Article: Charlize Theron rape comment sparks outrage

[Space_Chief]

now it feels like you're undermining "rape". you approach a bank, just as a woman approaches a man in a pub. extreme distress or damage to your emotional, physical or psychological well-being in a violent manner can metaphorically be compared to rape. attempted-rape is just as bad as rape, as is when someone invades your space or blackmails you.

So extreme damage can be caused by anything. Yet people turned down by banks do not end up in depression, PTSD, end up committing suicide, unable to have normal spousal or sexual relations, etc.

BTW I would consider it trivialising rape to compare one's boss or bank manager to a rapist.

 

[STS]

That is what i'm trying to say. The common referral to rape is a physical act, but people aren't only harmed physically. Just as we don't say a cop deserved getting shot because he is a cop, it doesn't mean a celebrity deserves to be harassed and stalked because she is a celebrity.

The intent to harm has to be there, for power or personal deviancy

 

[Space_Chief]

That is what i'm trying to say. The common referral to rape is a physical act, but people aren't only harmed physically. Just as we don't say a cop deserved getting shot because he is a cop, it doesn't mean a celebrity deserves to be harassed and stalked because she is a celebrity.

People aren't harmed only physically but it's the physicality of the act which makes it the more likely to bring in the non-physical depression and so on afterward. People don't take well psychologically to having their bodies violated, while they may take better to having their pride violated, such as when someone proves you're wrong in an internet conversation or some reporter snaps a picture of your cellulite loaded butt on a private beach. But the media aren't actually holding you down, stripping you and taking nude pics of you or such.

The intent to harm has to be there, for power or personal deviancy

Not all rapists intend to harm. Not all media intend that too. In fact most media does not want to harm otherwise they kill their golden goose.

Cops don't deserve to be shot of course. But generally people agree that cops have the training, back up and equipment to handle being shot at better than ordinary people. It goes with their line of work, unfortunately. Ms Theron's line of work is to be a major movie star where millions follow her on screen and also off screen antics. Millions fall in love with her or gain an interest in her. I don't understand these people since no celebrity, no matter how good or beautiful, would make me buy a tabloid mag about, but millions do just that and its often the same people who will buy perfume endorsed by her or watch her films and so on. Never mind that the antics also get these celebs into better film deals and get them hired. It's also marketing out there 24/7. Just when lower life reporters do it, like tabloid Paparazzos who gather the info, it's now worse and a violation.

 

[mika1000]

GO GIRL... in America and Europe there's no privacy for anybody unless your Bill Gates or William Buffet with their gazillions....

 

[Arthur]

Warren.

 

[Swa]

Is she wrong? The level of intrusion that celebrities experience in their private lives would make most people feel intimately violated--nude/seedy pictures of them on the internet, pictures of their children, private moments that shouldn't be in the public domain, etc.

Isn't rape essentially a feeling of helplessness at something deeply personal being taken from you without your consent?

If so, I think her description is 100% accurate.

+1

 

[Arthur]

Not only. The term can also be used to denote the indiscriminate and wanton consumption and despoliation of an inanimate, such as a crop or forest, for example.

 

[Space_Chief]

Not only. The term can also be used to denote the indiscriminate and wanton consumption and despoliation of an inanimate, such as a crop or forest, for example.

Arthur, the term can mean that. However, when someone says "I felt raped", they aren't empathizing with the trees in a forest which is being logged mercilessly --in some sort of quasi-Shinto belief that the trees feel -- but rather the woman in question is referring to the violent act of forcing someone down and sexually penetrating them.

 

[Arthur]

Can't disagree with that. I s'pose my point is rather abstract and disconnected from the context.

 

[Space_Chief]

GO GIRL... in America and Europe there's no privacy for anybody unless your Bill Gates or William Buffet with their gazillions....

I'm pretty sure that if you're an A List celeb or similar, you have enough of a budget and the studio probably also contributes too (to protect their investment) to have enough bodyguards, security personnel and PR people to keep your life quite private.

 

[LazyLion]

The use of rape as a metaphor is NEVER intended to diminish the awfulness of the word or to belittle the real physical victims of rape. Rather it is intended to bring the awful full reality of such a violation to other contexts.

