posted
First I have virtually zero opinion on this, just a story from the detritis of my life:
In 1925 Henry Cowell the pianist wrote a piece called "The Banshee," where the pianist drags his or her fingernails against the paino strings, to mimick the howling of a banshee. There are other elements to the piece, it sounds pretty neat, but wierd.
A friend of mine, an active feminist and lesbian wrote a thesis a few months ago on how Cowell was a chauvenist, who was treating the Piano as "feminine"" so that he could perform a musical rape on her. She recieve an A, but I didn't get a chance to read the paper unfortunately.
What I'm wondering is, barring the existance of a journal where cowell admits his plot against the feminine, or some other actual evidence besides the piece itself, (I don't think there was any, but I am not 100% sure), is this a justifiable thing to do? I suppose its fair to let a writer pick any subject, and a challenge for her to construct such a radical opinion, however I am wondering if Hatrack thinks it is wrong to construct what amounts to a new reality surrounding a peice that is 80 years old. If so, how would you do this? How would you make it credible?
posted
I don't have a problem with people reading something like that into a work--though it sounds absurd to me--but I really have a problem when they say that whatever silly thing they read into a work was deliberate, when they cannot possibly know this. In other words, say "this parallels blah blah blah, as can be seen in <insert textual evidence here>." But when they say something like "So-and-so wrote this piece as a <insert heinous accusation here>," I think it's downright immoral. They're slandering someone, and the fact that the victim, in this case, is dead, does not make it any less reprehensible.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's perfectly valid to suggest that an author may have introduced unintended meaning into his work; in fact, I think it's usually LIKELY that this has happened, and one of the jobs of the critic is to identify this meaning. However, I believe it's intellectually dishonest -- and more than a little smug -- to insist that any one specific interpretation must have been a consequence of the author's will or unexamined biases.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I like Militant feminism, makes the work place more interesting, and since I'm harmless never affects me.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm more than a little leery of judging an academic paper I haven't read. When the person describing how sensationalistically bad it is to me hasn't read it either, I don't see how anyone could expect me to judge.
I written plenty of papers and articles that a brief description of the more sensational aspects often leads people to think I'm crazy, but I'm pretty sure these have all been reasonably well researchered and reasoned and, in a few cases, had people who initially thought me off my rocker agree so after a more lengthy exposition.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that I am agreeing with her, but without reading the paper, how can you assess her evidence?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne, if that's your true attitude towards feminism I'd say no, y'aren't harmless.
***************
Orincoro, can you get ahold of the paper? And with your friend's permission, post it here? I'm with everyone else; I'll need to at least see whether there's any real evidence before I pass this off as WAY overanalytical or an interesting way of looking at things.
************
Maybe I'm too much of a Clockwork Orange fangeek, but for me it's the 9th Syphony that represents rape.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm struggling to grasp the "militant" aspect of writing obscure literary analysis, but maybe that's just me.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, what Orincoro didn't say is that the conclusion of the paper encourages the audience to rise up and strangle the performer with the piano strings.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
I like how the responses assume more and more and get bolder as we go along. Squicky I didn't say it was bad, I haven't read it and I don't have an opinion. I only heard a synopsis of the work from the author herself.
Tom and Icky make a good distinction, its quite possible that the paper suggests a new meaning for the work without asserting whether it was intentional or not. The impression I got was that she thought it was intentional, but I could be mistaken. As for posting the paper, I doubt I will get a chance to do that, so unfortunately the discussion can only go so far. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Music is about music" makes no sense to me. Certainly understanding context, style, construction, lives of different composers, etc. has deepen both my appreciation and enhanced my performance of music. I don't even sing folk music without knowing something about the story behind the song and at least some of its history.
I have no idea whether her premise is stupid or not. Without knowing something more about what the woman wrote, all we have is Orincoro's own "a priori" opinion of it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: "Music is about music" makes no sense to me. Certainly understanding context, style, construction, lives of different composers, etc. has deepen both my appreciation and enhanced my performance of music. I don't even sing folk music without knowing something about the story behind the song and at least some of its history.
I have no idea whether her premise is stupid or not. Without knowing something more about what the woman wrote, all we have is Orincoro's own "a priori" opinion of it.
