape" has also been used in English to mean something similar to theft. For example, think of "The Rape of the Lock", an 18th century poem.

Skdadl would give further examples.

A judge of my acquaintance had an affair. He and the woman had sex in his chambers, and also in his van. Later, he tried to break up with the woman, who went to the Toronto Sun with the supposed "impropriety". Their front page headline was a quote by her: "HE RAPED MY SOUL!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
And it would be nice to answer the question - why do men feel the need to defend this?

---

I think the (unstated) question that underlies your express question is this: Why do some men not understand that they are wrong in defending the use of a word that is obviously a gross misuse of the word? If they don't agree with me, and with those who hold the same view as I do, should just shut up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by marzo:
The word 'rape' should only be used in the context of violent, forced sex because to use it in other ways trivializes the trauma to the victim, and diminishes the severity of this crime. There are other words with precise meanings that can adequately describe environmental destruction or other acts of violence.
I think that this connects to the precise use of language and the tendency of some people to use emotionally charged words in the wrong context, just to be provocative. The careless use of the word 'rape', and the labelling of people as 'nazis', when they obviously are not, are two very common examples of this.
Sloppy use of language is a sign of sloppy, illogical thinking. If a person does not mean what they say and say what they mean then they are just blathering nonsense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Skdadl would give further examples.

---

It's a valid question. And I'm not going to stop people from asking it in a thread that is specifically about whether the use of certain words should be restricted. You're quite free to disagree. Nobody said that you, as a rape victim, couldn't participate. You're not quite free, however, to sling that kind of invective at Sven for disagreeing with you on this issue.

[ 14 September 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Stargazer I appreciate your feelings on this matter because of your history however you generalize way to much based on gender. Your lens on issues often seems to be clouded by a strawman argument.

quote:

---

BCG, after this topic was posted last night I thought 'why is it mainly men who want to defend the use of this word?' My guess is, they have no experience with rape and most likely haven't really thought of rape to be the complete domination and expression of hate towards females. If they have and they don't care...well that says way more than I need to know.

---

the Males

500 Apples seemed to be taking the same view as Michelle. West Coast Greeny was more opposed to it than Michelle. Sven you took offence with. Nanuq waffled and questioned but did not really express an opinion.

the Females

Auntie had a nunaced viewpoint that did not totally agree with your view.

Michelle agreed with Auntie

Southerlander seems to be ambivialent but is suggesting proactive personal intervention.

Stargazer your opinion was similar to most except you had to wonder what it is about the male opinion on this issue when it appears the opinions voiced cannot be diffeerntiated on the basis of gender.

As said above I share your view that it is not a word that should be trivialized but making the usage of words illegal is certainly not on for me.

I personally get very upset when I hear people talking about rape and sexual abuse of children and focusing on the "stranger" who is going to drag them off the street because anyone who understands pedophilia knows that those are extremely rare and the normal pattern is a weell respected person known to the children and their family. That really pisses me off. But that I am sure is due to persoanl experience not my gender.

[ 14 September 2006: Message edited by: Sans Tache ]

I will also admit that I was annoyed (and it was certainly reflected in the tone of one of my responses to you) with the broad generalization I thought you made about "men" defending the use of the word rape in contexts other than sexual assault. I felt that you were, with a broad brush stroke, invalidating my position based on the simple fact that I'm a male--i.e., your post wasn't an argument against the position I was taking with regard to the word's usage but, instead, an out-of-hand dismissal of my viewpoint simply because I'm a male. That being said, I probably should have taken a step back before firing off that post because the tone was harsher than I intended it to be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
Or maybe I'm just getting too old myself.

---

Erik, don't you remember using the word "fuck" as if it was a comma?

quote:

---

Rape!
R-a-a-a-pe!
Raa-aa-aa-pe!

A pretty rape!
A literary rape!

We've the obvious open schoolboy rape,
With little mandolins and perhaps a cape.
The rape by coach; it's little in request.
The rape by day, but the rape by night is best.

---

Full lyrics

quote:

---

See fierce Belinda on the Baron flies,
With more than usual Lightning in her Eyes;
Nor fear'd the Chief th' unequal Fight to try,
Who sought no more than on his Foe to die.
But this bold Lord, with manly Strength indu'd,
She with one Finger and a Thumb subdu'd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:

Erik, don't you remember using the word "fuck" as if it was a comma?

---

quote:

---

I realized that only someone well-versed in 17th century mock-heroic slang would see any of the "obvious" sexual innuendo.

---

As a general principle, in every politicized field, it is of great advantage to limit word meanings to those which circumscribe, and advance, one's own agenda: claiming the lexical high ground from which to pot at those who do not "own"a term.

quote:

---

As a general principle, in every politicized field, it is of great advantage to limit word meanings to those which circumscribe, and advance, one's own agenda:

---

If the word's meanings depend upon the goals of a particular political campaign, then those who are not part of the campaign won't be interested in adopting that meaning.