See for example, it's usage in reference to the Colonialism of India....
http://www.postcolonialweb.org/poldiscourse/rape.html

Anybody who knows me, knows my views on rape and the epidemic of misogyny and rape culture in South Africa.
But I do not agree with the co-opting of the word by the current PC elite to exclusivity.
It remains a powerful metaphor... for the very reason that it embodies the utter vulgarity, violation and heinous nature of such a brutal and savage crime.
We should never shy away from such usage, otherwise we simply become more hopeless victims.
We need to own the word.... in all it's forms and metaphors.... not least in the physical.

The empowerment of victims both physical and metaphorical lies in overcoming the word itself and utterly vacating it of power.

 

[Arthur]

Amen.

 

[Nick333]

The use of rape as a metaphor is NEVER intended to diminish the awfulness of the word or to belittle the real physical victims of rape. Rather it is intended to bring the awful full reality of such a violation to other contexts.

See for example, it's usage in reference to the Colonialism of India....
http://www.postcolonialweb.org/poldiscourse/rape.html

Anybody who knows me, knows my views on rape and the epidemic of misogyny and rape culture in South Africa.
But I do not agree with the co-opting of the word by the current PC elite to exclusivity.
It remains a powerful metaphor... for the very reason that it embodies the utter vulgarity, violation and heinous nature of such a brutal and savage crime.
We should never shy away from such usage, otherwise we simply become more hopeless victims.
We need to own the word.... in all it's forms and metaphors.... not least in the physical.

The empowerment of victims both physical and metaphorical lies in overcoming the word itself and utterly vacating it of power.

Nicely said.

 

[Space_Chief]

The use of rape as a metaphor is NEVER intended to diminish the awfulness of the word or to belittle the real physical victims of rape. Rather it is intended to bring the awful full reality of such a violation to other contexts.

Intentionally or not, when you water down the language and start throwing words out of context or applying them to significantly less serious events they tend to lose their meaning. Is it OK to say GWB was Adolf Hitler because of Iraq? Well then the next gen of kids will think Hitler was just a guy who started a war but otherwise treated people fairly and according to international rules of engagement.

See for example, it's usage in reference to the Colonialism of India....
http://www.postcolonialweb.org/poldiscourse/rape.html

Anybody who knows me, knows my views on rape and the epidemic of misogyny and rape culture in South Africa.
But I do not agree with the co-opting of the word by the current PC elite to exclusivity.
It remains a powerful metaphor... for the very reason that it embodies the utter vulgarity, violation and heinous nature of such a brutal and savage crime.
We should never shy away from such usage, otherwise we simply become more hopeless victims.
We need to own the word.... in all it's forms and metaphors.... not least in the physical.

Interesting because I am anti-PC. But I don't consider this to be pro-PC. I think it dehumanises people and removes their dignity to just apply the same language to trivial situations especially in context of a major celeb speaking out. One can still use it as a metaphor but I would say use it in the context of something like the The Rape of Warsaw, where about 200,000 civilian men, women and children were slaughtered and many were in fact raped. Using the same language to describe feeling bad after having a Paparazzo snap some pictures is just making a mockery of really terrible events, whether the person who says it admits to it, or not, or even realises it.

The empowerment of victims both physical and metaphorical lies in overcoming the word itself and utterly vacating it of power.

I disagree. Rape is serious. Murder are serious. Really bad things happen to these people. Likewise war is also serious. One cannot just joke about the word to make it more friendly and huggable. It's not. It's most inappropriate to use it thus. And it does not empower victims to apply metaphors inappropriately.

 

[Arthur]

rape (v)
late 14c., "seize prey; abduct, take by force," from rape (n.) and from Anglo-French raper (Old French rapir) "to seize, abduct," a legal term, probably from past participle of Latin rapere "seize, carry off by force, abduct" (see rapid).

Latin rapere was used for "sexually violate," but only very rarely; the usual Latin word being stuprare "to defile, ravish, violate," related to stuprum (n.), literally "disgrace." Meaning "to abduct (a woman), ravish;" also "seduce (a man)" is from early 15c. in English. Related: Raped; raping. Uncertain connection to Low German and Dutch rapen in the same sense.

rape (n.1) Look up rape at Dictionary.comearly 14c., "booty, prey;" mid-14c., "forceful seizure; plundering, robbery, extortion," from Anglo-French rap, rape, and directly from Latin rapere "seize" (see rape (v.)). Meaning "act of abducting a woman or sexually violating her or both" is from early 15c., but perhaps late 13c. in Anglo-Latin.