Sorry, Kate. I've just seen too many instances of people pushing their personal agendas onto pieces of art to be willing to take it very seriously. I've created tunes myself, and if I ever heard someone try and put a sociological meaning onto one of them, I'd probably wind up in jail for battery.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I have no idea whether her premise is stupid or not. Without knowing something more about what the woman wrote, all we have is Orincoro's own "a priori" opinion of it.
I've said I have no opinion several times, so no. I have judgements I've made about what the work is probably about, but I don't "care" one way or the other. My even asking the question may be contsrued as my caring very much, and in a way I do, but not about whether she is right or not, because I don't know.
my original question for everyone was how they would construct an a priori opinion about an author who is already dead. Is this a fair thing to try, is it constructive? Going only on what I've said and not what I've withheld, I was only trying to start a discussion on the general topic and not the specific situation. The author of the paper is a friend, and an intelligent one, so I have not interest in bashing work I haven't seen.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: ]Sorry, Kate. I've just seen too many instances of people pushing their personal agendas onto pieces of art to be willing to take it very seriously. I've created tunes myself, and if I ever heard someone try and put a sociological meaning onto one of them, I'd probably wind up in jail for battery.
Yes this is a good point as well. There is a certain attractiveness to programmatic analysis which people sometimes take to extremes. I have always wondered, even about peices I've done myself, how true those analysis, (done by others) are in fact partly true. I've directed performances of my own work where it has flashed into my mind that such and such a part means more than I thought it did when I wrote it, because I was referencing something which piled unnexpected meaning into the phrase.
It happens, and its an odd feeling when it does. Sometimes people try and push their "personal" agenda in as well, and this can be more annoying than discovering new facets yourself. Sometimes the analysis is just wrong and its that simple, but sometimes the person might know more about you than you do, it can happen.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does it even mean to 'rape a piano'? He didn't take it to dinner first? He slipped a pill into its drink? He didn't listen when it said no? I think this is really cheapening the word, and even insulting to actual, living women who indeed have been raped.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: What does it even mean to 'rape a piano'? He didn't take it to dinner first? He slipped a pill into its drink? He didn't listen when it said no? I think this is really cheapening the word, and even insulting to actual, living women who indeed have been raped.
Well we wouldn't want to hurt that word's feelings after all. Its a semantical quibble.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've written papers purposing ideas that I didn't necessarily agree with, but were very interesting. Typically they were in regards to literature. I would see something that the author could possible have been intending, but that I didn't particularly think he was, usually something radical, like rape or chauvinism for instance. Then I would comb the work and find every instance where it was possible that the evidence backed up my supposed claim. These papers were actually much more fun for me to write, because I was trying to convince myself as much as anyone else. And they tended to be more interesting as well. I wasn't lying or trying to misrepresent the works, because I made my intention clear from the beginning.
Like they say, art is subjective. So any meaning you find in it is valid if you can back it up with a reasonable argument. If this friend got an A on the paper, I'd say she must have had at least that. or she's sleeping with the professor.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: What does it even mean to 'rape a piano'? He didn't take it to dinner first? He slipped a pill into its drink? He didn't listen when it said no? I think this is really cheapening the word, and even insulting to actual, living women who indeed have been raped.
Well we wouldn't want to hurt that word's feelings after all. Its a semantical quibble.
I don't think so. And I suspect you've never been raped and don't know anyone has, or you wouldn't say so.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't think so. And I suspect you've never been raped and don't know anyone has, or you wouldn't say so. [/QB][/QUOTE]
No I would, even if I did. That was my point, a rape of a piano is quite obviously not the same thing as a rape of a person, and if there was a word for the rape of an inanimate object, I would use that. In that sense the quibble KOM has is semantical, because he wants to foist his definition of the word on me, and force his interpretation into what I said, so I'll say now that that is not the meaning I wish to employ for the purpose of the discussion.
As it is the person who wrote the paper used that word, and I repeated it as she has used it in her description. If anybody wants to assume I'm being insensitive to rape victims by posting this topic, fine, but this isn't about that at all.
edit: I have also to consider that KOM is talking about the author of the paper, and not me, in which case my same response applies equally, I don't think this was the intended meaning.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:rape1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rp) n. 1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. 2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction. 3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.
so, yes, you can rape a piano according to the third defenition.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Lisa... I think this is a misuse of the word Rape.
