Wilful tag abuse October 25, 2007 9:36 PM   Subscribe

I do not think the tag "rape" is appropriate here.

I would have just flagged it but I didn't think it would be clear why.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen to Etiquette/Policy at 9:36 PM (54 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

I removed it before you posted this thread. The OP apologized for using it, seems he's a little angry and drunk. I agree with you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:38 PM on October 25, 2007


So can we have the "angry and drunk" tag?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:49 PM on October 25, 2007 [3 favorites]


Good deletions all around.
posted by dhammond at 10:00 PM on October 25, 2007


Everyone give yourselves pats on the back(s).
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 10:04 PM on October 25, 2007


So can we have the "angry and drunk" tag?

I resemble that remark.

*swings, misses*
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:08 PM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


Good good. A friend of mine liberally uses the word "rape" (sober!) in contexts like "Man, that prof raped us on that exam," and doesn't understand what the problem is.
Nice of the OP to apologize. We're a good bunch, generally.
posted by arcticwoman at 10:18 PM on October 25, 2007


Posters can remove their own tags anyway, so not sure why jessamyn had to get involved.
posted by Rumple at 10:22 PM on October 25, 2007


What a banana. The manager is giving him the opprotunity to make good and save face rather than book a former employee for PoSG.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:36 PM on October 25, 2007


A friend of mine liberally uses the word "rape" (sober!) in contexts like "Man, that prof raped us on that exam," and doesn't understand what the problem is.

Is it insensitive to say "That other sports team beat the hell out of us", since a battered wife might be around?

Is it insensitive to say "I killed him at pool tonight", since someone's mom may have been killed?

Certainly neither of these are situations to be taken lightly, but they're socially acceptable metaphors. Why is saying "Man, that test raped me" any different?
posted by chrisamiller at 10:45 PM on October 25, 2007


Please, chrisamiller. There are ladies present.
posted by dhammond at 10:57 PM on October 25, 2007


On second thought, I'm going to retract that statement before I get beaten down. I don't have the energy to argue semantics and linguistics tonight, so I'll just concede the point in advance.
posted by chrisamiller at 11:01 PM on October 25, 2007


Aww...had just finished an answer. I'll mefi mail you so I don't feel like I've wasted that 5 mins.
posted by peacay at 11:03 PM on October 25, 2007


jessamyn: is there anyone quicker on the draw than you? I swear I had the MT post up before you had swooped on the thread.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:07 PM on October 25, 2007


Can you tidy up the FPP poster's economics as well?
posted by biffa at 3:30 AM on October 26, 2007


Is this an area where MeFi mail would be better than escalating to the admins?

Or is that too much like going down to your neighbor's apartment and tell him to turn the stereo down: you don't know what could happen so it's just easier to call the cops?
posted by psmealey at 5:49 AM on October 26, 2007


If you REALLY don't know why that's offensive, you are an idiot or being purposely obtuse. And if you're comfortable insulting a not-insignificant portion of women you meet who HAVE been raped, than you're rude and boorish besides.

It's. not. ok.
posted by agregoli at 7:05 AM on October 26, 2007


Is this an area where MeFi mail would be better than escalating to the admins?

Probably, but this is also fine. I'm not sure why the OP said sorry for the tag but didn't remove it. It's possible he didn't know how, or maybe I just beat him to it. In most situations I would have just dropped him a note and let him decide, but there were already comments in the thread that were pointing to his choice of tags and not referring to the question. The great thing about tags is that the OP can always add them back if they're attached to them, but I didn't think this was one of those cases.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:10 AM on October 26, 2007


It's. not. ok.

Are the other examples ok?
posted by frobozz at 7:51 AM on October 26, 2007


agregoli: I can't speak for chrisamiller, who may be an idiot and/or purposely obtuse, but I had the exact same reaction, and I am neither of those things. Using "rape" to mean something other than literal sexual assault is fairly commonplace, and this is the first time I've encountered such a negative reaction (and a vitriolic and insulting one, in your case).
To better educate myself on the subject, I even did a little research anf found this definition on M-W's online dictionary:

Main Entry: 3 rape
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault, statutory rape
3 : an outrageous violation

So it looks like definitions 1 and 3 are insulting a not-insignificant number of women.
Or maybe the word has multiple meanings, one of which is likely to raise sensitivities.
posted by rocket88 at 8:00 AM on October 26, 2007


It's. not. ok.

Right. First of all, although it has not been explicitly stated, I seem to be getting the vibe that we're associating rape as a violent experience experienced only by women, which is why it's so awful - unlike "I killed that exam" or "I beat that exam to a bloody pulp" or "I murdered that exam" - because, while those are awful, they're not gender specific, and so somehow are ok.

