Use of the word "rape" in everyday conversation

mikemac

Reading a post over in After Hours and someone took offence to it.
And got a few thanks so they have support

The OP just used it for the thread title on another issue, was never aiming to take a shot at victims.

I'm love a breakfast roll but the deli is a rip-off, they would rape my pockets.
I'm so unfit at football, the speedy players rape me

Said pretty innocently, no offense intended but clearly some take offense.


So is it acceptable to use?

Sure we all remember this, was there realy a need for an apology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYg3hJdq96I

But then nobody thinks twice about murdering a cup of tea or I'd murder a sandwich. The family of a murder victim might be in the work canteen but it's not something you think about and it's all said innocently

Is rape a whole other level and completely unacceptable?

Morag

Is rape a whole other level and completely unacceptable?

In my opinion yes, it trivialises rape and the effect being raped as on a person for years.

goose2005

mikemac wrote: »

Is rape a whole other level and completely unacceptable?

I suppose it's a more graphic idea to think of. SImilarly, I wouldn't be put off at all by jokes about rape/paedophilia/genocide/murder, but a joke about torture makes me very uneasy, presumably because the unpleasantness is more direct.

Ickle Magoo

I have to say I think less of people who use "rape" to describe mundane and frivolous situations, given the obvious associations the word has and the multitude of other adjectives at their disposal.

I appreciate the dictionary definition is not restricted to sexual assault but as the word is generally used with scant regard for those who have actually been through such an ordeal, I think throwing it into everyday conversation for added "graphic" effect is really rather tasteless.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scanlas The 2nd

Sharrow wrote: »

In my opinion yes, it trivialises rape and the effect being raped as on a person for years.

What about using the "murder" in a trivial way? Are you against that too?

Just to add I don't like when "rape" is used trivially but I wouldn't criticise anyone on it because I wouldn't criticise anyone for using "murder" trivially so it would be a bit hypocritical.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

In the examples you've given there OP I wouldn't have any problem with it and don't think it trivialises the experience of victims at all, seeing as it's quite clearly in no way a reference to the actual act. What I would have something of an issue with is casual jokey comments about actual rape rape "Jaysis look at yer wan, I'd rape her" etc, which is a completely different thing and pretty common.

Morag

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What about using the "murder" in a trivial way? Are you against that too?

Just to add I don't like when "rape" is used trivially but I wouldn't criticise anyone on it because I wouldn't criticise anyone for using "murder" trivially so it would be a bit hypocritical.

Given the country we live in and the rampant child abuses which have happened
there are many more people who have personally been raped and also those lose to them who have also been effected.

MungBean

It really is no different than trivialising any word. Whether someone says Fcuk, murder, rape, butcher whatever. If its not meant literally then I dont see the problem.

In todays world where information is readily available, people are more exposed to sex and violence and references to those things. Your exposed to it daily through tv/papers/magazines/books. Crime (sexual crime in particular) is of huge interest to people and its popularity in the entertainment industry is growing fast.

The weight that these words carry is being lessened by society at large, through media and entertainment. Its almost the natural progression that such words once considered taboo would be trivialised and used more prevalently.

marienbad

words such as rape murder torture have been used for centuries in the widest possible context and to try to limit that is political correctness gone way over the top. Would ''The Rape Of The Lock'' by Alexander Pope be banned for example ?

The accusation of ''trivialising something'' or ''a poor role model'' seems to be leveled at anything and everyone and they often seem to go in tandem and in most cases is just used to restrict debate withoust having to present a coherent argument.

dsmythy

I'd be more concered if rape was being used in a positive sense. 99% of times rape is used in a sentence it describes a negative action or event.

Scanlas The 2nd

Sharrow wrote: »

Given the country we live in and the rampant child abuses which have happened
there are many more people who have personally been raped and also those lose to them who have also been effected.

How many people need to be murdered before it becomes wrong to use the word trivially?

Giselle

I think most times its used by people for its shock value and it winds up sounding childish and inappropriate.

Anyone who says things like 'I could rape a cake' drops a notch in my eyes, rightly or wrongly.

Scanlas The 2nd

Giselle wrote: »

I think most times its used by people for its shock value and it winds up sounding childish and inappropriate.

Anyone who says things like 'I could rape a cake' drops a notch in my eyes, rightly or wrongly.

but would you not think someone is childish and innappropriate for saying "I could murder a cake"?

marienbad

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

but would you not think someone is childish and innappropriate for saying "I could murder a cake"?

or listening to Jedward is torture, or playing then is a hanging offence as they really know how to murder a tune .