I think Rape needs to be reserved for violent sexual assaults. I dislike it when children use the word "rape" to mean "pwnd" and I dislike it when Militant Feminists use the world to describe any atrocity of the patriarchy...
I don't even like the term "Date Rape."
Rape is one of the most awful things you can do to people. It's assault. It's sexual slavery. It destroys a woman's ego and peace of mind. It can destroy families and haunt the victim and those close to her for years... for the rest of their lives.
Using the word to describe anything else trivializes the word and cheapens the suffering of any woman who has actually been raped.
The Militant Feminists who throw the word around are doing us all (all women) a disservice.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Sorry, Kate. I've just seen too many instances of people pushing their personal agendas onto pieces of art to be willing to take it very seriously. I've created tunes myself, and if I ever heard someone try and put a sociological meaning onto one of them, I'd probably wind up in jail for battery.
I agree - often this stuff is off the wall. Drives me crazy, too. All I know about the composer is that he was one of those between the wars, tone cluster guys who had some influence on later composers - Ives, Cage, - and that there was some scandal involved with him.
I think even knowing that much might help me understand his work better. Or at least put me in the proper frame of mind to listen to his music. (For me, probably heavily sedated - I hate those between the wars, tonal cluster guys).
Some analysis is helpful; some is crazy. My only objection here is that we don't even know what she wrote. Not only have we not read it, the guy who started the thread hasn't even read it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest, I'm curious, why don't you like the term "date rape?" Would you prefer "acquaintence rape?"
Also, dude, just because she wrote a paper on something...you know, sometimes it's really fun to analyze something from a really obscure perspective. I've written papers on why people commiting violent acts in novels leads to a purification of their spirits and makes them better people. I've written papers on why it's bad to fight against totalitarian governments. It's entirely possible that this person just wanted to analyze something from a certain angle purely for the sake of analyzing it from that viewpoint. Whenever I have to analyze something, if I have enough time to devote to it, I'll deliberately choose something a little off-kilter as a mental exercise.
posted
Orinoco, I appologize if I took what you were saying in the wrong tone. I have to admit, I am curious then, how you think your title goes with what you wrote?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree pH, I hope you didn't assume I was inviting only criticism for the idea.
And I was only introducing the idea, not the substance of the paper, since that is not available, everybody.
You must like Nabokov then, like Lolita, making the reader the guilty party and the child molester the avenging hero who cleanses his soul in the blood of another like him... or at least this is one way of looking at it.
Another bit of history I just remembered, my friend the feminist also mentioned that she hated Cowel and she hated "The Banshee." I don't know what effect that had on her paper.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Orinoco, I appologize if I took what you were saying in the wrong tone. I have to admit, I am curious then, how you think your title goes with what you wrote?
I think the question mark puts it in context. Its a question, and its in the vain of the discussion, since I wrote it first before I developed the question, I would probably change it if I had thought carefuly about it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I agree with Lisa... I think this is a misuse of the word Rape. Pix
Whatever your personal feeling about the word, that it only means one thing, that is not the common definition, so I think we have to accept a certain amount of ambiguity about the matter. There is a certain amount of artistic or literary licence here; a person can use a word to his or her own purposes as long as the meaning is adequately explained in that context.
How could we express ourselves clearly if we needed to go by the strictest definition of every term? In that scenario you would be incorrect as well, since the official definition provided above clearly allows for the rape of innanimate objects. The term "rape" is thus appropriate for situations other than the one most commonly heard, however it mantains an association with the primary definition, which colors its meaning. On the whole we obviously have to adjust our understanding of the term to allow for how it is being used, especially since it is being used in a technically consistent manner.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I agree pH, I hope you didn't assume I was inviting only criticism for the idea.
And I was only introducing the idea, not the substance of the paper, since that is not available, everybody.
You must like Nabokov then, like Lolita, making the reader the guilty party and the child molester the avenging hero who cleanses his soul in the blood of another like him... or at least this is one way of looking at it.