It seems to me you are just telling us how propaganda works.

This is why when someone uses "rape" in a modern context, it is impossible to separate it from its connotations of sexual assault. In fact, this is the only context in which people come into contact with this word. Which is why I think it is insensitive to water down its meaning with misplaced metaphor (which, in this case, is the correct term,) be it a student in final exams or the planet. It is doubly insensitive, considering the word has not even been completely defined in society in terms of sexual assault: is "date rape" rape? Is unwanted sex without intercourse rape? I don't mind protecting the word "rape" from a counter-political view because any counter-political view that would seek to undermine the severity of sexual assault is terrifying to me.

-------
Rape, verb (2)
1. a. trans. To take (a thing) by force. Also absol., transf. and fig. (in some examples, also influenced by sense 3).
1388 WIMBLETON Serm. in MS. Hatton 57 fol. 16 Rauenous fisches han sum mesure; whanne ei hungren thei rapyn; whanne ei ben ful ey sparyn. 1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 140 To rape & deuour the..sustenaunce of the poore seruauntes of god. 1596 DRAYTON Legends iv. 749 What their Fathers gave her..The Sonnes rap'd from her with a violent Hand. 1635 HEYWOOD Hierarch. 349 As before, They rape, extort, forsweare,..Oppresse. 1807 J. BARLOW Columb. v. 693 So Leda's Twins from Colchis raped the Fleece. 1863 COWDEN CLARKE Shaks. Char. xvii. 421 Steadily clutching all that he had raped. 1927 Blackw. Mag. Apr. 494/2 The stone walls on either side pressed close, threatening to rape from us our faithful caravan. 1949 WYNDHAM LEWIS Let. 6 Aug. (1963) 502 Their women rape ‘culture’ (clubs, ‘circles’ for weekly absorption of potted literature etc). 1950 D. GASCOYNE Vagrant 27 Rockets released tonight rush up to rape the grapebloom sky. 1976 Bookseller 14 Feb. 811 (Advt.), Browning, whose life he saved in 1944, is now his rival, raping the Great Land with oil-wells and pipelines. 1977 Undercurrents June-July 41/2 We are not going to ‘subsistence production’ because the capitalists have raped our land and resources. 1978 G. VIDAL Kalki ii. 30 Dr Ashok's eyes had a tendency to pop whenever he wanted to rape your attention.
b. In alliterative and riming phrases, as rape and renne, rend, wring (obs.); rape and scrape dial. (Cf. RAP v.3 1b.)
c1386 CHAUCER Can. Yeom. Prol. & T. 869 Al that ye may rape and renne. 1555 W. WATREMAN Fardle Facions II. x. 217 Thei euer couete, and..rape and rende from other. 1610 HOLLAND tr. Camden's Brit. I. 259 To scrape and rape money to himselfe. 1622 MABBE tr. Aleman's Guzman d'Alf. I. 230 Whatsoever I could rape or wring from them. 1655 FULLER Ch. Hist. IV. i. §12 She..snatched all she could rape and rend, unto herself. 1887 S. Cheshire Gloss., Rape an' scrape, to rake and scrape together.
c. To pull down. Obs. rare 1.
1597 J. KING On Jonas (1618) 78 They..rend and rape downe tackles, sailes, all implements.
d. To rob, strip, plunder (a place). Also used with a group of people as object.
a1721 D'URFEY Ariadne I. ii, I can..Rape the tow'ring Eagle's Nest. 1892 R. KIPLING Barrack-room Ballads 177, I raped your richest roadstead, I plundered Singapore. 1972 Business Week 18 Mar. 70/1 ‘Our underwriter raped us,’ reports the president of a small New York company that sold $250,000 in stock in 1968. 1973 Black Panther 21 July p. B, The Reading administration will continue to rape the poor.
2. To carry off (a person, esp. a woman) by force. ? Obs.
1590 SPENSER F.Q. III. x. heading, Paridell rapeth Hellenore; Malbecco her poursewes. 1598 B. JONSON Ev. Man in Hum. II. v, These houshold precedents; which are strong And swift to rape youth, to their precipice. a1649 DRUMMOND OF HAWTHORNDEN Poems Wks. (1711) 46/2 The flower of virgins..By ruthless destiny is ta'ne away, And rap'd from earth. 1715-20 POPE Iliad XIII. 782 A princess raped transcends a navy storm'd.
3. To ravish, commit rape on (a woman). Also, with a man as the sexual object and a man or woman as the subject.
1577 Test. 12 Patriarchs (1604) 45 marg., The Sichemites raped Dina; persecuted strangers; ravished their wives. a1641 BP. R. MONTAGU Acts & Mon. (1642) 343 To..torment their bodies, rape their wives and daughters. 1861 Times 18 July, She charged that..he had violently assaulted and raped her. 1885 Law Times LXXVIII. 240/2 Females who have been raped or indecently assaulted. 1928 D. H. LAWRENCE Let. ? 28 Oct. (1962) II. 1096 Why do men only thrill to a woman who'll rape them? 1971 Southerly XXXI. 6 The first of the series of sexually voracious women who seek virtually to rape him. 1972 Times 31 Oct. 2/4 The girls had taken their clothes off and intended to rape him. 1977 New Society 1 Sept. 449/2 These women have been confined for a variety of offences, chief among which are soliciting and manslaughter. When a man finds his way into their midst, he is promptly raped. 1977 New Yorker 24 Oct. 64/3 A man..claimed he had been assaulted and raped by four other prisoners.
4. To transport, ravish, delight. Now rare.
1613 DRAYTON Ecl. v. 60 To rape the fields with touches of her string. 1675 BAXTER Cath. Theol. I. III. 91 This grace..rapeth the will so that it is scarce perceived to act. 1852 Meanderings of Mem. I. 87 With art's refinement he would..rape the soul.
Hence raped ppl. a.1
1675 PENN Eng. Pres. Interest 41 There is no such Excitement to Revenge, as a rap'd Conscience. 1960 O. MANNING Great Fortune xiv. 180 The raped boys who, once corrupted, sold themselves for a few lei. 1977 Sunday Times 30 Jan. 38/1 Squads of sexologists, whole studios full of raped girls, etc., etc.
-------