Laisurg

I wouldn't take any offence to it, It has more than one context nowadays.
It might not be in the dictionary but as an example when ''he was raped by Torres'' was said in the clip in the OP, Sexual assault was not what was meant.
Anyone who thinks using the word rape in another context somehow dumbs down the seriousness of sexual assault needs to cop onto themselves.

elbee

I don't like the use of the word 'rape' in that way but murder doesn't bother me.

The reason why is that I feel society takes murder seriously. If someone says 'I could murder a cup of tea!' I don't think that that person is OK with killing someone, because statistically it's pretty unlikely. And I don't think that they think murder is trivial either, because again, most people don't.

But study after study has shown that a lot of people of all genders and backgrounds think rape is no big deal. And not just the perpetrators. Surveys have shown that there are lots of women out there who think a woman 'rbings it on herself' if she dresses or behaves a certain way. So there are a lot of people out there who think rape is not a big deal.

So if someone says 'I could rape a cake' or 'Dude totally fraped!!' on Facebook, I wonder (although I try not to make assumptions!) if I am dealing with one of the enormous number of people who think rape is no big deal.

Also, lots of people do find it offensive, rightly or wrongly, so I am also conscious I'm in the presence of someone who doesn't care if they offend or upset someone. Not necessarily a reason to dislike someone - we all know that hilariously controversial but harmless person - but worth knowing and it definitely affects how I see someone.

Laisurg

elbee wrote: »

But study after study has shown that a lot of people of all genders and backgrounds think rape is no big deal.

I've known a lot of stupid and ignorant people but never once have i met anyone who thought that rape wasn't a ''big deal'' :eek:

marienbad

Laisurg wrote: »

I've known a lot of stupid and ignorant people but never once have i met anyone who thought that rape wasn't a ''big deal'' :eek:

same here, never met anyone yet who thought like that.

donfers

when a word is particularly offensive to one group of people whether it's "paki" or "n-word" then you have to understand why some object to it

i understand some men have been raped but the vast vast majority of rape victims are women therefore it is understandable that the word makes some women feel uncomfortable

murder affects us all and thus a phrase like "i could murder a sandwich" is not perceived as being targeted at any one group and thus nobody takes ownership of the offense so the word loses the power to offend

i agree that context and intent are important and again i think in the vast vast majority of cases when the word is used there is no conscious intent to offend women

nevertheless people should be sensitive to the potential sensibilities of the group they are speaking within and thus I would probably err on the side of caution and not use it if there was a female audience as I understand why some of them would get offended, i could argue with them all day about the validity of taking offense but that's kind of pointless, english is a wonderful language and just to save ourselves and our audience any potential grief or upset perhaps one could choose an alternative way of expressing themselves


jesus, i hope i'm not becoming unnecessarily pc as i get older but sometimes i think the semantical argument is just not worth it and it's not exactly a giant pain in the neck to find another word

so i sympathise with both sides of the debate and thus i ask myself, which side would be affected more by the modification of behaviour


one side merely would need to change a word, the other would need to put aside feelings of upset, trauma and pain that they associate with the word - thus i think when there is a problem the first group should compromise.shamrock rovers just scored bye bye

marienbad

donfers wrote: »

when a word is particularly offensive to one group of people whether it's "paki" or "n-word" then you have to understand why some object to it

i understand some men have been raped but the vast vast majority of rape victims are women therefore it is understandable that the word makes some women feel uncomfortable

murder affects us all and thus a phrase like "i could murder a sandwich" is not perceived as being targeted at any one group and thus nobody takes ownership of the offense so the word loses the power to offend

i agree that context and intent are important and again i think in the vast vast majority of cases when the word is used there is no conscious intent to offend women

nevertheless people should be sensitive to the potential sensibilities of the group they are speaking within and thus I would probably err on the side of caution and not use it if there was a female audience as I understand why some of them would get offended, i could argue with them all day about the validity of taking offense but that's kind of pointless, english is a wonderful language and just to save ourselves and our audience any potential grief or upset perhaps one could choose an alternative way of expressing themselves


jesus, i hope i'm not becoming unnecessarily pc as i get older but sometimes i think the semantical argument is just not worth it and it's not exactly a giant pain in the neck to find another word

so i sympathise with both sides of the debate and thus i ask myself, which side would be affected more by the modification of behaviour


one side merely would need to change a word, the other would need to put aside feelings of upset, trauma and pain that they associate with the word - thus i think when there is a problem the first group should compromise.shamrock rovers just scored bye bye

not meaning to be offensive in anyway what so ever, but you are becoming unnecessarily pc (imo). People use words all the time that offend some and not others , it is impossible to select which ones deserve special treatment. Even the infamous n word is not without its problems.

And that is before we open the whole can of worms that is self-censorship at the behest of others. Where does it end ?

Scanlas The 2nd

elbee wrote: »

I don't like the use of the word 'rape' in that way but murder doesn't bother me.