There are plenty of different ways of looking at it, but I haven't read Lolita in a couple of years. The point is, a lot of people on this thread seem to be getting personally offended by the idea of this paper and taking in a, "How can someone believe such a thing?" sort of way. I'm just saying...maybe she doesn't believe it. Maybe she wrote it as a challenge to herself.
quote:Originally posted by pH: Pixiest, I'm curious, why don't you like the term "date rape?" Would you prefer "acquaintence rape?"
I can't speak for Pix, but it seemed to me that she was objecting to the "rape" part of the phrase. Not the "date" part.
And it's true, there's a huge difference between someone willingly walking into a sexually charged situation and things going to far and someone walking down a street and getting yanked into an alleyway. The application of the term "rape" to the former troubles me a little, but at the same time, I can't think of a better one. It is still rape, after all.
What really irks me is the concept of "statutory rape" [sic]. I get that the law has to be delineated, and that we can't let judges just decide on their own in each situation, but for crying out loud, putting someone in jail and forcing them to register as a sex offender for having consensual sex with someone who is too young based on a technicality... that's horrible.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why in the frilly heck does it matter that your friend is a feminist? What does that have to do with whether or not her argument can stand up to anything?
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A guy who goes out on a date with a girl and forces himself on her isn't any less serious than a violent rape. It probably has very different psychological effects, but I'm sure those can be just as devastating, and the attitude that "date rape" isn't "real" rape just adds to the problem.
I feel that it's important to emphasize somehow that most sexual assault isn't done by strangers-- ie, the main risk is not the Rapist hiding in the bushes or some other hazy idea of a predator. Not that being assaulted by a stranger isn't serious, but it's less common. I feel that emphasizing the frequency of "date rape" (as in, how often the offender is some one the victim knows, and likely trusts) is important, and having a seperate term for it is useful.
The implication that it's somehow less serious is WRONG WRONG WRONG, but I don't think it's inherant in the term, but more a result of ignorant and shockingly pervasive victim blamers and the people who keep insisting that a wife cannot be raped by her husband, and by extension, nor can a girlfriend.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:however I am wondering if Hatrack thinks it is wrong to construct what amounts to a new reality surrounding a peice that is 80 years old. If so, how would you do this? How would you make it credible?
I don't think it is wrong to "construct a new reality" based on a work of art that is any age. Art is perceived by everyone differently, so each individual can choose what that work means to them. If I read a novel, say... Catch 22, I could, conceivably, put together a rather convincing paper arguing that Heller wrote the story to show the lack of training and effective recruitment of American soldiers. Now I know that this is not why he wrote it, but I'm pretty sure I could argue that it is.
As pH said, this is an excellent way to challenge oneself and can be a lot of fun to boot. I think everyone should try to create their own (perhaps outlandish) world surrounding some piece of work. You can learn a lot about a piece and what it means to you, precisely by researching something that is the opposite of what it means to you.
However, in order to do this, one would have to be able to back up their constructed world with valid arguments and evidence. Merely claiming "This is what the writer meant!" without backing it up isn't intelligent analysis, it's attention mongering.
[/desperate attempt to bring thread back to topic]
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I agree with Lisa... I think this is a misuse of the word Rape.
I think Rape needs to be reserved for violent sexual assaults. I dislike it when children use the word "rape" to mean "pwnd" and I dislike it when Militant Feminists use the world to describe any atrocity of the patriarchy...
I don't even like the term "Date Rape."
Rape is one of the most awful things you can do to people. It's assault. It's sexual slavery. It destroys a woman's ego and peace of mind. It can destroy families and haunt the victim and those close to her for years... for the rest of their lives.
Using the word to describe anything else trivializes the word and cheapens the suffering of any woman who has actually been raped.
The Militant Feminists who throw the word around are doing us all (all women) a disservice.
Pix
I disagree, only in the sense that there is no other word that can really replace rape, in its non-sexual context. Make up a word and get it into the dictionary, then use them side by side for 50 years or so until the other word takes on the same powerful meaning of the word rape, and then I'll agree to reserve rape only for its sexual context.
I'm not even sure it CAN be replaced without the sexual context. Even if you're using it in a non-sexual way, such as the "Rape of Nanking" (which yes, does INVOLVE the sexual context, but isn't wholly comprised of it) or "raped the landscape" or "raping the people with injustice," you're still talking about a gross violation and intrusion, and I'm not sure the whole power of the meaning and destruction of that kind of violation can be conveyed with a different word.