If your vocabulary does not contain this other meaning ,"To take (a thing) by force", it is not evidence that it doesn't exist.
Your other argument from "insensitivity" is thereby weakened since it is not always used as a metaphor as you claim...but certainly you are free NOT to use it in other contexts and to pass the judgment of "insensitivity" on those who don't restrict the meaning to your singularity.

Language, of course, changes and it well may be that the word rape will be reduced to your singular understanding in the near future.
As to the "polarization of signifiers" it is systemically cultural, and individual as well as political. I acknowledge the inevitable change as well as development of vocabularies for specific world views.

I do have visceral response to attempts by anyone who aims to limit vocabulary for any political reason, however noble. I think Orwell provides some cogent commentary in the development of Newspeak. Here is a paragraph from 1984's appendix:

When you say don't "Don't tell me what word I meant" I suppose you mean this piece:
----
You:"when someone uses "rape" in a modern context, it is impossible to separate it from its connotations of sexual assault. "
Me: That is probably true, but I think you probably mean to say "denotation of sexual assault" since you claim that is "the only context in which people come into contact with this word."
-----
I was trying to be helpful here: there are certain accepted (I dare not say dictionary) meanings of "connotation" and "denotation" in relation to primary and secondary meanings of words. You are claiming that "sexual assault" is the ONLY primary meaning of the word but call that a "connotation". This does not make not sense to me, but, hey.

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: contrarianna ]

Language, above all, is cultural. It is a social text. I would further contend that those who usually use the term "rape the earth" or "that exam raped me," are not Greek scholars or OED aficianados, but rather they learned these phrases whole. "Rape the Earth" in its first usage, may well have strictly adhered to the first definition, but I'll bet a fin that if you ask anyone who uses the phrase today, nine times out of ten they will define it in terms of sexual assault. And the one who doesn't won't find an audience that will interpret her usage without thinking of assault.

I think "The Rape of Nanking" is a similar usage, though there there were so many rapes that it might reflect the most common, sexual-assault usage.

quote:

---

The Rape of Belgium (August 1914) was a disputed event during World War I in which Germany invaded the neutral nation of Belgium as a component of its Schlieffen Plan. This violated the Treaty of London, 1839 that German foreign minister Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg dismissed as a "mere scrap of paper". The invaders terrorized the Belgians, shooting thousands of civilians and looting and burning scores of towns, including Louvain, which housed the country's preeminent university.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium

Life is too short to get worked into a lather over small issues. Stick to the big ones.

If someone used the worked "Rape" out of context in a sentence, I would be annoyed. If someone took a leak on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, I would be perhaps "angered" at the lack of respect shown to a grave. Mass Murder in Rwanda? Well now I would be "Outraged".

Realistically, though I was not initially in favor of changing the definition of marriage to include the marriage of same sex couples, now I really do not think it is a world ending thing.

The only caviat that I would put on SSM is that I don't think that religous groups that are opposed to it should be forced to perform the ceremony. There are civil marriages and it is not hard to find churches that will happily perform the service (United I believe).