 

[LazyLion]

Intentionally or not, when you water down the language and start throwing words out of context or applying them to significantly less serious events they tend to lose their meaning. Is it OK to say GWB was Adolf Hitler because of Iraq? Well then the next gen of kids will think Hitler was just a guy who started a war but otherwise treated people fairly and according to international rules of engagement.

Interesting because I am anti-PC. But I don't consider this to be pro-PC. I think it dehumanises people and removes their dignity to just apply the same language to trivial situations especially in context of a major celeb speaking out. One can still use it as a metaphor but I would say use it in the context of something like the The Rape of Warsaw, where about 200,000 civilian men, women and children were slaughtered and many were in fact raped. Using the same language to describe feeling bad after having a Paparazzo snap some pictures is just making a mockery of really terrible events, whether the person who says it admits to it, or not, or even realises it.

I disagree. Rape is serious. Murder are serious. Really bad things happen to these people. Likewise war is also serious. One cannot just joke about the word to make it more friendly and huggable. It's not. It's most inappropriate to use it thus. And it does not empower victims to apply metaphors inappropriately.

It has been used as a metaphor for hundreds of years. You are arguing against the entire body of the English language and thousands of authors and experts in literature.
Your argument is without merit and weak. You have not shown any valid reason to change the historic usage of the word.
We'll leave that up to the knowledgeable people at the Oxford English dictionary should they so see fit.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rape?q=rape

 

[LazyLion]

rape (v)
late 14c., "seize prey; abduct, take by force," from rape (n.) and from Anglo-French raper (Old French rapir) "to seize, abduct," a legal term, probably from past participle of Latin rapere "seize, carry off by force, abduct" (see rapid).

Latin rapere was used for "sexually violate," but only very rarely; the usual Latin word being stuprare "to defile, ravish, violate," related to stuprum (n.), literally "disgrace." Meaning "to abduct (a woman), ravish;" also "seduce (a man)" is from early 15c. in English. Related: Raped; raping. Uncertain connection to Low German and Dutch rapen in the same sense.

rape (n.1) Look up rape at Dictionary.comearly 14c., "booty, prey;" mid-14c., "forceful seizure; plundering, robbery, extortion," from Anglo-French rap, rape, and directly from Latin rapere "seize" (see rape (v.)). Meaning "act of abducting a woman or sexually violating her or both" is from early 15c., but perhaps late 13c. in Anglo-Latin.

I am beginning to suspect that this particular poster is not actually interested in the facts.
It seems that they subscribe to the viewpoint that their personal emotions trump the real world.

 

[Space_Chief]

It has been used as a metaphor for hundreds of years. You are arguing against the entire body of the English language and thousands of authors and experts in literature.

No I'm not. I'm not saying one can't use it metaphorically. That's untrue. I am saying that even in metaphorical use one has to use it appropriately. If you're going to call everybody a Nazi, then you make the Nazis into everybody and so hardly a group which did really terrible things. If you're not getting this, I don't know what to say to you.

Your argument is without merit and weak. You have not shown any valid reason to change the historic usage of the word.
We'll leave that up to the knowledgeable people at the Oxford English dictionary should they so see fit.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rape?q=rape

You haven't even understood my argument because you took it as an attack on all metaphorical usage. As if propriety was never an issue in language. Your own counter argument is irrelevant and so beyond merit and terribly weak.

And by the way, who gave you a right to declare someone has a weak argument without merit?

 

[Space_Chief]

I am beginning to suspect that this particular poster is not actually interested in the facts.
It seems that they subscribe to the viewpoint that their personal emotions trump the real world.

I already explained that the current context is relevant and Arthur conceded. I think you're not getting it.

 

[LazyLion]

No I'm not. I'm not saying one can't use it metaphorically. That's untrue. I am saying that even in metaphorical use one has to use it appropriately. If you're going to call everybody a Nazi, then you make the Nazis into everybody and so hardly a group which did really terrible things. If you're not getting this, I don't know what to say to you.

A metaphor will NEVER be exactly the same in usage... that's why it is called a "metaphor" which is one of a number of figures of speech in the English language.
How is the rape of the Amazon rain forest in any way like physical rape?

You haven't even understood my argument because you took it as an attack on all metaphorical usage. As if propriety was never an issue in language. Your own counter argument is irrelevant and so beyond merit and terribly weak.

And by the way, who gave you a right to declare someone has a weak argument without merit?

The Oxford English Dictionary.