Powerful words shouldn't be limited to a single meaning. I guess this is a strange idea to convey. One could easily argue that by broadening their definition, or by refusing to narrowly define it, it's power is lost through overuse or misuse of the word. But I reject that argument, for a few reasons, mostly because I don't think words should be co-opted like that. Rape is a horrible act of aggression, and if you look at the root history of the word, especially if you look at it's usage in earlier languages, it's meaning has usually been used to convey abduction, or the pillage/plundering sort of seizure.
I disagree with it being used solely for sexual acts in the same vein that I disagree with the word holocaust being solely used for what the nazis did to the Jews. I'd probably be okay with capital Holocaust referring to that event, but am not okay with the word holocaust being off limits to anything else. I think that's the way it is supposed to be anyway, but I've heard some argue that the word should be off limits elsewhere.
Genocide is a more apt term I think anyway. Holocaust is used I think for two reasons, because it refers mostly to death by fire, and because it's originally a hebrew word. Maybe less so the second part than the first, but even so, it isn't necessarily a purposeful act, and genocide is. A holocaust could be considered a specific kind of genocide, but I think it depends on which you consider to be more important: How they died, or why they died. If you consider how to be more important, you'd call it a holocaust, if why is more important, you'd call it genocide, or just call it both and have the best of both worlds. But at the end of the day, there are still many situations deserving of the word holocaust as a label.
I suppose I just don't like the definitions of words to be limited. I hate to see words that have been around for thousands of years, with many contexts and connotations to them, removed from the lexicon of common usage and co-opted for a single meaning and single purpose, especially when there is no good word to replace it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
At first I thought that Pix was saying that rape by an acquaintance shouldn't be considered "really" rape, but then it occurred to me that she might mean something very different: that the terms "date rape" and "acquaintance rape" should be dropped because, by having different names for these things, we imply that they are not truly rape. In other words, if someone is raped, call it rape. Who committs it is not really a factor.
If she means my original interpretation, then I can't agree. But if she means the latter, then I can see it. It parallels my objection to hate crime legislation: vandalism, assault, and murder are already crimes, and we don't need special laws to make them so.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rereading Pix's post, I see that she does specifically say that "rape" should only be used for violent rape, but that's before bringing up her objection to date rape. The thing is, though, there is no prototypical date rape, and there really is no prototypical rape, either. Many date rapes are violent. And I can think of stranger rapes that are not. If an orderly mounts a coma victim, is that not rape now? What about child rape? That is often not violent.
So while I'm fairly certain that I understand--and disagree with--Pix, I guess I will wait and see if there is a nuance to her position that I have missed.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Pixiest, I'm curious, why don't you like the term "date rape?" Would you prefer "acquaintence rape?"
I can't speak for Pix, but it seemed to me that she was objecting to the "rape" part of the phrase. Not the "date" part.
And it's true, there's a huge difference between someone willingly walking into a sexually charged situation and things going to far and someone walking down a street and getting yanked into an alleyway. The application of the term "rape" to the former troubles me a little, but at the same time, I can't think of a better one. It is still rape, after all.
What really irks me is the concept of "statutory rape" [sic]. I get that the law has to be delineated, and that we can't let judges just decide on their own in each situation, but for crying out loud, putting someone in jail and forcing them to register as a sex offender for having consensual sex with someone who is too young based on a technicality... that's horrible.
I agreee with you on the statutory rape part.
But not all "date rapes" occur in "sexually charged" situations. And a lot of them don't happen in such a way that people just start fooling around and it "goes too far."
The fact that the victim knows her rapist and willingly agreed to spend time with him does not a sexually charged situation make. After all, I'm sure there's not one person here who wouldn't say that it's absolutely ridiculous for ANYONE, male or female, to expect something sexual out of an outing with another human being, "date" or otherwise. Saying that there's a sort of excuse because the situation was "sexually charged" is like saying, "Oh, well, if she didn't want it, she shouldn't have let him buy her dinner." That's an exaggeration, yes, but it's not really that far from the underlying attitude that I think the "sexually charged situation" explanation expresses. It's like saying that the woman asked to be raped by agreeing to spend time with the guy. What, women have RapistSense(tm) now? I mean, yes, there are certain things that can help a woman identify a man as a potential abuser, sexual or otherwise, but there's no one checklist.
quote: Saying that there's a sort of excuse because the situation was "sexually charged"...