It's like those posters that say, "There's no excuse for violence against women" - like violence against men is no big thing.

I don't want to be laughed at here, but women don't own the tragedy that is rape. In the first place, men can be sexually abused and raped. It happens. In the second place, rape doesn't merely mean forced sexual intercourse - it has other definitions as well - To "destroy and strip of possession" for example.

You people and your outrage are a trip.
posted by kbanas at 8:01 AM on October 26, 2007 [7 favorites]


I for one support the holocaust of that tag.
posted by brain_drain at 8:19 AM on October 26, 2007 [4 favorites]


Is it insensitive to say "That other sports team beat the hell out of us", since a battered wife might be around?

Is it insensitive to say "I killed him at pool tonight", since someone's mom may have been killed?

Certainly neither of these are situations to be taken lightly, but they're socially acceptable metaphors. Why is saying "Man, that test raped me" any different?


If you'd really like the answer to this, the difference is that battery and murder are two crimes that most people agree are generally taken seriously in our society. On the other hand, there are many women who believe rape (and particularly acquaintance rape) is trivialized and not taken seriously as a crime. (For example, the saying that "there's no such thing as date rape, just the woman regretting it the next morning," etc.) There are also many women who have been raped, and feel that their experience was trivialized by friends or family members who found out. ("Are you sure that's what happened? He's a really nice guy, I just can't imagine that really happened. Maybe you mis-interpreted." or "Well, you were really drunk, and you did let him walk you home, what did you think was going to happen? Calling it rape just insults women who were really raped.")

So, when people make jokes about how some test really raped them, there are women (and hell, maybe some men) who perceive that as feeding into a culture that trivializes sexual violence against women.

You can agree or disagree with this, and I don't really feel like getting into a 200+ long thread about whether this is valid, but there you go. Now you can at least know the reasoning behind why some people find such metaphors very offensive.
posted by iminurmefi at 8:58 AM on October 26, 2007 [12 favorites]


Now I see why this was left open.
posted by Mitheral at 9:26 AM on October 26, 2007


To avoid offending people I just use the term 'gayrape'.
posted by slimepuppy at 9:34 AM on October 26, 2007 [1 favorite]


You could abbreviate that to "grape."

(Good reasoning from iminurmefi)
posted by klangklangston at 9:50 AM on October 26, 2007


First of all, thanks for keeping this civil so far. It's encouraging to know that we can discuss a charged issue without devolving into hysterics and name-calling (at least so far).

iminurmefi:
Sure, there may be marginal elements of society that trivialize rape, but I certainly don't know anyone that does, and I don't believe that society as a whole trivializes it. Most everyone I've met, male or female, thinks that rapists deserve a special level of hell set aside for them. (I concur wholeheartedly, FWIW).

That said, there are also whole sub-cultures out there that trivialize violence and killing. (listen to gangsta rap lately?) So my point stands - why are those words not taboo as well?

In my mind, it has everything to do with context. It's contextually obvious that this poster was not using the term to refer to despicable violent acts against women, so I don't understand why everyone acts as though he was. As rocket88 pointed out, the term has an appropriate common usage, and this is what the poster was doing.

Saying "That test raped me" is very different than your example:

There's no such thing as date rape, just the woman regretting it the next morning

Frankly, if anyone said that around me, I'd jack them in the face. Why? Because of the context in which the word was used.

We're smart people here, able to understand the use of language at a fairly sophisticated level. This is why I see the blanket condemnation of taboo words as an gross overreaction.
posted by chrisamiller at 9:51 AM on October 26, 2007


I prefer surprise buttsecks.
posted by Mick at 9:53 AM on October 26, 2007 [1 favorite]


"Sure, there may be marginal elements of society that trivialize rape, but I certainly don't know anyone that does, and I don't believe that society as a whole trivializes it."

This is the contention upon which people who are offended by the use of "rape" casually differ. Is "the test raped me" worth offending a not-insubstantial number of them?
posted by klangklangston at 9:54 AM on October 26, 2007


Speaking of secondary definitions, am I the only guy around here for whom dejection is truly shitty?
posted by breezeway at 10:01 AM on October 26, 2007 [1 favorite]


Let me clarify. By "trivializing," I mean that the contention that many people in our society believe that any rape short of the very stereotypical man-with-a-gun-jumping-out-of-bushes-to-assault-a-virgin rape is vastly overstated, and doesn't happen as often as women or feminists claim it does.