The thread being focused on the dynamic meanings of words and the use of words to inflame by over exageration of their use. It works just as well in reverse. By down playing the actions of some to make it more palitable (?sp). I was simply pointing out that many times there are ulterior motives.

Gays are attempting to utilize the courts and the term marriage to obtain moral equivalence which they can not obtain in the public arena.

Proabortionists are attempting to sanitize the action of killing babies by refering to it as if they were simply aborting a pregnancy.

Words are dynamic and their use must be considered in context with the time and circumstances. In politics they can never be taken at face value.

[ 28 October 2006: Message edited by: oktibbeha_publius ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by oktibbeha_publius:
Just look at what is happening with the word "marriage". The "gays" are "bastardizing" the meaning and utilizing the courts to "rape" the states of their rights to license activity. As for the word "abort", it seems that the prokilling crowd has used this word to sanatize the description of killing innocent life, not the other way around.

---

Oktibbeha_publius: When I read this, I set about the process of banning your account. Then I read your other posts, looked at your profile, and even found out what the hell Oktibbeha was. You appear to have stepped out of a William Faulkner novel and into the wrong website. However, given what I deduce to be your milieu, I can see why you may think you're almost progressive within your own context.

This is a progressive Canadian board. On this board, human rights are promoted. They are not held as being open to debate. No gay lesbian bisexual or transgender person will log on to this site to discover that their basic human rights are permitted to be questioned, and the full equality of socially recognised and celebrated relationships within a society is a basic human right. It is not something which is up to the whim of a numerical majority, and it is the proper function of the courts in a healthy society to protect such rights.

You of course are free to feel as you wish on the matter. In a country which recognizes freedom of speech, you will find ample websites and other forums where your views will be welcome. This board is a privatly owned space and those views will not be tolerated here.

quote:

---

My point is that the definition of marriage is the union between a woman and a man. Therefore, same sex couples can not get married. They can have a civil union which extends to them the same rights as being married, however; by definition they are not married. (American Heritage Dictionary)

....

Gays are attempting to utilize the courts and the term marriage to obtain moral equivalence which they can not obtain in the public arena.

---

The "public arena" does not define rights. If a majority were to become the arbiter of what is a "right", any right could be swept away as soon as the majority decided to do away with it.

If you belong to a minority, it is easy to understand the problem with this.

I personally think that this would not be as hard as it seems, if both sides showed a little respect and empathy for each other. Most of the trouble is caused by a small number of uber-radicals on each end.

There was for example no reason for a protestant minister to choose to mail anti-gay material to a random number of people in Vancouver. And no reason that I can see for a lesbain couple to try to book a Roman Catholic KofC hall for a SSM reception.

quote:

---

This is a progressive Canadian board. On this board, human rights are promoted. They are not held as being open to debate. No gay lesbian bisexual or transgender person will log on to this site to discover that their basic human rights are permitted to be questioned, and the full equality of socially recognised and celebrated relationships within a society is a basic human right. It is not something which is up to the whim of a numerical majority, and it is the proper function of the courts in a healthy society to protect such rights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
Oktibbeha_publius: When I read this, I set about the process of banning your account.

---

Well, after reading his next message after that one, which included these lovely gems:

quote:

---

My point is that the definition of marriage is the union between a woman and a man.

Gays are attempting to utilize the courts and the term marriage to obtain moral equivalence which they can not obtain in the public arena.

Proabortionists are attempting to sanitize the action of killing babies by refering to it as if they were simply aborting a pregnancy.

---

quote:

---

This is a progressive Canadian board. On this board, human rights are promoted. They are not held as being open to debate. No gay lesbian bisexual or transgender person will log on to this site to discover that their basic human rights are permitted to be questioned, and the full equality of socially recognised and celebrated relationships within a society is a basic human right. It is not something which is up to the whim of a numerical majority, and it is the proper function of the courts in a healthy society to protect such rights.

---

"It doesn't matter that Gore Vidal intends exclusively the OED's first definition, any reader will consider both the most popular, and the more linguistically loyal version with the Greek predicate."

"I would further contend that those who usually use the term "rape the earth" or "that exam raped me," are not Greek scholars or OED aficianados, but rather they learned these phrases whole."

Well I am a Greek and Latin scholar and there is nothing wrong with using the word 'rape' about the environment. It's pretty grotesque to use it about something as trivial as an exam, but there is no need to restrict its use solely to sexual crime. The etymology of arpadzein and rapere show it's totally accurate to use it with reference to the seizure of things. The destruction of the environment is a serious matter and hardly trivialises or unnecessarily complicates things.

Yeah I like to babble! This looks like a great place for progressives to debate and formulate ideas for action.