Recognizing the differences between different types of rape doesn't mean that one is being "excused," "sort of" or otherwise. Certainly, nothing in Lisa's post can be construed as excusing rape in a sexually charged situation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH- i think the distinction arised from the fairly common occurence in which there is a "misunderstanding" between potential partners, and the rape happens in such a way that the perpetrator somehow thinks, or claims, it is consensual. This surely happens often enough: person passes out at a date's house, maybe while making out, or they black out and don't remember what happened. Some guys are dumb enough to believe it is ok to try and have sex with someone in that situation, and a rape occurs. There is no intent to "rape" per se, however the perpetrator has extremely poor judgement and no self-control, so it happens.
That's a possible situation, which is -somewhat- different from the more overt acts like drugging a date or just attacking them, or knowingly taking advantage of someone who is already passed out. The intent to cause harm is not as aparrent in the first situation, so I would call that date rape. The more obvious, intentional act I would just call rape.
There is a big difference between a given situation in which bad judgment or stupidity cause a guy to do something innapropriate, and a situation where the guy plans and prepares to violate someone. However, there are many degrees of variability, and probably every possible situation is different, so we shouldn't have any hard fast rules on what is what.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: A guy who goes out on a date with a girl and forces himself on her isn't any less serious than a violent rape. It probably has very different psychological effects, but I'm sure those can be just as devastating, and the attitude that "date rape" isn't "real" rape just adds to the problem.
Don't misunderstand me. "No" means "no". And a guy who disregards a "no" and keeps going is doing something very wrong. But you can't possibly equate that with someone minding her own business when she's attacked by a predator.
Saying that the two things are different does not in any way, shape or form even begin to justify "date rape". But they are not the same thing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Holocaust is used I think for two reasons, because it refers mostly to death by fire, and because it's originally a hebrew word.
Greek, I think. Maybe Latin. Certainly not Hebrew.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Saying that there's a sort of excuse because the situation was "sexually charged"...
Recognizing the differences between different types of rape doesn't mean that one is being "excused," "sort of" or otherwise. Certainly, nothing in Lisa's post can be construed as excusing rape in a sexually charged situation.
quote:Originally posted by pH: A guy who goes out on a date with a girl and forces himself on her isn't any less serious than a violent rape. It probably has very different psychological effects, but I'm sure those can be just as devastating, and the attitude that "date rape" isn't "real" rape just adds to the problem.
Don't misunderstand me. "No" means "no". And a guy who disregards a "no" and keeps going is doing something very wrong. But you can't possibly equate that with someone minding her own business when she's attacked by a predator.
Assuming it is not a situation of mixed signals or miscommunication, a guy who disregards a clearly stated "no" is a predator, and is attacking her.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: A guy who goes out on a date with a girl and forces himself on her isn't any less serious than a violent rape. It probably has very different psychological effects, but I'm sure those can be just as devastating, and the attitude that "date rape" isn't "real" rape just adds to the problem.
Don't misunderstand me. "No" means "no". And a guy who disregards a "no" and keeps going is doing something very wrong. But you can't possibly equate that with someone minding her own business when she's attacked by a predator.
Saying that the two things are different does not in any way, shape or form even begin to justify "date rape". But they are not the same thing.
The same thing? No. But at the same time, you seem to be implying that random rape is somehow fundamentally worse, and I don't think that's necessarily the case. I mean, the woman knew this guy. Maybe she was friends with him. Maybe she had a crush on him. Whatever. The point is, she thought he was an okay guy, and he violated her.
I've seen it happen to friends; it's a terrible thing. It makes it impossible to judge ANYONE'S motives. And on top of that, a lot of women don't report those kinds of assaults because they're afraid that someone will say that they weren't as "bad" as someone who was attacked at random.
As to mixed signals or miscommunication: Some men have the unique ability to interpret just about anything as "she wants me." So I'm very skeptical of the miscommunication or mixed signal angle.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Its a semantical quibble.