The reason why is that I feel society takes murder seriously. If someone says 'I could murder a cup of tea!' I don't think that that person is OK with killing someone, because statistically it's pretty unlikely. And I don't think that they think murder is trivial either, because again, most people don't.

But study after study has shown that a lot of people of all genders and backgrounds think rape is no big deal. And not just the perpetrators. Surveys have shown that there are lots of women out there who think a woman 'rbings it on herself' if she dresses or behaves a certain way. So there are a lot of people out there who think rape is not a big deal.

So if someone says 'I could rape a cake' or 'Dude totally fraped!!' on Facebook, I wonder (although I try not to make assumptions!) if I am dealing with one of the enormous number of people who think rape is no big deal.

Also, lots of people do find it offensive, rightly or wrongly, so I am also conscious I'm in the presence of someone who doesn't care if they offend or upset someone. Not necessarily a reason to dislike someone - we all know that hilariously controversial but harmless person - but worth knowing and it definitely affects how I see someone.

IMO this is a classic example of backward rationalization. You feel emotionally that it's wrong so then you make up a logical reason afterwards to try and justify your feelings towards it.

I have never in my life met anyone who thought rape wasn't a big deal. If anything people think rape is a bigger deal than murder and perhaps that is related to why people are offended by "rape" and not "murder" being used trivially.

The logic you have come up with is if someone uses a word trivially that is a serious matter that not everyone agrees is a serious matter then it would bother you. Can you honestly say that is logic you apply consistently? I think you just made that up afterwards to try to justify your feelings in your head.

Also if someone says that a woman "brings it on herself" it is bizaare logic to conclude they don't think rape is a big deal or a serious offence. The point they are making imo is that she should have been more careful.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Also if someone says that a woman "brings it on herself" it is bizaare logic to conclude they don't think rape is a big deal or a serious offence. The point they are making imo is that she should have been more careful.

I think that "she was asking for it"/"could have been more careful" DOES suggest that the person thinks rape isn't as big a deal as it is because it suggests that they think there could be some reason for a rape occurring that starts or ends anywhere outside of the sick mind of the rapist. It dresses rape up as something that can be explained and so partially excused. It diminishes the devastation the victim is living through after being so horribly degraded and violated by suggesting that there was something she could or should have done to stop it.

I still don't have a problem with "fraped" or somebody getting "raped" on the football pitch, but I do have a problem with the example I gave above ("Look at yer wan, you'd rape her") precisely because it does the same thing as "She could have been more careful", it makes rape look like something that can arise out of an extreme case of normal sexual desire. When people say things like that I don't think they're condoning rape but even the fact that they say it and mean that by dressing or acting "slutty" a woman makes her more likely to be raped shows that they think that way (rape can be the outcome of normal sexual desire). In fact, things like living alone, being distracted by your phone/keys while walking alone or just answering the door are a lot more likely to get you raped. I once read an interview with a serial rapist where he was asked if he looked out for the slutty women and he said only if they were wearing high heels and a skirt tight enough to make it difficult for them to run away

RandolphEsq

Laisurg wrote: »

I've known a lot of stupid and ignorant people but never once have i met anyone who thought that rape wasn't a ''big deal'' :eek:

The law thinks that in relation to a man getting raped. And that is a man raping another man. A woman raping a man would hardly even be taken seriously!

Milk & Honey

"Rape" has another meaning which is to "steal" as in "The rape of the Lock"

http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/1644.html

When this meaning is given to some statements it make them much less offensive.
Similarly the word "niggardly" meaning "stingy" has been take to be offensive in relation to black people even though it has nothing to do with them.

Giselle

I think the use of the word 'murder' in everyday talk is probably different because a murder victim is unlikely to hear you and be hurt or offended by it .

Rape victims are, unfortunately, all around us. Murder victims aren't, and even if their loved ones are, they are much less in number.

marienbad

Giselle wrote: »

I think the use of the word 'murder' in everyday talk is probably different because a murder victim is unlikely to hear you and be hurt or offended by it .

Rape victims are, unfortunately, all around us. Murder victims aren't, and even if their loved ones are, they are much less in number.

so are we saying there is a catagory of words that cannot be used in everyday conversation ? It is simply impractical - how do we decide (and who decides) which words and when and where ?

It reminds me of the good old days when anyone reading a book could decide it was offensive and complain to the censorship board and on just such subjective grounds writers were banned.

Same arguments are used to defend blasphemy laws .

All this before we even get to film tv etc. Just impossible.

Giselle

Giselle wrote: »

I think most times its used by people for its shock value and it winds up sounding childish and inappropriate.

Anyone who says things like 'I could rape a cake' drops a notch in my eyes, rightly or wrongly.