I think it's a stretch to say that killing is trivialized in the same way among any subculture. Even if gansta rap promotes a message that it's valid to kill someone under certain circumstances, I don't think there's probably a single song that says murder doesn't actually happen, or that it's not as big of a deal as the murdered person is claiming. (That would be a very trippy song.)

I think a more instructive comparison is the way some people are offended when someone draws a parallel between the Holocaust and some other event of lesser significance (e.g., PETA comparing animal testing to the Holocaust). Like in the case of rape, the argument goes that there are still people out there are Holocaust deniers and believe it didn't happen, or didn't happen on the scale that is claimed, or isn't (for one reason or another) as serious as Jews make it out to be. Because any comparison to the Holocaust happens in a context where some people are already trying to downplay how bad it was really was or that it really happened, people are offended by the comparison.

So yes, the context matters. Whatever the intent of the person was in making the comparison--even if they were not actually saying that a piece of paper held them down and sexually violated them--it occurs in the context of a society that downplays the seriousness and prevalence of rape.
posted by iminurmefi at 10:23 AM on October 26, 2007


Well, I think your Holocaust argument suffers from the same flaws, since in the western world, Holocaust deniers are clearly an insane minority. I understand the point, though. In retrospect, I think my response was mostly aimed at the faux outrage that many people cop at the drop of a hat. It gets tiresome.

I think we've both said our piece here, so I'm happy to drop this one. Thanks for a sane discussion on a topic that some people would not be so rational about.
posted by chrisamiller at 10:59 AM on October 26, 2007


Is it cloddish of me to say "I ate the shit out of that plate of beans" if there is a coprophile around?
posted by everichon at 11:19 AM on October 26, 2007


This thread really should have been closed after the first comment. I'm an aficionado of wacky MeTa threads, but this one is just kind of rancid and there are flies circling it. Not sure what kind.
posted by languagehat at 11:35 AM on October 26, 2007


To avoid offending people I just use the term 'gayrape'.

Grape Ape!!!!!
posted by psmealey at 11:44 AM on October 26, 2007


languagehat: "This thread really should have been closed after the first comment."

Perhaps, but that would have been a shame, because iminurmefi's comments have been pretty informative. I'm one of the people that agregoli had pinned as an idiot (not because I think "hey, using rape everywhere is great!", but because I didn't see the immediate difference between "that test killed me" and "that test raped me"), but apparently my problem isn't one of idiocy (which can't be cured) but ignorance (which can, with information). Like chrisamiller, I have a hard time grokking that the difference is that people think rape is OK or doesn't really happen (I've never met anyone who has believed something like that), but I understand that this may just be my limited experience, and that some people do think it's trivialized (don't know if they're right or wrong), and thus to them it's offensive. Which makes sense.

So, thanks, iminurmefi, for shining some light on that. No thanks, agregoli, for just insulting people with a question instead of helping them understand it. Thanks, mods, for leaving this open.
posted by Bugbread at 11:51 AM on October 26, 2007


I have a hard time grokking that the difference is that people think rape is OK or doesn't really happen (I've never met anyone who has believed something like that), but I understand that this may just be my limited experience, and that some people do think it's trivialized (don't know if they're right or wrong), and thus to them it's offensive.

I agree with languagehat, but I'm going to contribute anyway. It's true that in Western culture, people don't usually deny the existence of rape in as obvious a manner as people deny the Holocaust. But it's far more insidious. Most people know that you dismiss a David Duke or the IHR, but who dismisses Grandma when she says "your big brother/uncle/neighbor was just being a man, don't make a fuss"? Who dismisses the university presidents who don't bother to follow up rape investigations or turn them over to the proper authorities? Who scoffs at the people who think if a prostitute is raped, at worst it's "theft of services", but in reality who cares what happens to them anyway?

I address this to you bugbread because rarely is anyone going to walk up to you and say any of these things. It doesn't come up in casual conversation. People don't talk about such in "polite company". I don't believe you've never met "anyone like that". I strongly believe you meet at least a few every week, probably more than a few. They're in your family, they're living next door, they went to college with you, they work with you.
posted by Danila at 12:21 PM on October 26, 2007


I didn't see the immediate difference between "that test killed me" and "that test raped me"

There is no difference. The exact same argument can be applied to both. If that sentence trivializes rape, it also trivializes killing.

The difference is in some vague handwavy perception that rape is acceptable and killing is not. It's entirely imaginary and can't be proven or disproven.

It's the same sentence in both cases. Any perceived 'double standard' is entirely fictitious.
posted by Malor at 12:28 PM on October 26, 2007


Oh, bullshit, Malor. It's like you skimmed the above comments, which laid out the argument pretty well, and then decided to ignore them entirely.