Same here. I don't take offense to it, because in the situations we're discussing, the word clearly isn't being used with an intent of offense. But I do think it's immature and unnecessary.

Same goes for the word "retarded" in my opinion.

Ickle Magoo

marienbad wrote: »

so are we saying there is a catagory of words that cannot be used in everyday conversation ? It is simply impractical - how do we decide (and who decides) which words and when and where ?

Surely there are already a raft of words we don't use in everyday conversation - words that common sense and education on social mores tell us are inappropriate to use with certain people or in certain situations?

Basic manners and social etiquette may be viewed as impractical but ultimately deliberately ignoring what others may see as offensive, inappropriate, or even just a sign of poor vocabulary or thoughtlessness will only reflect badly on the speaker - regardless of any idealistic demands to be able to say what they like, when they like.

marienbad

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Surely there are already a raft of words we don't use in everyday conversation - words that common sense and education on social mores tell us are inappropriate to use with certain people or in certain situations?

Basic manners and social etiquette may be viewed as impractical but ultimately deliberately ignoring what others may see as offensive, inappropriate, or even just a sign of poor vocabulary or thoughtlessness will only reflect badly on the speaker - regardless of any idealistic demands to be able to say what they like, when they like.

No one is ignoring anything ! In the natural ebb and flow of conversation things are said and it is impossible to police it even if we wanted to.

But just to give it a go lets start compling that list of unacceptable words...

Ickle Magoo

Of course it's not impossible to police - do you really think people cannot control what falls out of their mouths? That's ridiculous. Do you call your boss a c*nt? Why not? Because language and the expectations there of, cause us to police ourselves - whether we care to admit it or not. Same goes in the wider world; while it may not mean losing a job, it can certainly affect how others view you and who wants to spend time with you. If there is a huge vocabulary out there to choose from, why deliberately put yourself in the position of being thought of as crass, thoughtless, immature or whatever? Seems a bit silly to make a point that really only risks adversely affecting the speaker...but of course, others are perfectly free to make their own choices - but they should be prepared to accept the consequences of those choices too.

Giselle

marienbad wrote: »

In the natural ebb and flow of conversation things are said and it is impossible to police it even if we wanted to.

No its not, and we do it all the time already. If I was in a nursing home full of elderly people, swearing would be off the table, as its likely to offend, if I'm in the company of people of colour then other words are unacceptable, if I'm in the company of new mothers, they're unlikely to appreciate dead baby jokes.

Of course people have the right to say whatever they want, regardless of the feelings of others, but there's all kinds of reasons why they don't, or shouldn't, and only one of them is a desire to be ultra pc.

Its not about policing, its about manners, context, and sensitivity. Its really not that big a deal.

18AD

Is the point here that people should not be allowed to be insensitive even if they so wish?

However offensive that behaviour may turn out to be I think people should be entitled to do it. How else are we to know who nice people are if we tell the not so nice people to keep their strange opinions to themselves?

marienbad

Giselle wrote: »

No its not, and we do it all the time already. If I was in a nursing home full of elderly people, swearing would be off the table, as its likely to offend, if I'm in the company of people of colour then other words are unacceptable, if I'm in the company of new mothers, they're unlikely to appreciate dead baby jokes.

Of course people have the right to say whatever they want, regardless of the feelings of others, but there's all kinds of reasons why they don't, or shouldn't, and only one of them is a desire to be ultra pc.

Its not about policing, its about manners, context, and sensitivity. Its really not that big a deal.

I have no problem with this at all Giselle, but it it is when the should'nt becomes can't that I have a problem.

And I agree it is not a big deal, other may disagree though which is what I find a bit scary.

cat_rant

Its not about policing, its about manners, context, and sensitivity. Its really not that big a deal.
Giselle is right.

It is about manners, context and sensitivity. Not going to go into details but as someone who overcame a serious sexual assault some years back, I find the common day use of the word as a flip remark vulgar and offensive. I don't deny people's right to use it as they please. But is does influence my opinion of the person in question.

Generally though I find that I would not want to associate with said people, it's a sure indicator of their character :rolleyes:

Giselle

cat_rant wrote: »

Its not about policing, its about manners, context, and sensitivity. Its really not that big a deal.

It is about manners, context and sensitivity, not going to go into details but as someone who overcame a serious sexual assault some years back. I find the common day use of the word as a flip remark vulgar and offensive. I don't deny people's right to use it as they please. But is does influence my opinion of the person in question.

Generally though I find that I would not want to associate with said people, it's a sure indicator of their character :rolleyes:

I don't really get why you quoted me, since we're in agreement.

cat_rant

Sorry Giselle,

I meant to quote you, because I think it is the most sensible reply so far to this thread and sums up very nicely the point your making. Original post edited to reflect the fact that I was agreeing with you.