You can't think of any differences between how rape and murder are handled in culture? You're either being disingenuous or an idiot.
posted by klangklangston at 1:17 PM on October 26, 2007


I have no strong personal feelings one way or the other, but I can see why one would be offended by such use of the word.

The preliminary here is that if you use a concept as a metaphor for another, without actually understanding said concept, you are talking out of your ass.

Now, if you're a male who's gone through childhood without being sexually abused and your socioeconomic status is good enough that your chances of ever going to prison are negligible, you probably don't have to seriously consider rape to be a threat to you, whereas the experience of injury and the fear of death, violent or otherwise, are known to us all.

Thus, you using rape -- a phenomenon from which you, personally, are isolated -- as a metaphor for something else, would give ignorant people -- such who assume that you are not talking out of your ass -- the impression that rape is such a shallow concept that it can be understood with no effort and then reasonably compared to any adversity.
posted by Anything at 1:33 PM on October 26, 2007 [3 favorites]


BTW, though the question was made anonymous after-the-fact and the OP's followup removed (oh yeah, and the thread deleted!), they're still addressed by their name in a comment.
posted by avocet at 1:35 PM on October 26, 2007


FYI: although the post has been deleted and anonymized, the original poster's name is still visible in several comments.
posted by deborah at 1:36 PM on October 26, 2007


Or what avocet said.
posted by deborah at 1:37 PM on October 26, 2007


^
^
^
Well, replace "as a metaphor for something else" with "as a metaphor for any adversity". As such, my comment looks like like I think that rape can not be used as a metaphor for anything at all, which was not my intention.
posted by Anything at 1:43 PM on October 26, 2007


That's still ambiguous. I fail language.
posted by Anything at 1:48 PM on October 26, 2007


Danila: Ok, that makes sense too. Thanks.
posted by Bugbread at 1:58 PM on October 26, 2007


In my mind, it has everything to do with context. It's contextually obvious that this poster was not using the term to refer to despicable violent acts against women, so I don't understand why everyone acts as though he was.
posted by chrisamiller

But it wasn't obvious at ALL what the poster was talking about. The context was vague and unbelievable. I even looked at his tags and tried to swap out some of them for words in his post (like "store", "product/service", etc.) to see if the tags were some sort of key to what he was *really* talking about. That's why I reacted to his question, and the word rape. On one hand he used the word casually in the question (as an adverb), but on the other he tagged his post with it (as a noun), suggesting that it held higher significance/relevance. As if somebody looking for answers on AskMe about rape-related queries would find some hidden meaning or usefulness in his question.

In summary, it was all a bit strange and worrisome.
posted by iamkimiam at 2:02 PM on October 26, 2007


Rape is also a kind of cabbage.
posted by meehawl at 3:32 PM on October 26, 2007


Rape is also what Canola used to be called.
posted by arcticwoman at 3:47 PM on October 26, 2007


"Canola" is also a kind of cabbage.
posted by meehawl at 3:55 PM on October 26, 2007 [1 favorite]


It's tasteless, but it's not offensive to me in most contexts. I've used it, myself, though only in company where I felt comfortable poking the boundaries of acceptable language. I think it's a fairly good one word solution to comically overstate a feeling of painful, horrifying abuse. Ergo, the more overstatement the better.

"Professor Crane raped me on that final" is only funny if I do a little Silvermanesque eyebrow action toward a paper-cluttered desk, otherwise, coming from some fratboy: complainy overstatement not far enough out of the realm of actually expressing distress, and therefore douchey.

"Professor Crane's purrple necktie just raped my eyeholes" is probably funnier to any given listener, because hyperbole is funny.

But, you know, I'mnot gonna say that at work down at the Women's Crisis Center.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 5:23 PM on October 26, 2007 [1 favorite]


Rape is also what Canola used to be called.

Wasn't it rapeseed?

...and to be entirely offensive, I preempt the joke about rapeseed meaning the product of forced sex.
posted by Kickstart70 at 8:35 PM on October 26, 2007


I remember the hullabaloo1 that ensued when the local radio station's commodities market report made the switch from 'Rape' to 'Canola' - though I didn't know it stood for "Canadian oil, low acid" until I read that Wiki entry this afternoon2.


1Much like that rave scene anecdotes in The Blue's sidebar, you sort of had to be there.
2Nice to know I wasn't the only dork who did.

posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:57 PM on October 26, 2007


The English countryside is being raped.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:27 AM on October 27, 2007


I didn't know it stood for "Canadian oil, low acid"

Neither did I. I'll be damned!
posted by languagehat at 11:04 AM on October 27, 2007


« Older sockpuppetry?   |   Condos and Couches: Are you going to Whistler? Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments